This is Michael Hardin, Oswald's ambulance driver, at the garage loading Oswald into the ambulance and then minutes later at Parkland Hospital. But, how could it be the same day, or even the same week, when his hair is so much longer and swept up on the left? Did you know that he died of a "heart attack" in the 1970s? I wonder what secrets he took with him. 

So, Oswald was not in the garage for the spectacle, but he was there beforehand for the photo-shoot. That's my conviction. It is what the images are telling me. And of course, we NEVER see Oswald in the jail office after the shooting. They made sure of that. But, what about the Oswald who was wheeled out from the jail office to the garage and loaded into the ambulance: was he really Oswald? That is what we are going to examine now. 

So, is this Oswald? I think we should begin by inverting him.

Well, there is some very weird thing over his ear. I don't know what it is. It looks white.

I do not know what we are looking at there. 

So, on the right, there is the dead Oswald on the autopsy table, and I am satisfied that that is him because his ear looks spot-on. Also, his nose, eye brows, and chin look fine. Remember: I have been looking at images of Oswald for a long time.  You notice that there is something white on his ear too, much lower. at the bottom of the lobule, and it is very distinct and circumscribed. I don't know what it is, and I have not found any references to it. 

But, other than this weird ear issue, they appear to be the same man. Obviously, the angles are very different, but I am satisfied that it is the same nose from two different angles. I am OK with the hair, the eyes, and also his length on the stretcher. 

The hand over the chest is completely fake. It looks like some wax thing. Compare it to the other hand on the ground; it's size and coloring. 

Wow. Look how well the hair matches: the length of it and the pattern of thinning and recession. 

All right, so that settles it. I don't have a basis to claim that that guy on the stretcher was not Oswald. Here's another image of him:

Look how well the hair growth on the neck matches, and that's a random thing, determined by the length of time since the last haircut.

 So yes, I am satisfied that that is Oswald. 

So, here's what we have now. Definitely Oswald in the hallway on Sunday morning. 

It was Oswald at the photo-shoot which preceded the spectacle. 

Not Oswald getting out of the elevator with the cops in the jail office, whose nose was shorter and smaller and whose hair was shorter and did not cover as well. 

Not Oswald in the garage during the spectacle. 

Then, it was Oswald rolled out and loaded into the ambulance.  At Parkland Hospital, all the iconic photos are fakes, such as this one:

The whole idea of this is fake. How could the ambulance driver be pushing the stretcher forward if Detective Dhority was holding Oswald's hand? How could Oswald be maintaining a fist if he'd lost 80% of his blood? This is just pure theater. And we never see anything like it in the film. 

So, here's what I think happened: They had an Oswald double there that weekend, and he's the one who met with H. Louis Nichols. It is untenable that Oswald, after all that public complaining and pleading, turned down legal assistance. Then, they used the double for the garage spectacle but not for the photo shoot which preceded it using the real Oswald. Then Oswald was sedated and taken to a sound-proof room and shot, using a silencer. Then he was put on the floor of the jail office where Fred Bieberdorf saw him and examined him and thought that he was dead, probably because he could feel no pulse. But, the truth is: the heart can still be beating even if there is no detectable peripheral pulse. 

But, there are still some unanswered questions. Oswald was out of it. Right? So how, if they loaded him in the ambulance with his arm down:

 how could his arm be supinated and above his head at Parkland?

The Wizard responds...

Ralph,

Thanks for the work you have put in on the blog.

I think that what Oswald is saying during the more animated incident is: "(I don't know what kind of?) dispatches you people have been given, but I emphatically deny these charges! 

After he has been ushered into the elevator vestibule he says: "I have nothing against anybody. I have committed no act of violence." This would be difficult to discern if the reporters had not repeated it, but it is audible.

RC: So, the Wizard has better hearing than I do, but my assumption was correct, that the reason the reporter used that formal expression is because that is exactly what Oswald said, that he  committed no act of violence. 

And now as I listen to it again, it does sound like he said "dispatches" which again strikes me as a rather formal word.  

It's nice that the reporter repeated clearly what Oswald said,  denying that he had anything to do with either murder.  A guilty person doesn't usually do that so repeatedly, and never has that I know of. Why?  Because he knows he's guilty, and therefore, he knows he can't say it with conviction.  A guilty person is more likely to say nothing.  So, Oswald's repeated and vociferous denials should have given all the reporters pause about his guilt, and the police too.  He was impassioned about it. Wasn't he? He would have had to be quite the great actor to do that if he was guilty. The plain truth is that in the hallways and at the Midnight Press Conference, Oswald made a great impression- that of an innocent man.  It would have been even more so with a jury. 

In truth, the case against Oswald would have fallen apart immediately. He had a solid alibi; he was standing in the doorway during the shooting, and with photographic proof of it. And even though the State addressed it and issued a fiat denouncing it, it would have held up in court. And I have to laugh when I imagine Billy Lovelady being cross-examined on the witness stand by Oswald's lawyers. How convincing do you think he would have been, considering that he wasn't comfortable talking about it even in friendly circumstances.  THEY HAD TO KILL OSWALD, and they had to do it before he saw a lawyer, even once.  Otherwise, they would have had to kill the lawyer too. 

And now that I have seen that it wasn't Oswald in the garage during the televised spectacle, it makes perfect sense that it wouldn't be because: how could they trust Oswald? It was live television. There was no taking it back.  There was no doing it over. They weren't going to risk everything by relying on Oswald to act along. 

And now that we know that they had an Oswald double there on Sunday, they must have had him there on Saturday, and it was he, the double, who met with H. Louis Nichols, not the real Oswald. 

I am convinced now that that guy coming off the elevator with the cops was NOT Oswald.  Oswald is on the left below. 

They had different ears. Oswald's was larger and longer, with a more prominent lobule (which is the lower, fleshy part where the ear ring goes). Oswald never showed such exposed recession on that side of his head, as we see on the right. There is no other image of him like that. Oswald's nose was not as small as the man's on the right. Oswald had more flare to his nostrils. And Oswald had more space between his eyes and his eye brows. 

Now, let's compare that guy to Oswald in the Johnston photo. And note that these pictures were taken 10 seconds apart, and the one on the right first. 

First, that is definitely Oswald on the left because that is Oswald's ear for sure. His nose is spot-on perfect- longer, larger and with more flared nostrils than the other. His hair is longer, as it should be, and without that huge recession. And the spacing of his eyes and eye brows works too.

These two match well:

That is the same guy; same ear; same eyes and brows, same hair, same nose. You can even see the same prominence of the sternocleidomastoid muscle. You see that cord of muscle on both of them, right? But, this other guy had a stubbier nose, shorter hair, more recession, and a very different ear. 

We better keep going with this. Let's compare him to the Jackson Oswald.

I am satisfied that that is Oswald on the right because his ear looks right (and very different from the one on the left); his hair looks right, as do his eyes and nose.  Let's look at Beers. 

I have always wondered about that weird, impossible flip of hair in back on Oswald in Beers. I have no explanation for it. But, I am satisfied that is Oswald on the right because the ear is perfect; the eyes looks good, and the hair seems right otherwise. Now, we have to compare to Oswald in the films. 

Oh My God, that isn't even close on the right. That is definitely not Oswald on the right.

Here is another film shot, and I'm not sure which one it is:

That ear is too small; the hair isn't right; it looks artificial in front; and the nose is too short and too uplifted. 

So, that isn't Oswald on the right. And here's where it leaves us:

We're left realizing that it wasn't Oswald in the garage during the filming of the spectacle. However, it was Oswald in the garage beforehand for the picture-taking. Apparently, the famous photos (Beers, Johnston, and Jackson) were all taken beforehand with the real Oswald. Recall what Dr. Fred Bieberdorf said, that he and everyone else was kicked out of the garage at 9:45.  That was to nab Ruby, and apparently, to take pictures using the real Oswald. Then, for the spectacle, they used that little-eared guy for Oswald and James Bookhout for Ruby. Where was Oswald at that time? Being done away with, I suspect. 

We don't see Oswald again until he was rolled out on the stretcher. Was that him? We'll look at that next time. 

   

I was asked to look at this video compilation of Oswald being led through the hall of the DPD. At 5 minutes and 20 seconds, he seems to be talking to someone, but we don't who know it is.  It may just have been a random reporter. However, Oswald gives an elaborate response which we can't hear, and I doubt that is an accident. 

I'll get to that, but there are a number of other things in this video that I find significant or peculiar, and I am going through the whole thing, in chronological order. 

In the first cut, at 04 seconds, we hear Oswald complain about his lack of "legal representation" and he says it repeatedly throughout the compilation.  Hearing it all makes me reject categorically that Oswald ever met with Louis Nichols on Saturday and rejected his offer of legal help. They must have had an Oswald double there. 

Oswald asked for unqualified legal assistance. It is clear that he would have welcomed any legal help.  The idea that, after all the pleading and complaining and imploring, he would turn it down is preposterous. Again: they must have had an Oswald double there. 

At 17 seconds, we hear, for the first time, a man saying, "Oh God, now we got to indoctrinate this guy." That exact same audio is heard again at a later spot in this video in a different circumstance. And neither instance was real. My understanding is that that was said when the other suspect was led in. We don't hear of him any more. Apparently, a decision was made to erase him from the record. He was a short stocky guy. In any case, the line, "Oh God, now we got to indoctrinate this guy" makes no sense for Oswald, and if you watch the video, you'll hear it said in two different circumstances. 

At one minute, Oswald says he didn't shoot the President and that he hasn't been told what he's there for. But, before that, we heard Fritz say that Oswald had been "identified" for shooting the officer. But, there is no evidence that the Tippit killing was ever discussed with Oswald. It's not in the Fritz Notes. There is nothing in there about Tippit's murder, nor Oswald's alibi for Tippit's murder, nor anything else he might have said about it. 

Oswald was arraigned for the murder of Tippit that Friday evening, so he must have known about it, but the fact is that we have absolutely nothing about the police interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald about the murder of JD Tippit. Not one word.

At 2:20 you should listen to Oswald at the Midnight Press Conference because the racket going on here is louder and noisier in other versions I've heard. And it stops on a dime as soon as he's done speaking. So, was it going on there? I doubt it. It is probably noise they added afterwards to debase and demean Oswald.

At 3:35, there is a long diatribe by Jim McLair, the Canadian correspondent who went one to anchor the evening news on US Public Television.  He, like Dan Rather, cut his teeth and rose in the ranks and reached the heights because of his coverage of the JFK assassination. Imagine if either one of them had questioned the pap they were forced to spew. It would have cost them, no doubt.  Ironically, it's Dan Rather's voice that follows, falsely saying that Marina told police that Oswald owned a gun matching the murder weapon. 

Then, it comes to the most important thing in the video. A reporter asks Oswald, "Did you order that rifle?" There's silence for a second, and then some mumbling, and then we hear Oswald say, "...that you people have been given, but I emphatically deny these charges."

Now obviously, that is an incomplete sentence, and the first part of it was lost. Did Oswald answer the reporter's question? Consider how quickly he could have said, "No." I bet you they cut that out. We probably had Oswald on tape denying that he ordered the rifle. 

 I find it interesting that after Oswald was hustled away, the reporter said that Oswald said that he "committed no acts of violence." That's a very formal denial, and I have to assume that the reporter put it that way because Oswald put it that way. And yet, we don't hear Oswald saying it, ourselves. So, I have to wonder to what extent Oswald's voice recordings were edited, abridged, etc. 

It's at 5:30 that Oswald seems to stop and talk to someone and with very keen interest. And it's surprising how it stopped the caravan, so to speak. They literally waited until he was done saying what he had to say, though we can't make it out. 

So, Oswald had something very earnest to say to somebody, and they finally had to drag him away and through the door.

Let's stay on this because I think I found something interesting. Notice that it's Detective Elmer Boyd who is handling Oswald.

But, look who was also there: Jim Leavelle.  And he was wearing his Easter suit, the one he wore on Sunday. So, was this Sunday?

So, either that was Sunday, or Leavelle also wore that suit on Saturday. He definitely didn't wear it on Friday because we can see Leavelle at the Midnight Press Conference in a dark suit. 

And he didn't wear on Monday either when he transferred Ruby.

The reason I am harping on this is not because of Leavelle but because of Elmer Boyd. Boyd said that he learned about the Oswald shooting while eating lunch at his in-law's house on Sunday, and he immediately excused himself and head to the DPD because he thought he could be needed. But, if this was Sunday, then it is proof that he was lying. 

Now, keep in mind, I already knew that he was lying because of the image below which was taken just a few minutes after the shooting.

So, that is Boyd on the left, caught by a photographer while they were essentially hiding with Bookhout by the elevator on the 3rd floor. The man in the center is not Jack Ruby; he is FBI Agent James Bookhout. That was 12:23 or so, he Bookhout was no doubt handed off to that team of Boyd, Sims, and Hall as soon as they got him inside the jail office at 12:20. So, Boyd was definitely there, and he definitely lied when he said he wasn't. But now, we have more proof, since this was apparently even earlier on Sunday: 

Here is Leavelle again in the hall.  

And here he is doing an interview later on November 24 after the shooting.

So, do you think he wore the exact same clothes two days in a row? I rather doubt it. And that leads me to believe that that was Sunday.

All right, this settles it: This reporter can be heard saying: "Oswald will be transferred later today."

So, it must have been Sunday morning. They weren't saying that on Saturday morning. It's the last thing in this video, and I'll give you the link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FDDuRSgzFk 

So now, we know for sure that it was Sunday. Therefore, we're seeing Oswald shortly before the jail transfer. And Boyd was there. He lied about being with his in-laws that morning. He was there, at the PD, and this is independent proof of it. 

So, that is how his hair was laying. Now let's look at him in the transfer footage.

So, is that the same guy? I'm seeing that his ear was longer and shaped differently on the left. I'm seeing that his hair was longer and covered better without as much apparent recession as we see on the right. I am not at all sure that that guy on the right is Oswald. Let's make another comparison.

Above, the ears look very different, larger and longer on the left. On the right, his ear looks very small. On the right, the nose looks shorter, stubbier. On the right, his face looks fuller, less gaunt. I am not at all sure that these two are the same man.  

The guy in the hall talking to Oswald was definitely James Bookhout and also the Garage Shooter of Lee Harvey Oswald. If you look closely at him on the left, you'll see that they did masking over his eye, and they essentially removed his ear. Below, I did a little doctoring to his eye to remove what they did.

I have to wonder: why didn't they just destroy the film? Nobody was going to complain if it didn't exist. Did they ever think that someone in 2018 was going to expose what they did? No. They didn't even know that computers and the internet were coming, and that's what made it possible.  

Notice how short Bookhout's hair was in back on the left. That's a real razor cut, the usual FBI haircut. And they didn't want a guy with an FBI haircut mowing down Oswald.  Therefore, he wore a toupee. And that's why we see on the Garage Shooter this relatively long, thick hair in back that abuts with a clean shaven neck, as though he had gotten a haircut yesterday. But, if he got a haircut yesterday, then his hair wouldn't be so long, would it?

And remember how I found out about this. I did an internet search for "where to find an image of James Bookhout" and it pulled up a thread on the Education Forum in which someone asked that very question. And someone responded by providing this link, and saying that in it you can see Bookhout talking to Oswald.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04aL80prg7U 

I don't know who he was. I went back to find out, but I could never find it again. I've looked for it again many times. I looked again tonight.  They must have taken it down. I remember that the person was male, and I also recall that he was a very established member. They have ranks there. 

James Bookhout lived until 2009, 95 years, which is super-longevous. Would he have lived that long if he was a pipe smoker? I doubt it. He lived 46 years past the assassination. And, he had the luxury of dying thinking that no one, on Earth, suspected that he was the Garage Shooter of Oswald- except those who were involved in the plot with him.  It must have been quite a comfort to him. But, if there is life after death, as many people believe, then perhaps now he knows that the jig is up. I'm thinking eternity may not be so wonderful for him- now- although, I suspect it's pretty hot where he is anyway. Thou shalt not kill, James.  It's one of the commandments. And even though I know your bullet was a blank, you still have blood on your hands. You were still part of the killing of Oswald. 

The Wizard informed me today that if you study that footage closely, you'll see that Bookhout seems to be nodding his head up and down in agreement with Oswald about something. I studied it, and now I agree with him. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04aL80prg7U 


Here's what else is weird about that film: the sense that people have about Oswald. No one, not any detective, not any FBI agent, and not any reporter act as though Oswald is a mad dog killer. The reporter who says, "Here he is, Lee Oswald" says it like he was Ed McMahon introducing Johnny Carson. And then Oswald walks up to Bookhout and stops to talk to him, and nobody seemed to mind. He was doing his own thing.  

By the way, they were pretty nice to Ruby too. They always called him Jack. His guards played cards with him, regularly. And Sheriff Bill Decker would visit him once a week just to be make sure he was comfortable and had everything he needed. I wonder if he did that for all the prisoners at the Dallas County Jail. No I don't. I was just kidding. 

Wizard:

At the beginning of the Bookhout study, you talked about the possibility that Bookhout had gained Oswald's confidence. I have seen a couple of versions of the Oswald/Bookhout corridor encounter, and I'm reasonably sure that Bookhout is nodding in agreement with whatever Oswald has just said to him, possibly to humor him. It's just a glimpse but it's there.

There is an edit in that footage between Oswald's appearance at the elevator door and the moment they drag him away. Something was excised right there.

RC:

Wizard, I only know of this clip, and if you know of another one, please enlighten me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04aL80prg7U

So, it's 6:24 pm on Saturday, in the corridor of the 3rd floor, outside the Homicide Bureau. You're right about the edit. It cuts from this:

to this:

That's Bookhout on the left, the short guy. They closed his eye with an overlay. 

Notice that on the right we can see the depth in Oswald's face, its three-dimensionality; but not on Bookhout, whose face looks flat. There is a two-dimensional overlay there that they put over his face to shut his eye.  And look at that ridiculous bushy eyebrow they gave him. Compare it to Oswald's.  Oh, how they love messing with Bookhout's eyebrows. 

 Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, that is fake. 

Now look at him from behind, with the same flabby neck as the Garage Shooter. 

Fat-necked fella, wasn't he? Skin bunched up in back. Both times.