Wednesday, May 23, 2018

This is the police car that followed the ambulance out of the Commerce Street exit. Look at the driver. Notice that he's wearing a dark suit and dark hat. Now, he wasn't a cop in uniform. They had white hats, and they weren't shaped like that. And most of Fritz' men wore the signature white Stetson hat. The two that didn't were Dhority and Graves, but Dhority was definitely in the ambulance. We saw him get in, and we saw him get out. And that means that this has to be LC Graves. 


But, Graves lied! He said that he rode in the ambulance. And, he's not the only one who lied. Dr. Bieberdorf made up a story that Leavelle rode with him in the middle compartment of the ambulance, and that the other two detectives rode in the back. WE SAW LEAVELLE CLIMB IN BACK, AND WE SAW HIM GET OUT THE BACK. We still have the images. So, why'd the Bieb lie? Someone must have put him up to it. Was he covering for Graves? 

Why were they so hell-bent on hiding the fact that Graves drove separately? 

Are you starting to realize that I am not wrong, that the story of what happened that day is not what really happened? 
This is Marina Oswald (with Marguerite behind her), brought to Parkland Hospital to gaze at Lee's dead body. Who brings a 2 year old to gaze at the body of her dead father? 


Wouldn't they spare her that? And what do you say when you get in there? "There's Daddy, Junie. He's just sleeping. He's going to be sleeping a LONG time." And if you watch it all, neither Marina nor Marguerite (and forget about the latter because she wasn't even Oswald's mother) show any emotion. Supposedly, Marina just found out that her husband was shot to death. Shouldn't she be in shock? In grief? In agony? In despair? She's not the least bit disturbed. I've heard that Russians are stoic, but this is ridiculous. 

And look at Marina when she gets out of the car. Her right hand is full of stuff. 


 But then, shortly later, her right hand is holding June's. 
So, what happened to the stuff? Marguerite doesn't have it because she's carrying Rachel. And notice that the stuff includes a baby bottle. She was going to feed the baby while gazing at Lee's dead body?

And notice that among the stuff is also her purse. So, you can't tell me that she handed all her stuff to a Secret Service agent. "Here, you hold my purse while I take Junie."

And here they are leaving. Poor Junie fell asleep. I'm the same way. Gazing at the dead bodies of my loved ones knocks me out. 



But, what is going on here?  June Oswald was 1 year and 9 months old. She was born in February 1962, and this was November 1963. Do the Math. How do you take that to be a 1 year, 9 month old? Look at her size. Did I mention she was only 1 year 9 months old?  At that age, one is barely a toddler. One is practically still an infant. How do you figure that kid to be 1 year and 9 months old? 

This is sickening. This is disgusting. This is pure Stalinist propaganda in the USSA. It's a Nazi propaganda film. And it is chilling. 





On the left is Jim Leavelle from the Beers photo. On the right is Jim Leavelle getting out of the back of the ambulance at Parkland in the NBC footage. On the left, we are looking at a shoe. On the right, we are looking at a very pointed boot. They are obviously not the same footware, which means that they are not the same man. 

So, the Jim Leavelle you see in this movie is a fake and a fraud.

https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/jfk-50/Oswald-Arrival-at-Parkland_Dallas-Fort-Worth-219190191.html

Who is going to defend this and claim that that is the same man/same shoe?  How about you, James Norwood? Let's hear you claim that they'e the same. 

And anyone who does claim it, that that is the same man and the same shoe,  is truly bloodied, as in soaked in the blood of John Kennedy, Lee Oswald and many others. 

Tuesday, May 22, 2018

Think for a minute. In 2013, NBC, for the 50th, showed a video of Oswald arriving at Parkland Hospital, except: OSWALD WASN'T IN IT.  How could they do that? Isn't journalism and media all about showing images rather than not showing them? 

As soon as I realized that they went to an elaborate effort NOT to show Oswald, I began thinking that there must be something wrong with the image of Oswald that we have. 

But, when I looked it at and compared it to other images of Oswald, it seemed to match in terms of the features. But then, when I considered the photographic quality, I realized that it looks like a manipulated image.



First, note that that is NOT Oswald's hair. His hair was not that thick. He had more receding than that. And his hair didn't stick up like that. That guy has got a Fonzerelli thing going. But, the worst thing is the sharp line of demarcation between his hairline and his forehead. It's like he's wearing a mask. 

So, that isn't Oswald, but now the question is: what is the back story here?  Did they actually deliver another guy to Parkland? 

Consider that there is NO DOUBT that the ambulance left the Dallas PD without an escort car but with a trailing car. Yet, somehow, the ambulance arrived at Parkland Hospital with an escort and no trailing car. And know, with 1000% certainty, who was driving the escort car. It was Detective LC Graves. And he lied about it. He said he rode in the ambulance, but that's impossible because there was no room for him in the ambulance. We saw how the ambulance got loaded. Oswald was slid in the back on the stretcher. Then two detectives, Leavelle and Dhority, got into the back through the tailgate. Dr. Bieberdorf got into the middle compartment, which he shared with the head of Oswald's casket. There were bucket seats in the back, and the one on the other side was folded down to accommodate Oswald's casket. And then, there was the driver and his helper in front. And that's it. There was no room for L.C. Graves, and he is the guy who went speeding out, in pursuit of the ambulance. 

So, how did Graves get IN FRONT of the ambulance? Did he actually speed his way to the front of it? Why would he do that? Ambulances drive to hospitals all the time without police escorts. And, if you try to tell me that he was just so concerned about Oswald and getting him to the hospital, I might just lose my lunch.  An ambulance has its own siren. And there were two detectives on board. They didn't need a police escort. 

But, there are only two possibilities: either Graves overtook the ambulance and lead the way to the hospital OR they stopped somewhere; did something; and then, when they continued on, Graves went first. Take your choice. It's one or the other.

But, who did they deliver to Parkland Hospital? It must have been Oswald, right? Had to be because his wife and his mother were brought there to gaze at his body. So, what does it all mean? What it all means, in my opinion, is that this film which shows Oswald was a re-enactment. They did it afterwards on another day. And they had somebody playing Oswald. And they got the photo- alterers to photographically give him Oswald's face. And I have proof. Iron-clad proof. It turns out that L.C. Graves didn't dress exactly the same. On the day of the re-enactment, he wore a different belt. And he also wore a tie pin, which he didn't wear on the 24th. 


Do you, or do you not, see that he had a tie pin on the right but no tie pin on the left? Do you, or do you not, see that on the left he had  a solid buckle, like a military belt, but on the right, it was standard belt with a hollow buckle? So, he is dressed differently, which means that it had to be two different days. Yet, on the left, he is escorting Oswald during the shooting ruse (Oswald was killed later) and on the right, he is at Parkland Hospital. It's supposed to be the same day: November 24, 1963. But, on the right, it must have been a different day, a later day. And obviously, they HAD to use a surrogate for Oswald then because Oswald was dead. But, as they did so many other times, the photo-alterers came to the rescue.  

Monday, May 21, 2018

Robert Glenn Damn, still blows my mind whenever you pose new material.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply2m
Ralph Cinque looks like an opera mask to me.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply2m
Robert Glenn It sure do...
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply1m

But

In that NBC footage for the 50th of Oswald arriving at Parkland, shown to me by Amy Joyce, it doesn't show Oswald at all. And, that is quite amazing, don't you think? That a media photographer went there to film Oswald's arrival and never imaged him? I say it's astounding. And I don't think that's what happened. I think they didn't want to show us Oswald. They were determined not to show him. So why? That's the $64,000 question. They could have showed us this, but they didn't. And do you know what that makes me think? That there is something wrong with this. 





Well, I have got to say that it appears to be his face. I don't see any deal-breakers.  

But, look what he's doing. He's got his elbow bent, his arm externally rotated, or you could say supinated, and his hand is way up.

 But, look at his position when they were loading him.
And before that, it was like this:
So, you  see that right arm crossing his chest? That's the arm that is elevated in the Parkland image. 

I have said for a long time that I don't think his right arm was doing what we see there. Who would put the weight of an arm right on top of an abdomen which has internal bleeding? You'd have to be nuts to do that. 


Can't you see that that right hand looks fake? Look how plastic it looks. Look how different the coloring of that hand is compared to the other hand on the ground. Look how much larger it is. And look how depressed the blanket looks on the right side.  It's like there is a well there. What would cause that? And, why would they want to put that hand over the entrance wound? It must be because they didn't want us to see the entrance wound. Why? I could only speculate, and several possibilities come to mind. But regardless, I think Oswald's right arm was alongside his body on that stretcher. But, even if you think they were stupid enough to put it across his chest, how did it wind up supinated above his head?



You would have to think that Oswald did that, himself, right? But, how could he? He was unconscious in the jail office, and he was not moving at all. No one said he twitched a muscle never mind moved like that. And a doctor, Dr. Fred Bieberdorf, examined him and thought he was dead. That was his professional opinion. Now, whatever condition Oswald was in in the jail office, it could only have gotten worse afterwards during the ride to Parkland. Blood was flowing out of his arteries and pooling in his abdominal cavity. With each passing second, he was losing more and more blood. There is absolutely NOTHING that could have reversed that. The idea that he appeared dead to Dr. Bieberdorf in the jail office and then went to moving around in the ambulance is preposterous. Oswald could not have done that movement. So, did somebody take his arm and move it up there? But, why would they do that?



Wait. Look at his face. Look how mask-like it is. There is a color change at the top of his head marked by a straight line. 
Do you see how  mask-like that is? Look at the junction of his forehead and his hairline. It looks like he is wearing a mask. 
Again, look at the sharp linear demarcation at the junction of his forehead and his hairline. And look how weird his hair looks. You can't tell me that Oswald's hair looked like that. Let's rotate it 90 degrees:

Before anyone blames Youtube, I'll point out that his is the only image that does that, becomes masklike. And yes, I know he was the only dead guy there, but look at the difference in coloring between his face and his hand. If he was drained of blood, wouldn't every part of him be pale? His hand doesn't look pale. His ear doesn't look pale either. 

This is just a working hypothesis, not a declaration, but what if that isn't Oswald? What if that is a photographic mask of Oswald's face put over the face of another man?   

One thing is for sure absolute sure: considering the condition that Oswald was in in the jail office, it is impossible for him to have moved his arm to that other position himself. He was in dire straits in the jail office and couldn't do it, and he could only have gotten worse as time passed. He was spiraling downward. Nothing can explain his sudden ability to lift his arm. His aorta got shot. Do you understand what that means? 




Sunday, May 20, 2018

I very much like this article by OIC member Dr. Thomas Halle. He makes an eye-catching point about the Warren Commission lacking the "scientific disinterest" it should have had, which is an interesting way of saying that that they should have begun the investigation without any bias. But, what a joke! Bias? They began the investigation with their minds made up that Oswald did it, and did it alone. They were hell-bent on proving it, with the new President telling them there would be World War 3 if they didn't. In reality, the Warren Commission was just a Stalinist show trial in the USSA, the United Soviet States of America. RC




Warren Report: Fact or Fiction
by Dr. Thomas Halle


The single redeeming characteristic of the Warren Report (WR) is that a careful examination of the text (and particularly of the material in the “Hearings” and “Exhibits”) reveals many contradictions and inconsistencies, inconsistencies that demonstrate that the formulaic conclusion of “lone, crazed gunman” is a fabrication, and bears as much relationship to reality and honest and comprehensive investigation as the notion of an orb of “green cheese” does to the actual moon appearing above our heads. There is great poignancy to this, of course. The Report abounds with problems, but to think that the damned thing even refutes itself can be a great source of fun. One can only reflect that this resembles the case of a petty thief who inadvertently drops his wallet at the “scene of the crime,” thus incriminating himself…without even the necessity of a bumbling Inspector Clouseau.
 
The most glaring problem with the Report is that it violates the principle of scientific disinterest (and of legitimate investigative principles and practices, such as the insistence on Intact chains of evidence and a refusal to resort to the “cherry-picking of evidence” to support one’s hypothesis). This is no idle claim, as the Commission over and over again shifts “pieces of the puzzle” (frequently already manipulated items of witness testimony and physical evidence) to fit its target formula, in a distinctly Procrustean way. But, wait!! Do we receive even the semblance of legitimacy…as the Commission members, lawyers and aides…listed a number of suspects, then gradually whittled this down to suspect Lee Oswald? Nope, no way. Even Jim Braden, a known mafia hit-man, apprehended in the Dal-Tex building with a rifle in his possession, was summarily released (and was never mentioned in the Report). This speaks to the enormity of the crime, and of the slip-shod and dishonest character of the investigation of this crime.
 
Of course, from a legal standpoint, the Commission also seems to have conveniently forgotten the central American criminal justice principle of “presumption of innocence” (which demands that the “government” bears the burden of proof, rather than the defendant). The Warren Commission never meets its burden, and a casual examination of the “Table of Contents” shows that it had no intention of doing so. Anyone of any intelligence and education will see that these problems render the Report a nullity, in reality a farce. And, as if to underline this fact, we have the reality that three members of the Commission—Russell, Cooper and Boggs—dissented from the Report’s conclusions, and only agreed to sign it with the promise that their dissent would be noted. It was not, meaning that these gentlemen were betrayed, even as the American people were betrayed (and as the memory of President Kennedy was betrayed).
 
Rather than mount an honest, objective and comprehensive investigation, the Commission decided upon two goals—the assuaging of our fears (particularly of a possible international connection, and even of a nuclear war), and of protecting American institutions. A very early memo from acting Attorney General Nicholaus deB. Katzenbach to Bill Moyers stressed the importance of convincing the American public of Oswald’s exclusive culpability…with no international implications. The fix was in!!
 
The Commission soon assumed the role of “Star Chamber” tribunal, sitting in judgment of one particular suspect, Oswald. And this poor schnook (probably a patsy, just as he’d claimed!) never received ANYTHING in the way of a legal defense. In fact, he never received ANYTHING in the way of “due process.” The Warren Commission (and the risible document it produced) was so bad, that it serves as its own indictment.
 
The Warren Report was an immense scandal, and bears a strong resemblance to the famous Dreyfus affair in the late nineteenth century. Like novelist Emile Zola, we shout “J’accuse!!”
 
One might forgive a few young and uneducated souls who have fecklessly accepted the conclusions of the Report, along with some mental defectives, but I would find it exceedingly difficult to extend this courtesy to anyone else. Many in public service and the media would rightly be placed in the general category of what Sylvia Meagher called “Accessories after the Fact.” And, what these repulsive individuals—like Gerald Posner and Vincent Bugliosi--deserve is a couple of weeks in the pillory and a public shunning. In fact, it would bother me not at all...should the profits from their books and talks be confiscated, and they be banished from the country for a decade.