Go to CE 2063, Memorandum of Interview, which is a statement by Postal Inspector Holmes of Oswald's last interview before he was killed. Holmes said that Oswald denied emphatically any involvement in the murders of Tippit or Kennedy or any knowledge thereof. It was essentially Oswald's last words. 

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pdf/WH24_CE_2063.pdf

So, in his final words, Oswald denied shooting Tippit or Kennedy, and he also denied any involvement in it whatsoever and any knowledge of it whatsoever.  

And it is the truth: Oswald had no knowledge of it and no involvement in it, except as the patsy. He was not patsy and participant. 

If Oswald knew that Malcolm Wallace, Frank Sturgis, and other individuals were conducting the JFK assassination, why would he say that a "militant revolutionary group" was doing it? It makes no sense.  

But, I will give Oliver Stone credit for one thing: he never said that Oswald sent the telex; he suggested that Oswald was the informant mentioned in the telex.

http://www.anyclip.com/movies/jfk/the-note-and-the-telex/

He came to that conclusion because he can read plain English. The recalled telex (it was just the recreation from memory by a night clerk) said that it went FBI headquarters in Washington DC to the field offices of the FBI. Since Oswald was in Dallas on November 17, he obviously did not send it and could not have sent it. 

Yet, there are quite a few people who continue to attribute the telex to Oswald as the sender- that he himself sent the telex- that very telex. 

But, another option is to take the liberty of assuming that Oswald must have sent a telex which preceded that telex. But why? Even if Oswald was the informant (and there is no evidence that he was; it's just an appealing idea) why assume he sent a telex to inform? What is the basis for it? The FBI had an in-house telex network, but Oswald didn't. And why assume he sent it on November 17? Supposedly, the telex arrived very early in the morning on November 17, at 12:45 AM Oswald's time. Wouldn't that mean he had to send it on the 16th or prior? 

But, what evidence is there that Oswald knew anything about any telex offices in Dallas? And if he did go to a telex office in Dallas on November 16 or before, wouldn't there be a record it? I know that they wouldn't allow anyone to send a telex without using his real name.  A telex is a legal document. 

And then when you add the fact that such paltry information as saying a "militant revolutionary group" was going to assassinate the President made it more like a guessing game, why would Oswald do that?  If Oswald had specific information, why wouldn't he provide it? He actually knew who! The individuals! He knew them! The very persons who were doing it! So, what's with "militant revolutionary group"? 

Did he want to inform the FBI but without ratting out the people who were doing it, the people he was working with? 

So, Oswald didn't want to rat them out before, and he certainly didn't rat them out after. Is anyone claiming that at some point after his arrest Oswald started naming names? That his profession of ignorance at the Midnight Press conference was all a lie? That he really knew everything, and he was just acting? 

It's terrible what was done to him in 1963, but it's also terrible what is being done to him today by his supposed friends. 

I think the worst thing to happen to Oswald since he was framed for killing Kennedy and murdered by Jack Ruby is his Hollywoodizing by people claiming to be his defenders. They have turned him into something that he wasn't; and they have endorsed all kinds of false stories about him. Some of these people are magnets for every false rumor and wild story about Oswald to come down the pike. 

What is crucial is to stick to the known facts. But, what makes something a fact? It takes more than somebody claiming it. Look how many men have been released from life imprisonment and even Death Row by DNA analysis? Just recently, another man got freed after decades in prison. But, how did these innocent men get convicted in the first place? Usually, it was from eye witness testimonies, and often just one: one eye-witness getting it wrong. 

When it comes to false reports about Oswald, what is the basis for them? First, the person could be mistaking Oswald for an Oswald double. Second, the person could be lying. And third, the person could be delusional. 

What helps to sort through it is to review the known facts. We know that Oswald returned from Russia in June 1962. We know he was minimally debriefed by the FBI. And that wrapped up the false defector program for him. We know he sought, unsuccessfully, to exploit his Russian-speaking ability, but nothing came of it job-wise. So, he began a series of low-paying jobs, none of which lasted. He and Marina also got involved with the White Russian community in Dallas. They attended some parties, and Oswald wowed them with his Russian-speaking. He met George DeMohrenschildt, and they became fast friends. DeMohrenschildt was no doubt asked to befriend Oswald by the CIA. There were a lot of residence changes for the Oswalds in that short period. And then in April 1963, after he loses his job at Jaggars/Chiles/Stovall, he heads down to New Orleans, arriving there on April 25.

I know of no reason to believe that Oswald was working as an intelligence agent during that period or that he was receiving $200/month from the FBI. That would have gone a long way, but the Oswalds were always in dreadful poverty, living hand to mouth. So, how could he have been getting $200/month?

But, somewhere during that period- between June 1962 when he returned from Russia and before April 1963 when he moved to New Orleans- the decision was made to cast him as the patsy in the JFK assassination. Perhaps it was made as soon as he got back from Russia. Perhaps it crossed someone's mind before he came back from Russia. But, I say he had to be here to really be pegged for the role.
   
I don't know what the official story is as to why Oswald moved to New Orleans other than that he just thought he had better job prospects there. But, we know the role it played in the assassination: to establish his pro-Castro credentials. And that's why I have to think they did something to draw him down there.

In Dallas, Oswald was not doing intelligence work of any kind; he was just working odd jobs. And by the time he went to New Orleans, he was already cast as the patsy, and once they cast him as the patsy, they weren't going to tell him anything about the plot. That would have been dumb. Why would they do that? He was the patsy. You keep the patsy in the dark. The less the patsy knows the better. 

What reason was there to tell him? He wasn't needed for anything. It's not as though they needed him to shoot. They had real assassins for that.

So, once he got to New Orleans, the dye was cast. He was the patsy, and they weren't going to breathe a word to him about the plot. From that point on, they were just playing him. They were stringing him along, keeping him totally in the dark about what was really going on. 

And why would they have done otherwise? Why would they tell him they were going to kill Kennedy? Why would they think he would be into it? Why would they think he would be capable of it? Why would they think that he was qualified? Why would they think he could be trusted? And most important, why would they think that if he was taken into custody after the assassination that he would remain quiet, particularly after he realized he was framed? Why would they empower him with information he could use against them?

Oswald was just the hapless patsy in the JFK assassination. He had no other role; no other assignment. He was not hobnobing with Carlos Marcello or other gangsters. He did not go to Mexico City to sneak poison into Cuba to kill Castro.  And, he certainly was not up on the 6th floor with Malcolm Wallace prepping his rifle. 

If when they decided to make Oswald the patsy in the JFK assassination, they also decided to make him a participant in it and even a shooter, they would have been the dumbest criminals in the history of crime.   

   

  
  

If Lovelady drew an arrow to Doorman to indicate himself, think about how valuable it was to Joseph Ball. Wouldn't it be 10X as valuable as Frazier's arrow? Maybe 20X? Who could possibly know better than Lovelady who he was in the picture?

So why if Ball got an arrow pointing to Doorman from Lovelady would he let it be obscure? Why would he let it be buried in Frazier's arrow to where they looked like one? Why would he let it be obscured anywhere? 

An arrow pointing to Doorman by Lovelady was an ace. If you have an ace, you play it, right? At least, here there would have been no reason not to play it.

So, if Lovelady knew that he was giving Ball what he wanted, he would not have drawn the arrow obscurely, and if Ball had gotten what he wanted, he would not have let it be obscure. He'd have un-obscured it. 

  

Why would anyone believe that J. Edgar Hoover would respond to an imminent threat against the President, that was days away, by saying to start investigating all the hate and racial groups throughout the country? It is insane.

And even if you think that Hoover would have done it just to let Kennedy dangle because he wanted him dead, why would Hoover put in writing such an inept response?  

Obviously, the proper response was to find the informant to obtain specific information about what he knows, then contact the White House and the Secret Service and confer with them about what to do, including cancel the trip if the threat is deemed the least bit credible. But, the response in that telex is just ludicrous. 

What an awful shame that Oliver Stone included it in the movie JFK. All I can surmise is that it was a movie, and from the standpoint of the movie, its entertainment value, it sounded great. Why not have a protagonist who was victimized but who was secretly working under-cover to undermine the criminal plot? It's gold. 

But, this wasn't a regular movie, and Stone didn't have the liberty of doing that. He didn't have the right to do it, unless he was going to say the whole thing was fiction. 

And since he corrected all the atrocious spelling errors, Stone had to know that the "telex" was composed and constructed by William Walter, the former late night clerk at the FBI office in New Orleans, that he wrote it from memory, after 5 years, and that nothing else and no one else existed to confirm it. How far do you go with a thing like that? How much do you bank on it? You certainly don't put it in a movie.

And, you certainly shouldn't look at a thing like that in isolation. You have to look at the big picture. And when you look at the big picture, you realize that there is not a lick of evidence that Oswald was an intelligence agent in the JFK assassination. To whatever extent he was an intelligence agent, it did not involve the JFK assassination. They left him out of that one. In that one, he was just the patsy.    

And I have to think that LNs love it when they hear CTs saying the Oswald was hobnobbing with Carlos Marcello and other gangsters. He gets back from the Soviet Union in June 1962 and before you know it, he's hobnobbing with gangsters and running guns, and trying to kill Castro, and then he's involved in the plot to kill Kennedy, but he's secretly an under-cover agent trying to save him. Stop it! It's nonsense. It's noise. It's fiction.

Oswald was to the Dallas plot what Thomas Arthur Vallee was to the Chicago plot: just a hapless patsy who was told nothing. Absolutely nothing. 

Don't go Hollywood with the story. It's bad enough what Oliver Stone did, but what people are doing today is much worse. And such fantasies help the other side.      

So, why is there a breach between the head and the tail? I figure that Lovelady started by making the head, and then he made the tail separately, lifting the felt pen off the photo and starting over. And, it resulted in a breach. Also, there is no denying that because of the extreme enlargement that this is, there is undoubtedly some distortion involved. But, it is the only other game in town besides Frazier's arrow. 

So, you can't expect perfection, and you can't ignore this when there is no other contender. 

This rendition of the arrow was done by bpete, and he had the nerve to call it a dot.

There's a breach there, but so what? It sure looks like an arrow. And it's the only thing that looks like an arrow besides the arrow that Frazier drew.

And concerning Frazier's arrow, you can only go by what the unaltered image shows- the actual photo.

That lightened version which you have put up 1000 times isn't how the photo looks. Does anybody think that if they went to the National Archives it would look like that? Above is how it looks. And to think that Lovelady would have obscured his arrow into Frazier's is insane. Why should he have? He would been giving Joseph Ball exactly what he wanted. Ball would have been jumping for joy. And his response would have been: 

"What are you doing it like that for? Draw yours separately and draw it big. Come on. I want to see two arrows there."

Look, punk: You can put that distorted one up 10,000 more times, and it won't matter. It has no relevance. And so far, not even your friends have supported you on this, never mind any bonafide or even non bonafide researchers. And you can tell your friends that it's too late now; if they wanted to do it, they should have done it when you first claimed it. 

But, you did good in your latest effort, and I shall make use of it.