Unger, you just gave away the farm.

The pole and the road signs were both along the curb. Along the curb, along the curb, along the curb.

And Hughes was in the street on Houston but on the west side. So, let's put an x where the road sign pole would be coming out of the ground.

I'm just guessing, but it's a reasonable guess. And why would the signs tower so high over the people?

So, why are they so high in Hughes? Why are they going way up over the top of the doorway?

And if you look at it up close, you see that they have got the signs closer to the doorway than the pole is

This is dirty, Unger. Filthy dirty. They corrupted the Hughes film to hide Oswald in the doorway, and then they added a phony Lovelady at the end.

What a disgrace. And you want to defend this crap? Of course you do. 

It is my pleasure and privilege to announce the newest senior member of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, William "Jay" Knowles.

Jay has been a longtime supporter, and he has done battle on the JFK forums- on our side, of course. He has been a strong supporter of mine, for which I am very grateful. Jay is totally grounded in Oswald in the doorway and in the Two Oswalds thesis of John Armstrong, and in a word: he gets it all right. 

This is something that we should have done a long time ago, but better late than never. I am going to share a communication I got from Jay just today. 

 "Thanks Ralph...yes I would like to join and contribute with more writing as I am able to....there is an association between George Bush and the Permindex leadership, specifically Louis Bloomfield here in Montreal Canada that I am interested in researching more......I did not get your message about joining until now.........

............ there is a clear overwhelming pattern of altering photos and film of the doorway and murder itself...it keeps growing too as more photos like this one get liberated into the public domain. 

(He is referring to the discovery in Weaver of Oswald's face being obfuscated with a black sphere.) What an excellent find within this grossly altered photo.  And GREAT WORK RALPH on the 3 minute video!!  The average person can now understand it - and well!  Cheers,  Jay

Question: If there was gunfire going off right over these guys' heads, shouldn't they have been looking up?

They don't seem the least bit concerned about anything going on overhead. So, maybe Oswald wasn't locking and loading up there after all. And neither was anyone else. 

So, we've got x, y, and z, representing the telephone pole, the road signs, and Hughes, all pretty much in a line.

So, how do you come up with this shit with the telephone pole and the road signs right and left?

It's bull shit. It wasn't like that. The telephone pole and the road signs were aligned. They were along the curb, and so was Hughes, essentially, but farther back. They were lined up like the Three Blind Mice. 

Which is to say that they were like Backes, Unger, and the punk. 

Palmer McBride’s Substantiation

On page 136 you read the story of Palmer McBride and his close

New Orleans friendship with Lee Harvey Oswald, who turned

out to be “Harvey.” Here Palmer writes to a critic using only the

name of “Oswald,” apparently to emphasize the name of the only one he

knew and to avoid the debate of the two that certainly had become obvious

to him—thanks to John Armstrong’s information passed on to himby

that time. When Armstrong spoke at the November 1997 “JFK Lancers”

annualmeeting, he brought along Palmer and others who had known Lee

and Harvey in their youth to tell their stories.

This 1999 letter by Mr. McBride was written to David Lifton, who is

mentioned earlier as the author of the 1980 national bestseller Best Evidence.

It contained the startling new proof of the autopsy tampering at

Bethesda Naval Hospital on the night of November 22 and the morning

of November 23, 1963. David Lifton is considered an expert in his field,

but he lost his “home field advantage” when he stepped outside his bailiwick

and challenged the memory of Harvey’s best friend in school.

Lifton had suggestively accused McBride of deception and at the very

least being terribly mistaken because the Marine records plainly showed

that Lee Harvey Oswald had joined the Marines in 1956, which made it

impossible for him to have been working at the Psisterer Dental Lab with

Palmer McBride in 1957-58. Of course, what Lifton knew to be true was

true, as he had observed the Marine records of Lee, but Palmer McBride

knew Harvey and carried for his whole life a very particular and immovable

touchstone ofmemory ofmonth and year—that of the Russian space satellite,

Sputnik.

The details in the letter that follows are self-explanatory, but the bigger

picture here shows one more piece of unintentional and unplanned eggon-

the-face evidence of how even those “great experts” that thought they

knew the case continue to be fooled by false government evidence 35 years

after the fact. As far as we know, David Lifton never apologized to Palmer

McBride nor has he ever admitted to the fact that there undoubtedly were

two lookalike “Lee Harvey Oswalds” running around the American South

in 1962-63.

“When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either

cease beingmistaken or cease being honest—and far too often it is the latter.”

(If that sounds familiar, it is only because it is so applicable in today’s

society and, in particular, within this 50-year distortion of history that it

THE UNCENSORED STORY OF THE TWO OSWALDS | 151

Photo of Palmer McBride.

is so comfortable for so many to repeat.)

Palmer McBride passed away in April of 2013. His body was decrepit

but his mind was still intact to the end. His story never changed because

he knew the truth of his own life’s experiences.

What follows here is McBride’s letter to Lifton:

* * *

March 10, 1999

Mr. David Lifton

11500 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 400

Los Angeles, CA 90064

Dear Mr. Lifton,

Enclosed is a letter you wrote to the ARRB on September 4, 1998. In

that letter you state that “McBride erred by a year, and said he knew Oswald.

In 1957 (and 1958), rather than the Spring of 1956.“ You are just

plain wrong and for unknown reasons you are unwilling to accept mine

and other people’s statements that they worked with Oswald at Pfisterers

in 1957-1958, instead of 1956.

When you spoke with the current Pfisterer president, Linda Faircloth,

she told you Oswald worked at Pfisterers in 1957 and 1958. You immediately

told her she was wrong and began to browbeat her until she finally

hung up on you.

When you interviewed me you already knew that I told the FBI I

worked with Oswald in 1957 and 1958. You handedme Oswald’sMarine

records which showed Oswald was in Japan in 1957 and 1958. You then

insisted that I must have known Oswald in 1956—before he went in the

Marines. You insisted again and again that Oswald was in Japan in 1957

and 1958 and that my FBI statement was wrong. In order to bring the interview

to a close, I reluctantly said that perhaps I wasmistaken in view of

the Marine records you presented. I agreed to give you an interview because

I thought you were interested in what I told the FBI in 1963. I had

no idea that your real intention was to insist that I knew Oswald in 1956

and use this interview to support your viewpoint.

152 | THE UNCENSORED STORY OF THE TWO OSWALDS

After you left I began to re-think the years that I worked with Oswald.

I worked withOswald every day for over sixmonths, visited his apartment,

played records with him at my house, went to the movies together, to

lunch, on double dates etc., etc. My first memory of Oswald was pegged

to Sputnik (Russian space successes) and no one in America knew the

word “Sputnik” until October 4, 1957. There were no (known) Russian

space successes of any kind prior to that date.

After Sputnik was launched is when Oswald and I discussed Eisenhower’s

failure to support the U.S. space program, even though the armed

forces of the U.S. feared that Russian rocket launchers gave them superiority

over the U.S. Because of these dates, I know with absolute certainty

that I worked withOswald during late 1957 and approximately sixmonths

in 1958. I quit Pfisterers in August 1958 and clearly remember thatOswald

quit about a month before I quit. I do not understand why you keep insisting

that I knew Oswald in 1956, but I do know you are wrong. In addition

to the statement I gave the FBI on November 23, 1963, I would like

to inform you of the following people and their statements. I challenge

you to address and explain the following:

• How I could have spoken to Oswald about “Russian space successes”

in 1956 (there were none until October 4, 1957).

• I visited theOswalds apartment at the Hotel Senator (across the street

from Pfisterers—an address which was unknown to theWarren Commission).

The Warren Commission says Oswald was living at 126 Exchange

Place when he was working at Pfisterers. But in order to get to Exchange

Place you must walk west from the Pfisterer Dental Lab (225 Dauphine

St.) to Canal Street, turn south and walk past Bourbon Street, Royal Street,

and then to Exchange Place. You then turn left and walk a block east to 126

Exchange (Oswald’s apartment). Oswald and I walked across the street

(less than 30 feet) to his apartment at the Hotel Senator (where he showed

me Das Kapital) and not several blocks to 126 Exchange Place.

I told the FBI that I had taken Oswald with me to a meeting of the

NOAAA1 at the home of Walter Gehrke. Walter subsequently told the FBI

THE UNCENSORED STORY OF THE TWO OSWALDS | 153

1 The NOAAA was a local chapter of the New Orleans Civil Air Patrol.—Ed.

that none of themeetings of the NOAAA were held at his house until 1958

(Walter was not even a member of the NOAAA in 1956, so we could not

have held a meeting at his house in 1956!)

My good friend and fellow NOAAA member Harry Vance took my

place at Pfisterers for one day in 1958 and met Oswald at that time.

Linda Faircloth, current president of Pfisterers, spoke to the owners of

Pfisterers (Leveque, Cagel, Bischoff and Kline) in 1984. They told her Oswald

had worked there in 1957 and 1958. She also told you Oswald

worked at Pfisterers in 1957 and 1958.

Paul Fiorello, whose first job was at Pfisterers, and began work in February,

1956, remembered Oswald began work at Pfisterers “a couple of

years after he started”—circa 1958.

William Wulf testified before the Warren Commission. The Warren

Commission attorney asked Wulf about knowing Oswald in 1954-55 at

the NOAAA. These dates are just plain silly!!Wulf was not even amember

of the NOAAA at that time.Wulf, when interviewed in 1995, stated he definitelymet

Oswald in early 1958.Wulf remembered he was sick the entire

1956-57 school year. He re-entered school in the fall of 1957 and met

Oswald shortly after Christmas of 1957.

I encourage you to interview the above witnesses and obtain their statements.

I then look forward to your comments. lf you ignore all of these

people and my November 23, 1963 FBI statement (WC #1386), then you

are simply not interested in the truth and I am sorry for you. I was there

in 1957 and 1958 and you weren’t.

lf you or anyone have any questions or want to discuss this further,

please contact me.

Sincerely,

Palmer McBride

8741 Lehigh

Sun Valley, CA 93152

818-XXX-XXXX

This is the other image of Oswald in the doorway (from the Weaver photo) in which his face was obfuscated with a black sphere in order to hide him. It was discovered by Saintly Oswald.  And it has got to be Black Hole Man next to him, with his hands atop his head, just as in the Altgens photo and the Wiegman film. 

But the question is: what happened to Doorman's dark shirt, and why don't we see his open shirt sprawl, as we do in Altgens and Wiegman?

I'll tell you why. In Weaver, they whited out Oswald's brown shirt, thus destroying the visible shirt sprawl that we see in Wiegman and Altgens. 

And, this new discovery in Weaver sheds light on the Hughes doorway as well.

So, on the left in Weaver, we see the doorway just as we see it in Wiegman, with Doorman located at the center atop and Roy Lewis over by the west wall below. That's just what we expect in order to conform with Wiegman and Altgens. But, why is Doorman hovering above Roy Lewis in Hughes? Because he's fake! They put him there. I know that JFK's limo had to travel a block between Weaver and Hughes, but so what? There are no grounds to assume that Doorman moved and relocated during that time. Why would he have done that?  But, it also gives pause about what we are seeing in the Hughes doorway. 

Yes, I know about the girl standing on the pedestal by the reflecting pool, and yes, I know about the road signs taking up the right side of the doorway, but is it real? And keep something in mind before you answer: we can test it. I don't know if the road signs are still there, but we know where they were, and we can hold proxies up, if necessary, and re-shoot it. Would those little signs really fill up half the doorway? Or is it just a little too convenient? 

You see the pedestal on which the girl was standing. Below, I have it enlarged and marked. And it's still there, so we can test that too. 

So, we have the girl and the road signs effectively obscuring the east side of the doorway, but is it real?

Why from Hughes perspective would the road signs be located so far to the left of the telephone pole when they were both aligned along the sidewalk? Here's another view.

That is close to Hughes position, but you would have to shift left to find his exact spot. But, you can see that the road signs and the telephone pole are aligned; they are both along the curb. Look:

So, from Hughes perspective, which was from the west side of the intersection of Main and Houston, the road signs and the telephone pole should be aligned. So, why do they appear side by side in his film?

Also, why do the road signs appear to be closer to the doorway than the telephone pole? Isn't the order reversed? They were farther away.  

But, what if those road signs that we see are completely fake? Then, we should be able to find the real ones. Perhaps we can.

Are those the real road signs? Of course, the real road signs should have been in front of the telephone pole from Hughes perspective, but how hard would it have been to color in the pole over the signs? And if those are not the real road signs, what are they? Obviously, there are distinct white forms there, so what are they? 

Here is another look at it from another version of Hughes:

So, are those the real road signs in Hughes, the ones aligned with the telephone pole, with the doorway ones being totally fake? That's what I think. 

Big Huge Find! It's another doorway image containing Oswald, except that they obfuscated his face with a black sphere. It's from the Weaver photo.

And the guy standing next to him, to our right, with his hands atop his head is Lovelady, just as in the Altgens photo.

Credit for this goes to a man who goes by the name of Saintly Oswald.  

This is staggering. The people who did this - and I mean those who killed Kennedy and those who covered it up, including photographically - must surely be bound for Hell- if they're not already there.