Saturday, September 23, 2017

So, Denis Morissette thinks he can arm-wrestle with the Wizard? I pity the fool. This is the ridiculous image that Morissette came up with of Bookhout's father, that is unsourced. 

And here is what the Wizard found. It is from but the British version. It says that it is Frank Bookhout and his wife Mary Agnes, whose maiden name was Sullivant.

And as you can see, he did not have s-shaped eyebrows. Here's the link. When you get there, you'll have to scroll down:

What Morissette submitted is just more JFK photographic flim-flam from the people who have been flim-flamming it since before it even happened, starting with the phony Backyard photos. 

Wizard 1;  Morissette 0. 

Let's look further at Oswald's statement to Bookhout in the hallway right before the 6:30 Saturday evening interrogation. It's interesting that by that point in time, the "air" about him was very different from how it was when they first marched him into City Hall the day before. Then, the tension in the air was thick, and you could cut it with a knife. But, by Saturday evening, it was much more relaxed. You hear someone saying, "Here he comes, there he is..." But, there is no tension with it; no animosity; it was more like announcing the arrival of a celebrity. Listen to it yourself:

Then, once in the hallway, Oswald goes up to Bookhout to talk to him. And what's amazing about it is that even though he was handcuffed in front, that he was so free in his ability to move. The afternoon before, the big cop had a grip on his arm, and it seemed like a vise. But here, I don't even know if Oswald was being held at all. I can't tell. Can you tell? But, if he was being held, it was a light hold. You see Oswald walking over to Bookhout, which obviously wasn't ordered or scheduled, and no one stops him. No one pulls him away; no one pulls him back.

So, if someone had Oswald's arm, and we can't tell from this image, he wasn't really steering him or restraining him. Oswald, on his own power, went up to Bookhout. And the fact that Bookhout's eyes are closed is probably photographic flim-flam. Why would that guy, whoever he was, have his eyes closed? Notice how the eye brow got erased laterally. And notice that he's got hair growing over his ear. An FBI agent? Do you see the haircut on the detective looming large in the picture? Well, that's about how all those law enforcement guys were groomed. None of them had hair growing over his ear. So yes, they doctored that image of Bookhout. But then again, we have yet to find an image of Bookhout that wasn't doctored. 

But, let's hone in on what Oswald said to Bookhout. He said; "What have you got against Broby?" Now, Broby may not be correct. That's the most I can gather from the sound of it, but they may have deliberately muffled that word so that we can't hear it correctly. And who knows: they could have even substituted "Broby" for whatever he said; an audio splice. But, what I think we can be sure of is that Oswald asked Bookhout what he had against somebody; against some person. 

So, Oswald must have cited a person, and Bookhout must have said something derogatory about that person. But, who could Oswald have cited, and why would he have cited him? He must have cited someone whom he thought would vindicate him; whom he thought would vouch for him; and it must have been someone from the intelligence community. Who else? You don't think they were making small talk, do you? They weren't talking about some team's quarterback, were they? 

So, Oswald must have said something like, "Talk to so-and-so. He'll tell you that I have ties to the intelligence community. And he'll certainly tell you that I could not have shot the President. The whole idea is crazy. Why would I do such a thing? I'd have to be out of my mind, and I'm not."

And then, that very night, he tried to call John Hurt in Raleigh, North Carolina, which was close to a Navy intelligence center. If we put aside the spin and just go to the testimony of the night operator who witnessed it, and actually, it was the supervisor of the woman who did it, who handled it, she said it was definitely an outgoing call. And she said that two detectives showed up and instructed the woman not to put the call through. 

So, Oswald attempted to do the smartest thing he could have done, which was to reach out to someone he knew in the U.S. intelligence community to vouch for him. 

It's a little complicated because the switchboard operator involved was L. Sweeney, I think Louise. But, this memo was actually written by her supervisor, Aretha something, if I recall correctly. 

  Look what it says there. It says Collect. That means it was outgoing. Who would call the Dallas Police Department to speak to Oswald and make the call Collect? That is absurd. The fact that Oswald had both of those numbers memorized to give to the operator tells you the importance he put on the connection. 

Besides, if you read the form, it definitely indicates outgoing. For instance, it says the call was "To" Raleigh, NC. It doesn't say "From".  Then, Oswald is described as the "Person calling" and Hurt is described as the "Person called." And Aretha stipulated it just that way. 

The only things Fritz wrote down about the Saturday evening interrogation was Oswald's denial of being in the Backyard photo and his complaint about being in just a t-shirt for the lineup. But, they had to talk about more than that, right? And once Oswald denied ever owning or possessing the rifle and claimed to be in the doorway during the shots, what else could they ask him about the JFK shooting? And when did they ever ask him anything about the Tippit shooting? We never even heard how Oswald said he got from his room to the theater. They must have asked, and he must have said, right? So, why isn't it part of the record? 

And then at the final interview on Sunday morning, presumably the longest, Fritz wrote down absolutely nothing about what was said. 

And let's consider that Oswald denied the claims of Frazier and his sister that he carried a long bag. And in Frazier's case, it wasn't even long enough to house the rifle. And he described the bag as an ordinary grocery bag- from the grocery store. Now, do you think that if you began with paper and tape that you could make a bag that anyone would mistake for a grocery bag from the grocery store? And think about the fact that they could find absolutely no one who could corroborate the claims of Frazier and his sister. No one in that building, apparently, saw Oswald with a long bag, even though it was something he couldn't hide. And after Jack Doughterty denied that Oswald carried such a bag, don't you think they canvassed the rest of the employees. "Did you see Oswald early this morning, and did you observe him carrying a long bag?" How many employees were asked that question? It had to be a lot. 

Oswald may well have alluded to his intelligence connections during those lengthy interrogations. And I mean that he named names.    

Adam C Steel Oswald was clever
LikeShow more reactions
Reply5 hrs
Ralph Cinque Yes. He was clever, and he was downright smart. He did a good job of vouching for his innocence in the two days that he lived. And it's one of the reasons they had to kill him so fast because if he ever talked to a lawyer, the entire case against him would have crumbled. They knew it, so they had to kill him before he talked to one. But, Oswald was innocent; not just innocent of shooting, but innocent of any involvement in the assassination. Jim Garrison came to that conclusion. So, don't read too much into Oswald's statement about being a patsy. Don't take from it that he knew whose patsy he was and how the assassination went down. He had no explicit knowledge of any of that. What he said that was very telling is that "they're taking me in because I lived in the Soviet Union." So, he thought that because he had defected to Russia that he was automatically a suspect, like he was on some kind of list, that it was a matter of "rounding up the usual suspects." That's what he thought. And I think his plan was to get the people that he knew in the intelligence community to vouch for him. That's why he attempted to reach the intelligence agent in North Carolina late Saturday night, John Hurt, as you recently reminded me his name.

Friday, September 22, 2017

I just remembered that the Wizard found an image of Bookhout's father, and you can see he did not have s-shaped eyebrows.

So, on what basis does Denis Morissette claim that this is Bookhout's father?

That is Denis Morissette, and he sent me this image, purportedly of Bookhout's father, to show that s-shaped eyebrows run in the family. But, how hard would it be to alter the image on the right, which looks more like a charcoal drawing than a photograph?

And we are only talking about digitally altering it, which I could easily do myself. Here's Sean Connery:
I did that. See how easy it is? I'm not even an expert. And I didn't even use the best program. That's just using Paint, not Photoshop.

So, you certainly can't go by the image Denis provided. Wouldn't it be better to look at a photograph of Bookhout's son?

Nobody has or had eyebrows like this:

Furthermore, the new alleged images of Bookhout don't show eyebrows like that.

Surely, if he had an S happening there, we'd see it.

And likewise above. So once again, Denis Morissette has shown his extreme gullibility, his lack of judgment, and his propensity to bend, twist, and turn to accommodate the narrative that he prefers. An unyielding, uncompromising commitment to truth he most certainly does NOT have. 

I mentioned last night that Denis Morissette has put those alleged new images of James Bookhout up on his JFK investigators website, and he's done so without qualification or reservation. There are no question marks this time, no disclaimers, no expressions of any doubt. But, consider that there is a qualitative difference between the two images. 

One occurs in a newspaper article in which it states that James Bookhout is in the picture. Of course, that isn't proof of anything. Newspapers can be wrong in their descriptions and designations, and often they are. But, at least it provides an argumentative basis to claim that it's Bookhout; that is: it provides a reference to him.

But, what about this image? It doesn't come with any reference.

How can one just be presumptive that that has to be James Bookhout? According to Morissette, it was found by Bart Kamp. So what. Is he God? Do we automatically accept the claims of Bart Kamp? Bart Kamp believes that this is Lee Harvey Oswald:

So, that establishes his photo-identifying skill and lack thereof. So, why should anyone accept his claims about Bookhout?

Furtheremore, we don't even know anything about this image.

It's a digital image, so presumably, Bart Kamp found it online somewhere. But where? How could it not show up in searches before now, say, in searches for images of Will Fritz? And what do we know about the time of that picture? How do we even know it's from the JFK assassination? And what basis is there to assume that that guy is Bookhout? He has a very gaunt face, and we know that in Bookhout's last image prior to the assassination, which unfortunately goes back to 1937, his face was very puffy.

 We see disparity of the ears, nose, face in general, eyebrows certainly, and even the hair is dubious. How could a man who was already showing signs of recession at age 23 have the exact same hairline at 49? Isn't hair loss progressive? 

And if you're going to use the newspaper image as verification for this other image, you can't because the man in the newspaper clipping was obviously very tall whereas this other man was not.

And there are other differences as well. There is the puffy face on the left and the gaunt face on the right. There is neat, normal looking hair on the left but a strange haircut on the right, with a big sweep on the side and then a crewcut in front, followed by unruly hair behind it. And, it's especially disconcerting because we know that all the FBI agents were very clean-cut with short tidy haircuts.

So, without explaining how and where he found it, Bart Kamp makes the extraordinary claim that that's James Bookhout, and the "research community" just accepts it carte blanche? Is that how it works? 

Denis: take those images down from your website. If you have a shred of decency and honesty, you will do so.    

Thursday, September 21, 2017

Denis Morissette has put up both new alleged images of James Bookhout on his JFK investigators website, and he got rid of the previous bogus image of Bookhout. And it's the second time, that I know of, that he has had to remove a bogus image of Bookhout.  

So, you would think that that would give him caution before making claims about any new images. You would think that would cause him to seek some confirmation and validation before he installs these new images.  But no, he just goes right to it.

And just think: James Bookhout's son Jim is still very much alive and presumably very accessible. He can be reached through the Texas Peace Officer's Flag Fund, which raises money to honor fallen Texas police officers. It's a noble cause. My father was a police officer, and he had several close calls in which he could have been killed. His partner was killed just inches away from him. Luckily, my father always came home.

So, why wouldn't Denis Morissette check with Jim Bookhout before putting up any more pictures of his father? And especially in this case when the two images he put up don't even correlate with each other. By all indications, one man was very tall while the other was of average height. 

So, why wouldn't Denis check with Jim first? 

"Jim, this is Denis Morissette, a JFK researcher. Two images of your father have surfaced, and before I put them up on my JFK investigators website, I want to run them by you. That's because I have been wrong in the past, and I don't want to put up any more bogus images of your dad. So, please take a look at these two images and tell me if either or both of them are your father. I would appreciate it very much. And thank you. "