Oswald was abundantly photographed after his arrest. Few pictures of him were taken at the theater, but after that, at the PD, there was a torrent of pictures taken, both on Friday and Saturday. I doubt that any criminal detainee ever got photographed more.
So, the idea that the press needed to get a picture of him being walked 30 feet to a car and driven off, and that they would set up huge cameras and lights in a garage to do that, is preposterous.
THEY DIDN'T DO ALL THAT TO CAPTURE A PICTURE OF OSWALD BEING WALKED TO A CAR. THEY DID IT TO CAPTURE OSWALD BEING SHOT.
Now, I don't say that the ones actually doing it knew it ahead of time. They did what they were told. But, the plotters (LBJ and his people) definitely wanted to capture the shooting and show it to the public. Why? Because if they didn't, if they just said that Oswald was shot by an intruder, many wouldn't believe it. Suspicions would have risen immediately that the State killed him, and they would have persisted. So, it was a matter of providing false evidence of a phony shooting in which he was shot for real afterwards.
The Sixth Floor Museum did a reenactment of the Oswald shooting, and you should see the lights they brought in. You'd think it was a football stadium. Gary Mack actually made the claim that the reason Leavelle and Graves didn't turn and look at "Ruby" as he rushed in (Leavelle claimed that he did, but the films show that he didn't) is because they were blinded by the lights. But, we know very well that it isn't true because you only have to watch any of the films to see that it wasn't that bright.
In the WFAA film, this is how dark it was in the garage when Oswald was brought out.
The whole idea of staging such a spectacle to walk Oswald 30 feet to a car is ridiculous on the face of it. Listen to me: it was all a dog and pony show. It was a made-for-television extravaganza. Nobody would do such a thing. Remember; they were in frantic mode that somebody was going to try to hurt Oswald. That very morning they were saying on the radio how concerned police were and how much danger Oswald was in. It was like they had a premonition it was going to happen. If they were that worried, why didn't they just move Oswald in the middle of the night without any fanfare or announcement? They could have just informed the press afterwards. And if there were any complaints about it, there is a response for that: Go fuck yourself! The whole idea that the press was entitled to be there when Oswald was put into a car is ridiculous. It's absurd. THIS WAS THE SHOWCASING OF OSWALD'S MURDER. Don't you get it? It's not that hard to see. It's not hard at all.
What was Oswald told about the jail transfer? When a prisoner is transferred from one jail to another, I presume he is told just that and nothing more. "You are being transferred to the County Jail." That's it. Why the hell would you tell him any more than that?
So imagine that YOU are the prisoner, and you are told that you are being transferred to the County Jail. What would your expectations be? Wouldn't they be pretty damn small? That you are just going to be put in a car and driven to the County Jail?
So now, imagine that you're Lee Harvey Oswald, and that's all you've been told, and that's all you expect. But then, it turns out that it is going to be a big spectacle, a media event, that you are going to be involved in a procession.
DAH... dah, dah, dah... DAH, DAH.
DAH... dah, dah, dah DAH.
DAH... dah, dah, dah, DAHHH-DAH.
DAH, DAH, DAH-dah, dah-DAHHHH!
So, what is Oswald going to think, and what is he going to do? What he is going to think is: "What the fuck is this?" And what his going to do is: Look the fuck around.
But, he doesn't. He comes out like the bride at a wedding being led down the aisle by her father- looking straight ahead. Why would he do that? Why wouldn't he be turning his head and looking around, as in: What the fuck is going on here? Instead, he acts just like Leavlle and Graves and looks straight ahead. It's like they are all in a wedding. It's like they're all zombies. It's like Oswald is the bride, and he's got two fathers walking him down the aisle.
I understand why they, Leavelle and Graves, are walking as if in a procession, and it's because they expected it; they knew it was coming; and they were told to just look straight ahead, and whatever you do, don't look to their left. But, why is Oswald doing it? He does swiftly glance at the shooter at one point, but he quickly got his eyes back straight ahead, even as the shooter came in. But, for the most part, Oswald did just as they did and kept his eyes peeled straight ahead and maintained a stiff, solemn look, and SHOWED NOT THE LEAST SURPRISE TO WALK INTO THIS GALA. What it means is that, like Leavelle and Graves, Oswald was told what was going to happen and ordered to just look straight ahead. Oswald participated in the procession just as much as Leavelle, Graves, Fritz, etc. Again: Oswald showed not the least bit of surprise to walk into this. It WAS no surprise. They told him what to expect. They told him everything. Don't you get it? OSWALD WAS IN ON IT. He was in on the ruse. It was all an act. They were all acting. But, that includes Oswald.
Oswald knew he wasn't going to be shot in the garage- and he wasn't. But, what he didn't know is that he was going to be shot soon afterwards. They double-crossed him. They must have told him that they were going to get him out of this, but they had to feign his death first- or else somebody would come gunning for him. And Oswald believed them. He never considered that they were lying and were planning all along to kill him soon afterwards.
It was the most dastard and diabolical double-cross in the history of double-crosses. GOD-DAMN, WERE THESE PEOPLE VICIOUS. And, they were the police! How could the police do such a thing? But, they did.
Look at this picture again because it is clear visual evidence that Oswald was participating. IT'S ABNORMAL. It's abnormal to walk to a car like that, like you're in a procession, for anybody to do it. But, they're all doing it, and it's because they were all in on it, including Oswald.
You know that the transfer was one hour and twenty minutes late and that they had Oswald up in Fritz' office. What do you think they were talking about? They weren't talking about him going to Mexico City. That was just a yarn that the evil Postal Inspector Harry Holmes made up. What they were talking about was this; what was about to happen; the show they were about to put on.
This is a simple thing, but it speaks volumes. It's an image of Michael Hardin, the ambulance driver, tending to his stretcher at Parkland Hospital after delivering Oswald. For some reason, there were a lot of kids there that day, and in this frame, we see a boy in just a t-shirt. We're talking November 24 in Dallas, Texas- not Miami, Florida. So, I looked up the temperature on November 24, 1963 in Dallas, and the high for the day was 55 degrees. And note that the high temperature usually occurs around 3 pm. So, at 11:40 in the morning, which this was, it had to be considerably cooler than 55 degrees. And yet, there's the kid in the t-shirt looking comfortable. What does it tell you? It should tell you that this was a different day and probably a different time of the year. It was reenactment. And that's the reason why we don't see Hardin's assistant, Harold Wolfe. Apparently, they couldn't get Wolfe for the reenactment. Maybe he refused. And by the way, he reportedly went on to commit suicide- if you believe it. People: the whole story of Oswald's murder is false, including the part about Jack Ruby shooting him. That's just the cover story. It was much deeper, darker, and more Satanic than that.
Why all these kids hanging around Parkland Hospital on November 24, 1963? I could understand reporters being there because Oswald got shot. But, who would bring kids to that?
Here's another frame. That one kid is smiling. Say cheese.
Look how short Hardin's hair is. It's practically a crew cut. But, not Fat Face. His hair is obviously NOT a crew cut. They're supposed to be the same guy/same day.
We've got kids galore. Here's a kid in a t-shirt.
It must have been warm, huh? Let's find out. Turning to the Weather Underground:
It only hit a high that day of 55 degrees. And by the way, I checked for November 22, and it said 69 degrees, which sounds about right. It is comparable to other reports.
So, the other must be right too. And, it cooled off considerably. So, how is that kid standing out there in just a t-shirt when it was 55 degrees or cooler? Typically, the hottest part of the day isn't 11:30 in the morning; it's about 3:00 in the afternoon. So, the temperature was undoubtedly less than 55 degrees. Yet, there's the kid looking fine and dandy in just his t-shirt. And at the hospital, of all places.
So, this was a reenactment. You see Harding changing the sheets on the stretcher, which he wouldn't do at the hospital since he didn't work for the hospital. He worked for the O'Neill Funeral Home, and it was their stretcher. They provisioned it, not the hospital. And you notice that you don't see his assistant Harold Wolfe? What happened to him? Well apparently, they couldn't get him for the reenactment. He was unwilling. And then he went on to commit suicide. You buying that?
There is this other image of Oswald's stretcher being taken into Parkland, but is it real?
That's supposed to be Michael Hardin in back. But, what's he doing there. And who's this other guy in the sunglasses? And compare the two Hardins.
You think that's the same guy? I don't. The guy on the right looks older. He looks puffier. And he has a ridiculous swerve in his eyebrow. He looks very puffy. He's a freak. It's just more JFK photographic bull shit.
Amy Joyce made this collage concerning two versions of Oswald's suppposed "iconic" last photo, noting the differences, some of which are impossible, and others that are unlikely considering that they were moving.
What I notice, in addition to Amy's finds is that Michael Hardin, the ambulance driver, is more bald on the right than the left. The man at the bottom of the photo pulling the stretcher is wearing thick glasses on the right but none on the left. Oh, there is faint line there, and it looks precisely like one drawn in. And that's only behind his left ear. I see nothing behind his right ear. Look at his thick glass-arm on the right.
So, what is the explanation of this? Well when they made these phony images, they often did do-overs. They weren't satisfied, so they did it again, and both survived. Look at the two versions of Lovelady in the squad room, which look nothing alike. The two Loveladys are vastly different, and neither one is Lovelady.
This is by a conspiracy writer named Joan d'Arc. Or perhaps she just goes by that name. In any case, she wrote the following about Oswald in the doorway. It's not as ironclad as it should be, as I write about it. Still, something is better than nothing. And she points out that Jim Garrison was very much aware of Oswald in the doorway.
Lee Oswald in the Doorway?
Witnesses who worked in the TSBD have stated that Oswald was in the lunchroom on the 2nd floor eating his lunch just prior to the shooting, and was in the same lunch room just minutes after the shooting, when police entered and saw him drinking a Coke. In fact, it seems that Oswald was photographed in the doorway of the TSBD as the procession was going by (see picture at www.whokilledjfk.net/altgens.htm).
The person in the doorway not only resembles Oswald’s facial and hairline characteristics, but is wearing the same denim style shirt over a white t-shirt that he was arrested in a few hours later. He consequently “lost” the shirt during his lineup session, where he was allowed to wear only his t-shirt. After complaining bitterly, he was finally given a black sweater. One wonders why this shirt was taken away.
District Attorney Jim Garrison believed it was likely Oswald standing in the doorway watching the parade. In an October 1967 Playboy interview, Garrison stated: “As the first shot rang out, Associated Press photographer James Altgens snapped a picture of the motorcade that shows a man with a remarkable resemblance to Lee Harvey Oswald, same hairline, same face shape, standing in the doorway of the Book Depository Building. Somehow or other, the Warren Commission concluded that this man was actually Billy Nolan Lovelady, an employee of the Depository, who looked very little like Oswald. […] The Altgens photograph indicates the very real possibility that at the moment Oswald was supposed to have been crouching in the sixth-floor window of the Depository shooting Kennedy, he may actually have been standing outside the front door watching the Presidential motorcade.” (www.jfklancer.com/Garrison3.html) (Incidentally, Billy Lovelady was wearing a red and white vertical striped shirt that day.)
Oswald was also noted to be somewhere near the doorway by NBC news correspondent Robert MacNeil, who was riding in the motorcade when shots rang out. MacNeil jumped out of the limo and ran to the TSBD. One must realize that Dealey Plaza is a very small area, and it probably took seconds for him to run to the front entrance of the building. There he encountered a man at the door, whom he asked where he could find a telephone, and the man pointed inside. MacNeil later identified the man as Oswald. In fact, Oswald also recalled the conversation; according to Dallas Police, a man asked Oswald for a telephone as he was leaving the building. (Who’s Who 271) However, no notes of Dallas Police interrogations of Lee Oswald exist or have surfaced.
How could Oswald's hair contradict itself? In Johnston, his hair is coiffed and GQ'd, and he's got a lot more of it. But, in other images, including this film image, his hair looks nothing like that.
How can that be the same hair when he has much deeper recession on the right, when his hair is longer and wavier on the left. Obviously, he has much more complete coverage on the left. At first glance, the image on the right shows a guy with a receding hairline, while the image on the left does not. How can it be the same nose when the shape of the nostrils are so different?
Here's the Johnston/Beers comparison. Obviously, his hair is flatter in Beers, and he's got that huge cowlick in back, which you don't see anywhere else. He's also got an extremely wide part in Beers which you don't see elsewhere. Again, the noses don't match, with much more flare in the shape of the nostril in Johnston and larger tip cartilage.
Here's the comparison going from Johnston to Jackson. What happened to the stiff right collar he had in Johnston?
Again, we have the higher, longer, wavier, coiffed hair in Johnston and the flatter, lower hair in Jackson. His eyebrows are much longer in Johnston. His eyebrow is half gone in Jackson.
So, how did Oswald really look? We don't know because there is no image of him that we can be certain is untouched. There was so much photographic manipulation, the question is: was ANY image of him not manipulated, and if so, which one? At this point in time, I can't tell you. There is no image of him that I can be sure wasn't manipulated. And of course, in some cases, the question is whether the image is really him at all.
I don't think two two images can be reconciled. I don't doubt that the guy on the left is Oswald, but is the guy on the right?
This is the photo with the bogus hat and the bogus point to Boyd's shoulder, all to hide the face of James Bookhout. But, what I want you to notice is that Boyd is grabbing Oswald's arm, and what we see are his four fingers. We don't see his thumb at all, and that's not unusual.
But, in the Johnston photo, we have this weird appearance of Grave's thumb.
What the hell is that?
I said: What the hell is that? What the hell is he doing with his thumb? What is he supposed to be doing with it? It's like he's got the distal digit flexed over the proximal digit, which most people couldn't do if they tried. They could do it if they immobilized the proximal digit with their other hand. But otherwise, they couldn't do that. Try it yourself. Try to duplicate what he appears to be doing there. His thumb looks like a Pez dispenser. There isn't another image like that. It's like his thumb is making a 90 degree angle at the interphalangeal joint.
Look: that can't be done because there is one flexor tendon that flexes both bones together. So, when the flexor muscle contracts, it pulls them both over. Again, try it yourself. Hold your thumb up and see if you can flex just the top joint. You can't do it. The whole thumb wants to flex as a unit. You can only do it if you lock your hand around the lower digit so that it can't move, and then you
can bend the other one alone. But otherwise, you can't do it.
Even if you were going to get your hand all the way around so that your thumb came to, unlike Boyd, it would look like this:
So, we have that, which is real. And we have this which is JFK assassination:
real:
JFK assassination:
real:
JFK assassination:
Photo-evil. That's what it is. Here is how it looks in The Mirror.
Now, that is just plain weird, and it is also impossible. People see weird stuff like this in JFK assassination photos, and they don't ask about it. Why? Because they are good little minions of the Fascist State. And some guys get paid good money to stomp around the internet in their jack boots. They'd like to cram this shit down our throats. Here's how it looks with the hand all the way through.
You see. There's no Pez dispenser.
This is Marilyn Monroe with her lawyer when she divorced Joe DiMaggio.
That's doable. This isn't:
This one is practical:
I don't have any problem with that.
Even Fred and Ginger, and I could watch them dance every day for the rest of my life and get a thrill every time, showed us how it's done.
It's not like this:
This kind of shit only happens in the JFK world, and I tell you that the evil that lurked on November 22 and November 24, 1963 still lurks in our world today, that the heirs of these killers are still covering for them today, gunning down Kennedy and Oswald with every breath they take. Oh, but for the evil then, and the evil now.
From Denis Morrissette's own website, JFKinvestigators.wordpress.com, there is a copy of the Johnston photo without the tie pin.
But, that dastard bastard Brian Pete had the nerve to accuse me of altering the photo. Here's the link to Denis' site:
https://jfkinvestigators.wordpress.com/
Alright, so now the Punk knows that I didn't alter the photo, even though he accused me of it. So, does he say he was wrong? Does he remove it from his page? No. He's still got it there that I altered the photo. It shows you what kind of person he is and that he has no regard for the truth. He spits on Kennedy every time he opens his mouth.
However I did have to correct something myself:
"Keep in mind that putting the pin in or taking it out would have been easy as pie- then or now. So, which was it? They had to do one or the other because there is only one Johnston photo. I suspect they put it in to match the one at the hospital."
Alright, so that takes care of that. But, how about that shiny metal buckle? What makes it gleam so? Brownian motion, you think?
Brian Pete is really stupid. Immature and stupid. Forever a punk kid. Now, he's accusing me of altering the Johnston photo, taking out Grave's tie pin.
Why would I do that? And how could I expect to get away with it?
I'm 67 years old. I'm not here playing games.
The rendering of the Johnston photo without the tie clip is widely available. I didn't invent it. Here it is from The Mirror which is a UK paper.
And here's the link to it:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/james-leavelle-arrested-jfk-assassin-2711431
You're stupid, Pete. You're just Joseph Backes with a little more pit bull in you.
So, now we know there are two versions of the Johnston photo, one with the tie pin and the other without. But, Johnston only took one photo, right?
Keep in mind that putting the pin in or taking it out would have been easy as pie- then or now. So, which was it? They had to do one or the other because there is only one Johnston photo. I suspect they put it in to match the one at the hospital.
And regardless, we still have that glaring and conspicuous military-style belt with the solid metal buckle in Johnston.
That is not the same belt, Punk, and you can't bully your way to making it the same belt. The ambiguity over the tie pin only makes the situation worse- for you and yours. Thanks for pointing it out.
It's just amazing how this guy was manning the phones that day.
Those are two different phones on two different desks. Does anybody know who he was?
