Paul Butler Sr.

So what did Mark Lane say about this? Everyone was ready to believe the Warren Report until his book Rush to Judgement came out. He was hired by Oswald's mother to represent Lee. I don't think Lee Oswald shot anyone. I think he was set up and he knew it.

• Like
• Reply
• Hide
• Send Message
• 11m

• Author

  Oswald Innocence Campaign

  Paul Butler Sr. I don't think Mark Lane ever realized the truth about the Marguerite impostor. I spoke to him once at length, but we didn't talk about that. We talked mainly about the fact that Oswald never went to Mexico City. And he told me that David Atlee Philips admitted to him once, face to face, that Oswald never went to Mexico City.

 WFAA Coverage of Oswald Shooting proves it was State Murder

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1sKHbr4hL8&t=61s

It starts with a description of all the provisions to protect Oswald, the men with guns, the sniffing dogs, etc. and what a shame it was that now he wouldn't be able to face trial. Bill Lord, who was the WFAA reporter at City Hall, described the shooter and said he was a "small elderly man." Later, another reporter also described the shooter as "small." Jack Ruby was 5'9" which is average height, then and now, and he wasn't underweight. So, why would anyone describe him as small? The shooter wasn't small either in terms of weight, but he was short. Shortness is what they were really talking about. The Garage Shooter was short. He was the shortest man in the garage that we can see. 

That man is obviously shorter than Ruby's 5'9". He looks short even compared to Fritz, and Fritz was a short man. 

James Bookhout was a short man, which he himself implied. He said that on Friday afternoon, he was in the crowded 3rd floor hallway waiting for Fritz to arrive to interrogate Oswald, and he was looking for his partner, James Hosty. So, he found a pedestal to stand on so that he could see over the crowd. Would a tall man have had to do that? Then, when he testified to the WC, he said he was on Main Street outside the Mercantile Bank when the motorcade passed, but he didn't get to see JFK because there were people in front of him. He didn't elaborate, but he was there, in person, and he knew that they could see that he was short. And therefore, it required no elaboration. The Garage Shooter was the shortest man in the garage, and he was dwarfed by the detectives. He was a distinctly short man, which Ruby was not. The tallest the Garage Shooter could have been was 5'6". 

Back to the WFAA tape, they said that when the shooter was led to the elevator to be taken upstairs that his shirt was torn open. And you can see the shooter who is just in a shirt and not a jacket. But, what became of his jacket? He was wearing one. So, how did it come off in the jail office? They wrestled him in there without first handcuffing him, and reportedly, they handcuffed him as soon as they got through the jail office door. But, if that's true, then his jacket would have still been on. They would not have stopped to remove his jacket when they were struggling with him. By rights, they should have handcuffed him on the spot in the garage before moving him anywhere. But, there is no basis to think that they first removed his jacket and then handcuffed him in the jail office. And yet, that's what we see.

Wow, he is disheveled, is he not? But, since he was wearing a jacket during the melee, how did his shirt get torn open? Here he is a few hours later:

Now obviously, his shirt is buttoned there, and that shirt was never torn open. That is not the cabana shirt they gave him later to wear, supposedly, as a jail uniform. 

So, this must have been his original shirt.

Look at the transformation he underwent.

It looks like the same man, but absolutely nothing was said about Ruby getting a makeover. And presumably, the shirt was wide open on the left, not because the unbuttoned it, but because it got ripped open, which means the buttons ripped off. But if so, how could his short be buttoned again later? And did they iron it?

It was not Ruby in the garage. He wasn't there during the Garage Spectacle. He was being held up on the 5th floor. Apparently, they brought him back  down so that he could be filmed being taken back up- as if for the first time. And they arranged that disheveled look. Ruby was completely out of it mentally at the time. He was in a daze from all the drugs. A WFAA reporter said that he was heard "muttering incoherently" after the shooting. That was only said once and never repeated. But, it is extremely important. Note the blank star and dilated pupils on Ruby in the image above. Compare his look and expression to that of the two officers that flank him. Dart your eyes back and forth among them. He was out of it. He was high as a kite. The idea that Dallas Police arranged for him to shoot Oswald- and pointing the gun in their direction, and that they felt safe doing that is ridiculous. They were never going to let that lunatic do the shooting. They didn't need him to do the shooting. They just needed him to take the blame for doing the shooting. 

I was asked by the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth to write a statement on why 9/11 still matters. This is what I sent them:

9/11 matters because the truth matters, and because our government and media should not be lying to us. Moreover, the truth about what happened on 9/11 is, first and foremost, a scientific question, and there is nothing more dangerous than science being politicized. When top scientists kowtow to pressure to, not only accept, but endorse, bogus government claims, it corrupts science to the core; it obliterates it. Living in a world with corrupt science is one of the worst nightmares imaginable. When we pine for 9/11 truth, we are pining for intellectual freedom- across the canvas of life. We are saying that scientific truth is not issued by fiat, by political authority, but rather, by cold, unbiased, unbought scientists. In this case, even common, everyday horse sense tells you that a fire at the top of a steel skyscraper cannot possibly cause the whole thing to fall straight down into its own footprint. The government scientists who endorse that scenario are a disgrace to their profession. 

But, there is another distinct reason why we must pursue 9/11 truth, and that is, that in response to 9/11, the U.S. government went out and launched wars that killed millions of people, and mostly innocent men, women, and children. I am referring to the post-9/11 wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. Obviously, if the Twin Towers and Building 7 were brought down in controlled demolitions, then Osama bin laden was not responsible, which means that the entire basis for attacking Afghanistan was fraudulent and bogus. Yet, that war was waged for 20 years, killing 176,000 Afghans (according to Brown University), and we had no right to kill those people or get them killed. All that blood is on U.S. hands, and there needs to be a reckoning. 9/11 truth is the way to that reckoning.  

The official story of 9/11 is an insult to your intelligence. It is intellectual tyranny. If you respect your own mind, you need to fight it.    

No mother would hang pictures of her battered son on the wall. She would hang nice pictures of him. She wouldn't torture herself by having to look at his horror every day. And where did she get those pictures? The picture on the right was from TIME magazine. It was a TIME magazine cover. So, how did she get it? Obviously, she got help. So, this sick, twisted display was arranged by someone else. And notice that it has a plaque at the bottom. What could the plaque say? His name? In case she forgot? John Armstrong is right: she was NOT Oswald's mother.

There are people who think that the killing of Oswald was a conspiracy between Ruby, the Dallas Police, and the CIA and/or the Mafia. But, these people aren't thinking smart. They are mistakenly thinking that it was easy; that Oswald would be brought out, and then the shooter just had to bolt in and shoot Oswald at close-range and nothing could go wrong. 

But, a lot could go wrong. In that scenario, Oswald would not want to be shot. So, he could take evasive action. Or someone else might have interfered; tried to foil it. Someone could have deflected the gun at the last second, causing the wrong person to be hit. Or, the bullet could have traversed Oswald and penetrated someone else. As it was, the bullet almost did traverse Oswald. It settled right underneath the skin. They just had to incise the skin a little, and it fell out. So, imagine if the bullet's path was shorter and more angular where it traveled through so much dense tissue. It may have had enough energy to traumatize someone else. 

And if you wanted someone to shoot Oswald, why would you trust Jack Ruby with the job? He had never shot anyone before. He had never shot the gun at all that we know of. Did he have a steady hand? Did he have nerves of steel? Was there any reason to think that he did? 

What makes you think they would trust their lives to Jack Ruby? They wouldn't. They couldn't. They didn't. They didn't need him to shoot Oswald. They could do that themselves. They just needed him to take the blame for shooting Oswald. 

Why would Dallas Police trust a flaky, flashy, flighty, floosie like Jack Ruby with a loaded gun????  You do realize that he was considered a crackpot, a kook, a whacko, and a weirdo by Dallas Police. So again, why would they endow him with a loaded gun to fire in their direction? It's ludicrous. They weren't going to put their lives in his hands. 

Oswald needed to be shot under controlled conditions. That bullet was placed with surgical precision to follow a course in his body that would do maximum damage and cause maximum bleeding. How could that be done under the conditions of the jail transfer and with Jack Ruby firing the weapon? 

You have to remember that they weren't going to get another chance. If they shot Oswald and it wasn't lethal, they would have been out of luck. They couldn't try to kill him again. Who would believe that? They had to make absolutely sure that the shot killed him. But, since it wasn't a shot to his heart, there were no guarantees. And that's why they needed absolute precision, which they couldn't achieve in that garage. 

They knew Jack Ruby. They knew him for what he was, this cockamamie, imbecilic, nutty, daffy, feebleminded character who stumbled his way to running nightclubs. If you listen to Jack Ruby in his filmed statements, and if you read his testimony and his narrative, you get the idea that he wasn't playing with a full deck, that he was a scatterbrain. His own lawyers filed a petition to have him declared mentally incompetent. Would the Dallas Police want a mentally incompetent guy pointing a loaded gun at them? THERE IS NO WAY THEY WOULD HAVE CONSPIRED WITH HIM. 

Forget about what you read about Jack Ruby because most of that is fiction. You should appraise Jack Ruby by watching him and listening to him. That's the real Jack Ruby. And after you've listened to him, ask yourself: would you trust him to shoot somebody? And especially if you were going to be in the line of fire? 

Nobody respected Jack Ruby. He was considered a clown. That's how the Dallas Police regarded him, as this clown who got a kick out of hobnobbing with them. They were never in a million years going to arrange for him to show up with a loaded gun to shoot somebody. 

But, they did arrange for him to show up- not to shoot somebody, but to take the blame for shooting somebody. That was Jack Ruby's role on 11-24, and that was his only role. Never were they actually going to trust him to shoot Oswald; it would have been crazy to do that.  

The toupee' that James Bookhout was wearing fell off during the melee', and Detective Miller put something over his head, which you can see. So, the first frame is Miller approaching. The second is Miller raising his arms to get above Bookhout's head. His arms are blurred because they are in motion. And the third is Miller finishing up. You can see that the other officers are watching the operation and waiting for him to finish. 

This is the letter that is used to prove that Ruby worked for Nixon, however, notice that it includes a zip code. 

The year was 1947, and zip codes did not start until 1960. The letter is fake. The whole narrative is fake. A phony life story was concocted about Ruby, and it was done to hide the fact that he was totally innocent. He wasn't in the garage at 11:20. 

When he testified to the Warren Commissioner, he said that he sent the wire at Western Union at 10:15. Right away, a Secret Service agent from California who wasn't even in the state of Texas on 11/24/63 politely corrected him, "No, Jack..." (they always patronized him by calling him Jack) "...you sent it at 11:15."  But, Ruby was right. He said in his narrative that he arose early on November 24. He said he got dressed, ate some breakfast, and then left for Western Union. It makes sense that he would get there by 10:00. What made no sense was that there would be a crowd gathered at the Main Street ramp since it was an incoming ramp. Who were they waiting to see coming in? Nobody. They were there just to be a magnet for him. 

In his narrative, Ruby wrote that he took twice his usual number of "diet pills" (amphetamines) thar morning, plus some other pills. But, he didn't say why he did it or how it came about. Who would write like that? Nobody would. But, his narrative was edited. 

He took his beloved dog Sheba with him. His intention was to leave her with someone at the Carousel Club after he finished at Western Union. Why would he do that if he intended to shoot Oswald? He had no thought whatsoever to shoot Oswald. The whole thing and the whole narrative about his life was a lie. 

They could not let Oswald see a lawyer because it would have not only established his innocence but exposed what they did to him to frame him. But, it was earlier in 1963 that the Supreme Court declared that the "habeus corpus" rights within the Constitution include the right to a lawyer. They were in trouble, and the only way out was to kill Oswald. 

But, they did NOT collaborate with Ruby. Nobody opened a door for him. There was no collusion between him and them. If there were, they would have had to kill him. Ruby didn't know anything. Ruby was out of it mentally. He was deranged. Think about this: On Sunday afternoon when Fritz got back from the hospital, he was questioned by reporters, and one of the things he said was that Ruby was talking to his attorney, "which was his right." Well, if it was Ruby's right, it was Oswald's right. And Oswald screamed for an attorney. Ruby never did. He never asked for one. They gave him one. They just told him that his attorney was there. That attorney, Tom Howard, wasn't even Ruby's attorney at the time. Years before, he had done some legal work for Ruby, but he wasn't currently Ruby's attorney. And Tom Howard was there on Friday night and was seen talking to Fritz. Isn't that weird? Howard lived in Houston, but he went to Dallas for the Midnight Press Conference? Doesn't that seem like a stretch? 

There was a conspiracy to kill Oswald and frame Ruby, but Ruby wasn't in on it. How could Ruby be involved in a plot that sought to put him in the electric chair? And when you look at his state of mind and his total incompetence, how could Dallas Police allow Jack Ruby to shoot a gun in a crowded garage?

Look: the idea that Ruby shot Oswald is just plain stupid. Wake up! Snap out of it. And if you just look closely at the shooter, you can see he is not Ruby. These two are not the same man. 

On the lighter side, I have to laugh about something. You know how the government and media are quick to call any challenges to officialdom about historical or current events a "conspiracy theory." Well, now they are suggesting that Putin used a body double in Iran, on the grounds that for months, they have been saying that he is gravely ill, and yet, he seemed very spry in Tehran and was moving around briskly. So that, they claim, was probably a double. 

The very same thing has happened before. During the 2016 election campaign, observers suggested that Hillary was using a body double, but the government and media were quick to denounce it as a "conspiracy theory." 

But now, they are the conspiracy theorists:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/is-it-really-vladimir-putin-ukrainian-official-hints-he-was-replaced-by-a-body-double-in-iran/ar-AAZWEZJ?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=adb51a49fe574a51adc5212288bc3173 

Of course, it's hypocrisy, but the whole coverage of the war in Ukraine is hypocrisy because the fact is that what the U.S. did in Iraq and Afghanistan was every bit as bad as what Putin is doing in Ukraine, and we killed far more innocent civilians. We killed over a million men, women and children in our so-called War on Terror. 

Here is National Geographic claiming that a half a million people were killed in Iraq alone, although other studies have placed the death toll in Iraq at over a million. 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/131015-iraq-war-deaths-survey-2013

Have you seen this video of Ruby crying?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxBrlzi744Y

He was not an actor. He wasn't a cold-blooded Mafia killer pretending to be child-like. He WAS child-like.  And he was religious too. That was the real him. The narrative that got sold, that he was a Mafia hit man, a pimp, a drug runner, etc. that is all fiction. You should realize that the killing of Oswald was the biggest, most Machiavellian psy-op ever pulled off. They realized in advance that there would be many who would crave an alternate story, and their goal was to make sure their alternate story went the right direction- for them. They wanted it to be that Ruby was not just guilty, but super-guilty. Hence, the wild stories about him beating up women and throwing people down the stairs, and running guns to Cuba, etc. It was all scripted. 

Ruby was MK-ULTRA'd.  I presume you realize that Sirhan Sirhan was MK-ULTRA'd. Are you aware that they had the same psychiatrist, Dr. Louis Jolyon West, from UCLA. He was called the "Maestro of Mind Control." He was the top CIA mind control doctor at the time. And they flew him out to Dallas to treat Ruby. Why? Were there no psychiatrists in Dallas?

Ruby's real history was so compact, you could write it on a cocktail napkin. He was born and raised in Chicago to a big Jewish family. He served in the Army Air Force during World War 2 doing airplane maintenance stateside. After the war, he joined his brother in various marketing schemes. But, in 1947, he was lured down to Dallas to help his sister Eva in her nightclub business. That led eventually to him starting the Carousel and Vegas nightclubs with OPM. Ruby was not rich. He handled a lot of cash, but he probably had a negative net worth, especially considering all the money he owed the IRS. He owned no real estate, and there are no reports that he owned any investments, except his small share in the clubs that he founded.  

He went to Cuba once at the invitation of a friend who ran a casino in Havana in the late 50s. He once considered trying to sell Army surplus to Cuba, but his lawyer talked him out of it. He never ran guns to Cuba, and he said he didn't. Why don't people believe him? He offered and did take a lie detector test. He also offered to swallow truth serum. 

He couldn't remember anything about shooting Oswald. It's not because his mind went blank. It's because he didn't do it. He got to the garage early. Probably the better part of an hour early. He went down there, he was jumped. He didn't know why. He reportedly said, "What are you doing? You know me. I'm Jack Ruby. I'm not a criminal."  Why would he say that if he knew he just shot Oswald?  Plus, it's very obvious from the footages that the Garage Shooter didn't say anything. 

He was dragged up to the 5th floor. He was stripped down to his underwear. And that is where he was at the time of the Garage Spectacle, which was a made-for-television theatric where FBI Agent James Bookhout was the short, pudgy guy who filled in for Ruby. The real Ruby was woven into the story at 3 PM when they brought him down to the 3rd floor for his first interrogation. In the crowded hallway, reporters got to see him for the first time, and that is when he took over the role of himself, though he was oblivious to what was going on.  

Now, if you think all this sounds far-fetched, the perpetrators were counting on you to think that.  And they are absolutely delighted when people promote the idea that Ruby shot Oswald to silence him on orders of the Mafia.  Every minute of Ruby's life from Friday to Sunday is documented, and there is no time that he could have met with or talked with anyone from the Mafia, to have been put up to shooting Oswald. When the JFK community goes down that path of painting Ruby as Mafia hit man, it is Miller time for the guardians of the official story. 

Look: they needed Oswald dead and fast because they couldn't go much longer denying him a lawyer. Oswald devoted his whole MPP address to pleading for an attorney and complaining about not having one. But, they couldn't give him an attorney because within minutes, that attorney would have known that Oswald was in the doorway during the shooting and that he never owned or ordered a rifle, and much more than that. If they let Oswald speak to an attorney, they would have had to kill the attorney. 

And I guarantee you that Oswald never met with H. Louis Nichols and turned down his offer for an attorney. That was an Oswald double. It may very well have been "Lee" from John Armstrong's world. That was damage control.  They needed Oswald dead fast, but they did not collaborate with or conspire with Ruby. Remember that right away, the DPD detectives helped prosecute Ruby with the goal of getting him a death sentence. If they knew that he knew of their involvement, how could they trust him to keep his mouth shut? Did they think he would go to his death protecting them? They would have killed him immediately if that's what it was. But, that's not what it was. Ruby was heavily drugged. Look at his eyes. Compare them to the eyes of the cop. That was Sunday afternoon, and he was high as a kite. 

Ruby didn't do anything, and he didn't know anything. He wasn't in the garage. He was up on the 5th floor in his drawers. And Oswald was not shot in the garage. Would you please stop believing it? They weren't going to have anybody shoot Oswald in the garage. Would you stop thinking that it was some easy thing that couldn't go wrong? Oswald was very skinny. He was 5'9 131 pounds. They weighed him that weekend. They put him on a scale. I learned that from Dr. Gerald McKnight. I'm only 5'6" and I weigh 137 pounds, and people think I'm skinny. If you were James Leavelle, would you want a guy shooting in your direction with the only thing between you and the bullet skinny Oswald? And would you trust a flighty, garrulous nightclub owner to take the shot? Oh yeah, there's no way that could go wrong. They weren't going to do that. They didn't need Ruby to shoot Oswald. They just needed him to take the blame for shooting Oswald. They could shoot Oswald themselves, and they did, inside the Jail Office. 

The murder of Oswald and the framing of Ruby is the most elaborate and devious psy-op of all time. You're all victims of it. You were all turned into puppets. And they don't care one bit if you want to believe that Ruby shot Oswald to save Jackie a trip to Dallas or because he was a Mafia hit man who was ordered to do it. Either one of those things work perfectly well for them. The truth is that Ruby was innocent, and we are all schmoes for falling for their con. 

There isn't one bit of writing attributed to Oswald that can be trusted. Some of it is patently bogus. Oswald, obviously, did not write the fail-safe letter to Marina about what to do if he got killed or captured after shooting at Walker. That's because he didn't shoot at Walker, and it was physically impossible for him to do so, since he didn't own a rifle. 

And note that that bogus letter started with a plea for her to go to the P.O. Box. Why on Earth would he want her to do that? According to Harry Holmes, the Postal Inspector, the only thing that came to that P.O. Box were Russian and Socialist newspapers. And that was surely a lie. If Oswald was getting Russian and Socialist newspapers, wouldn't his room have been filled with them? Oswald was dirt-poor. You have to pay a subscription fee to get newspapers mailed to you, and you have to pay postage. You think he was doing that when he could barely feed his family? 

It's likely that Oswald didn't even have a P.O. Box, which is why they led with it in the fail-safe letter. They were getting him to confirm their phony claim. He didn't need a P.O. Box, and he didn't get one to order the rifle, since he didn't order one. Note that the interrogators did not ask him about the P.O. Box. Nor did they ask him about ordering a rifle. They simply asked him if he owned one, and he said he didn't. So, why didn't they follow-up with, "Look, we tracked your order to Chicago for the rifle, and we know it was delivered to your P.O. Box." Why didn't they checkmate him with that? It's because they knew it was bogus. Even though they supposedly discovered the Chicago connection in the wee hours of Saturday morning and could have told him about it at the first interrogation on Saturday, they didn't say a word. And we didn't hear a word about it until after Oswald was dead. 

And when Marina was first asked on Friday afternoon if Oswald owned a rifle, she said that he used to own one (in Russia) but it got sold. Why would she refer to that if she knew he currently owned a rifle? She wouldn't. She couldn't. She didn't. Months later, after she became the Stepford Wife of the FBI, she waxed on and on about Oswald and his rifle and his insane doings with it, but you need to realize that she was MK-ULTRA'd. It was a brainwashing, where through intense indoctrination, hypnosis, and drug-saddling, they got her to spew the narrative they wanted. And that's true pertaining to the rifle, to the trip to Mexico City, and to other things that Oswald did not do. 

But, getting back to Harry Holmes, he was the ultimate liar.  Besides lying about the P.O. Box, he lied in saying that at the Sunday morning interrogation, Oswald admitted going to Mexico City and waxed on about it at length. Nobody else who claimed to be at that interrogation said any such thing. And Oswald certainly didn't say it. He was asked at the first interrogation if he went to Mexico City, and he said that the only place in Mexico he ever went was Tijuana. And that made sense because he was a Marine stationed in Southern California, and going down to Tijuana is something Marines did when they were on liberty. 

So, that story that Holmes told about Oswald waxing on about Mexico City was surely a lie. And for that matter, the whole Sunday interrogation was a lie. They were done talking to Oswald about his life. On Sunday morning, they were involved in getting ready for the spectacle that was to come, and one of the things they did was go to the basement and shoot the Jackson photo in advance. The Jackson Photo was NOT shot during the Garage Spectacle. It was shot beforehand. There is absolutely no correspondence between the Jackson photo and video images from the films of the Oswald shooting. It was taken an hour or so beforehand, and note that there is testimonial evidence that they cleared the basement at 9:45. Dr. Fred Bieberdorf said so. They only allowed reporters and cameramen to reenter the garage about 10 minutes before the shooting.  

And then they had the spectacle, which was pure theater. Oswald was not shot in the garage. He was shot afterwards in the jail office. 

And here's another interesting tidbit. FBI Agent James Bookhout (who played Ruby during the Spectacle) was asked what was discussed at the final interrogation. He hesitated a moment, and then he said that he didn't know because he got there late, and he didn't want to cause a disturbance, so he just watched it through the glass in the Homicide Bureau. But, he said that afterwards, he asked Fritz if anything important came out, and Fritz said no. Well, don't you think that if Fritz had heard Oswald admit that he went to Mexico City that he would have considered that important? 

So, why did Bookhout tell that lie? His story made no sense. Bookhout was the real head of the interrogations, and Fritz did his bidding. The top man wasn't really Fritz; it was Bookhout. So, he surely would have entered the room even if he was late. He told that fake story because he knew very well that there was no interrogation, that neither him nor anyone else had anything truthful to say about it. So, by saying that he wasn't there, it got him off the hook to reveal what Oswald said. Here are the Fritz Notes about the final interrogation. 

They are devoid of any content because there was no content. Do you see anything there about Mexico City?

But, getting back to Oswald's writings, besides the totally bogus writings, such as the fail-safe letter to Marina, it may be that some of them did originate with him, but were heavily edited.  And I mean edited to make him look bad, including the outlandish spelling errors. It was recently brought to my attention that Oswald spelled Moscow "Moccow" in one of those letters. And this person pointed out that in the Cyrillic alphabet, the letter "c" represents the sound of our "s". So, if Oswald was a native Russian speaker, as John Armstrong contends and I agree with, then it's reasonable that "Mos" would come out "Moc".  But, if that's true, why would the hard k sound of "kow" also be spelled with a c? It isn't Mos-sow. 

If you listen to Oswald speaking- on the radio in New Orleans and at the Dallas PD- you can tell that he had excellent command of English, and he spoke it better than most native-born Americans. I'd be willing to bet any amount of money that "Harvey" spoke English better, and I mean much better, than the native born "Lee" who must have sounded like a hick. Just compare Oswald's voice to that of Robert Oswald, who had a strong Texas/Louisiana accent, which Oswald didn't have. How come? If they grew up in the same household, why were their voices and accents so different? Answer: they didn't grow up in the same household. 

Remember that there was nothing broken about Oswald's English. He did NOT sound like a foreigner. He did not speak English with a Russian accent. His command and control of his English was excellent, and there is no way he would have written "Moccow." It's just the relentless manipulation of our minds. 

The official story of the JFK assassination is so preposterous, it is truly evil to espouse it. The JFK debauchery goes to the deepest, darkest, foulest underbelly of the American cesspool. There are things that are as bad, but there is nothing worse. 

The Lee Harvey Oswald of fame was most certainly NOT dyslexic. The other Oswald "Lee" in the John Armstrong lexicon, may have been, but certainly not "Harvey" who was the Oswald of fame.

Dyslexia means, literally, difficulty with reading. However, it affects all aspects of language, including speaking. A dyslexic person will often mispronounce words, particularly complex words. And it affects their writing, where they misspell words, and particularly complex words. 

The Oswald of fame was an excellent speaker. At this link, you can listen to almost an hour of Oswald speaking. And he says some difficult words, the kind of words that a dyslexic would stumble over, such as "allegiance" "subversions" "organization" "non-intervention" "independent" "hemisphere" "individual" "committee" "futile" "exploit" "irrevocably" "Czechoslovakia" "Yugoslavia" "Sino-Russian" (how many Americans, even today, are handy with that expression referring to Chinese-Russian?) "parallel" "systematically" "sympathetic" "inconsistent" "preoccupied"  "necessity" "Nicaragua" "hemisphere" "liberating" "apparel" "covertly" "defunct" "inclinations" "technicalities" "diversification."    

https://oswald-on-the-radio.blogspot.com/

Oswald said every one one of  those words perfectly, and he sounded lucid, intelligent, and very verbal. 

And repeatedly he said "New Or-leans" and not New Orlins, as the natives there do. If you just listen to his voice, you  know that he was not born and raised in New Orleans. Oswald had an East Coast accent that was not remotely Southern. 

Oswald was the most eloquent one in that discussion. There wasn't a hint of dyslexia in his speech. 

What about his reading ability? In Minsk, he befriended medical student Ernst Titovets, and it was partly because Ernst could speak English. And he recorded Oswald reading Shakespeare. And Oswald did it without mangling words. He read Shakespeare far better than most Americans could.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7F2w-9z42E&list=PLC64D68DA3AEE7EC6

So, what about his writing? First, realize that we need to be suspicious of all of it. We certainly can't go by what some handwriting analyst claims. Let's take an example of what is most certainly a phony letter of Oswald's.

That's the transcription of it, and you can see that "concerning" is spelled "concerding." But, "information" "discuss' and "suggesting" were all spelled correctly. The letter was sent anonymously to Penn Jones from Mexico City during the HSCA in 1977. How could a letter from Oswald to Hunt (presumably E. Howard Hunt) wind up in Mexico City when Oswald never went there? John Armstrong has established that Oswald never went there, and so did Mark Lane before him. In his "Lawyer's Brief" published in December 1963, Mark Lane destroyed the claim that Oswald ever went to Mexico City. And of course, Oswald, himself, said he never went there. 

Now, the content of the letter to Hunt is so vague; it is completely devoid of any concrete content at all. But understand something: there is NO CHANCE that Hunt, or anyone else involved in the assassination, divulged anything Oswald. They weren't going to do that. He didn't need to know anything. They had no reason to tell him anything. And if they did tell him something, then they would have been arming with information to tell the police, should he spend any time in custody before he could be properly killed - which could and did happen.  

Oswald stated at the Midnight Press Conference, "I don't know what this situation is about. Nobody has told me anything."

And he, obviously, didn't have anything to tell the police about the assassination, and they were very confident that he didn't know anything. Do you think they would have put him in front of world microphones, able to blurt anything he wanted, if they thought he had anything? He didn't have anything, and the FBI certainly knew that. 

So, what was the purpose of sending that bogus letter to Penn Jones? You need to realize that the perpetrators of the assassination very much wanted to control the direction that the JFK resistance movement went. They wanted to make sure it went towards a conspiracy that included Oswald because that kept Oswald up on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy, rather than standing in the doorway, which is where he was. They knew there were going to be naysayers and they wanted to make sure that those naysayers, unwittingly, did their bidding. 

Now listen: If you maintain that the official story is a lie, but that Oswald was a shooter, or that he collaborated in some way in the assassination, then you are pumping bullets into John F. Kennedy, and you are doing the work and the bidding of his killers. Oswald was standing in the doorway during the assassination, and he knew absolutely nothing about it. There is NO  CHANCE that Oswald had any "position" to discuss with E. Howard Hunt. This letter was foisted as fodder for the conspiracy crowd so that they would keep Oswald up on the 6th floor shooting. You see, the truth is, that the perpetrators don't care if you believe in conspiracy. They pretend to care, but they really don't. If you believe that Oswald did it alone, that's fine, but if you believe he did it in cahoots with the CIA or the Mafia or both of them, that's fine too! Of course, it makes no sense for the CIA or the Mafia to get a shooter who spent 3 years working in a radio factory in Minsk and then a year and a half doing odd jobs in Dallas and New Orleans. And it makes no sense for Oswald to do it when he liked and admired Kennedy, and there isn't a stitch of evidence that they offered him a red cent. So, what would have been his motive to do it for them? The whole idea is ridiculous, and the people who believe in it are stupid. It's just an alternative to the lone gunman story. "You don't like our Story #1? Then try our Story #2."

There isn't a snowball's chance in Hell that that letter is real. But, I know a guy who is all fired up about it because of the misspelling of concerning as "concerding." Because, of course, everyone knows that Oswald was dyslexic. This guy actually believes that the Oswald of fame, whom we can hear speaking so literately, made these spelling errors:

There is no way in Hell that someone who could speak as well as Oswald spoke, could possibly write that badly. He sounded like the most intelligent person in the room at the Midnight Press Conference. They had to put noise over his voice in the recordingof it  just to distract from it. It sounds like they were dragging something heavy and metallic across the floor. Then you hear a man yelling, "At ease!" 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxvxgODFxEo&t=57s

There can no coexistence here. There is no way that the Oswald that we can hear could have spelled that badly. It was concocted for two reasons: to demean him and to authenticate what they claimed he wrote. So, we've got this guy now who is going on Youtube claiming that "concerding" proves that Oswald must have written that letter to E. Howard Hunt. 

It's all mind games. They are screwing with your head, and you shouldn't fall for it. Oswald was very intelligent, and he was a lingual genius. That's the reason they picked him for what became known as the Oswald Project when the CIA decided to merge the identities of two boys, one an American from New Orleans, and the other an East European, Russian-speaking World War II refugee who arrived in New York City and right away showed an incredible ease and tremendous capacity to learn English and learn it well. Oswald was the opposite of dyslexic. He was a language savant. Read Harvey and Lee by John Armstrong.   

  

John Armstrong: I have neither heard or read anything about LEE being dyslexic or anything related to his speech, reading ability, etc., which would certainly have been noticed by his close relationship with fellow classmates, fellow workers, and dozens of army members in Japan. Harvey, however, was very intelligent and certainly not dyslexic. I have long believed that people who never understood there were two Oswald's tried to explain one Oswald's (Harvey) language deficiencies, both speech and in particular his writings, as "dyslexic" instead of focusing on exactly when and where he learned to speak perfect Russian. LEE Oswald never spoke a word of Russian during his youth, boot camp, infrantry training, 1 1/2 years in Japan (thru the end of 1958). Harvey, however, showed interest in Communism at age 14 in 1953 (Henry Timmer, South Dakota), 1954 (Ed Voebal, Beauregard Junior High), 1957-1958 (Palmer McBride, Pfisterer Dental Lab), 1958-1959 (Marine Corps, Santa Ana, CA). Harvey was a nobody in the public eye until 1963 (summer), when he was filmed in NO and people listened to and recognized a peculuarity in his speech when he said words such as "axed" instead of "ask". Professor Vladimir Petrov (Yale) read Harvey's writings and concluded this person was a native speeking Russian with an imperfect knowledge of English. Less educated people, however, simply chose the word "dyslexic" to explain his variations in his writings and speech.

Ralph Cinque: According to Professor Jerry Kroth, LHO was diagnosed with dyslexia in New York City in the early '50s. I am familiar with him saying 'axed" instead of "asked" but I am very suspicious about it. To me, it sounds like an audio glitch or maybe even audio tampering.  And it varies depending on the recording. Here, you can barely hear it at all. Of course, they put a noisy racket over the whole thing which is surely artifactual; it was just to demean and diminish him. But, listen to it. Every other word he said perfectly. Harvey (the Oswald of fame) was certainly not dyslexic. It was just the opposite. He was a language genius. Don't take this as a criticism, but you have 3 spelling errors in what you wrote above. Am I going to diagnose you as dyslexic because of it? Of course not. And as far as Harvey's writings go, I don't know of any that are reliable. You know that his letter to Marina about what to do if he gets arrested for shooting Walker is fake, since he didn't shoot at Walker. How could he when he didn't even own a rifle? I say that the claim that the Lee Harvey Oswald of fame was dyslexic is preposterous. It was probably done to hide the fact that he was a language genius, a savant. Why would Titovets have him read Shakespeare aloud and record him if he was dyslexic? 

LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S MIDNIGHT PRESS CONFERENCE (NOV. 22-23, 1963) - YouTube