Jump to content
The Education Forum

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'oswald'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Welcome to the Education Forum
    • Forum Information, Development and Communication
    • Biographical Details
    • News, events and member notices
  • Curriculum Subjects
    • ICT
    • Music
    • Media Studies
    • Government and Politics
    • Economics and Business Studies
    • Chinese
    • EFL
    • English
    • Mathematics
    • Design and Technology
    • History
    • Geography
    • Science
    • Modern Languages
    • Social Sciences
    • Art and Design
    • Physical Education
    • Philosophy
    • Dance and Drama
    • Health and Social Care
  • Educational Issues
    • Government Initiatives
    • E-Learning
    • Debates in Education
    • Pastoral Care
    • Special Educational Needs
    • Learning Outside School
    • Cross Curricular Teaching Resources
    • International Schools
    • Non-Academic Discussions
    • Flexible Learning
  • Educational Conferences
    • Schools History Project
    • Learning Technology Conference (LT04)
  • European Virtual School
    • Information
    • Resources
    • Cross Curricular Cooperation
    • History Department
  • International Projects
    • E-Help
    • ENIS
    • Cross Curricular Cooperation
    • Student Collaboration
    • Spring Europe
    • E-HELP
    • E-HELP Seminars
    • Citizenship Project
  • Association of Teacher Websites
    • Information
    • Member Web sites
    • ATW Departments
  • Teacher Training
    • Student Teacher Support
  • European Languages Forum
    • Deutsch
    • Forum en Français
    • Svensktalande
    • Sección en español
    • Nederlands
    • Ellinikos tomeas
    • Italian Speakers
    • Ceská a Slovenská cást fóra.
    • Latin, the Language, the Inscriptions, and the Use
  • Controversial Issues in History
    • JFK Assassination Debate
    • JFK Research
    • JFK Questions
    • JFK Discussions
    • JFK Book Discussions
    • JFK Deep Politics
    • JFK Online Seminars
    • Political Conspiracies
    • 11 September 2001 attacks
    • The Apollo Moon Landings
    • History and Political Books: Debates with Authors
    • Watergate
    • Jack the Ripper
    • Robert Kennedy
    • Cold War
    • Nazi Germany
    • The Death of Marilyn Monroe
    • Martin Luther King and Civil Rights
    • Chappaquiddick
    • Political Discussions
  • Educational Research
    • JFK Debate
    • Environmental Issues
    • Black History
    • Cold War
    • Oral History of the Olympic Games
  • Historical Association
    • News
    • Teaching History
    • Local History
  • Ask an Expert
    • History
    • ICT
  • Online Games
    • Welcome to Online Games
  • Holiday Guide
    • Holiday Recommendations
  • Women's Studies

Product Groups

  • Widgets
  • JFK Items for Physical Sales on the EF E_Store
  • JFK Items for Digital Sales on the EF E_Store

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







  1. Hello all. I am confused.....I own the audiobook of Newman's "Oswald And The CIA" and this seems to be the 2008 Edition for absolutely sure. My confusion stems from the fact that the new epilogue (2008 ed.) is missing. It is not read by the narrator (Tom Weiner). Can anyone shed any light on this oddity? I believe this is the 2008 ed. (even has the cover?).This is unfortunate as I would've loved the newer epilogue in audio/narrative form along with the rest of the audiobook.
  2. To start this thread off, I thought I'd share this article. It raises some good points, IMHO. https://peternewburysblog.wordpress.com/2013/07/29/oswalds-kostikov-letter/ Comments? -- Tommy
  3. Death of the Lone Gunman Theory and the Zapruder film I went to Dealey Plaza at about the same time I started thinking about the Kennedy assassination. Robert Groden and his crew were set up there about July 17, 2015. Somehow, I got the notion he was responsible for X marks the spot. If not, Robert, I stand corrected and apologize. They were nice people until I screwed up and said I could paint the head wound in the Zapruder film better. That ended the conversation dramatically as the fellow turned and walked away. In recent times, if most people say that the Zapruder film is a hoax then we need to move on to something else. So, what did the witnesses say happened about X marks the spot? I surveyed 50 witnesses who were the closest to the alleged sniper’s nest and those that said they saw something happen in the TSBD on various floors. This is because the Lone Gun Man theorists say that Lee Oswald fired his rifle from the eastern-most window on the 6th floor of the TSBD. And, this is the central core of that theory. A list of these witnesses is at the end of this discussion. Although I do include information on where the shots came from that is not the focus of this survey. Other people have done that. What I was interested in was where the witness was and where the President was when the witness heard shots. I biased he study. The bias is to what the witness said in their first testimony to either the FBI, the Dallas authorities, or the Secret Service. That was preferred over their later testimony. I thought their memories would be the freshest and they would not be as much influenced by others on what they said. I noticed in reading these testimonies that they evolved from November, 1963 to March, 1964. This evolution generally favored the Lone Gun Man theory. A good example is the testimony of Bonnie Ray Williams. First, he said he heard shots when the presidential limousine turned from Main Street onto Houston Street. Second, he changed that to when the limousine turned into the intersection of Elm and Houston. Third, he again changed that to after the limousine passed his position. This seems to have satisfied the FBI. If you were a smart lawyer wouldn’t you like to have this kind of testimony to work with? So, you can redo this survey with later testimony and change the numbers somewhat. There was not any complex statistical methods applied, there was no test of significance, no correlation ratios, or analysis of variance done. What was used is just simple addition and percentages. Here are the results. Where The President Was When Shots Occurred One witness, Bonnie Ray Williams, locates the President at the intersection of Main and Houston Streets turning onto Houston St, when he heard two shots. 24 or nearly half of the 50 witnesses, about 48%, who had been surveyed made statements that located the President turning into the intersection of Elm Street and Houston Street, or in front of the TSBD when shots were heard. In later testimony in their statements some changed their testimony to indicate the President had passed by their location thus indicating he was further down the street towards the Grassy Knoll. 8 witnesses, about 16%, located the President at or near the Grassy Knoll. 11 witnesses, about 22%, did not give enough information to indicate where the President was located when shots were heard. 1 witness located the assassination location as near the Triple Underpass. 5 witnesses, about 10%, didn’t know where the president was when they heard shots. Where The Shots Came From 9 witnesses, 18%, said they did not know where the shots came from. 12 witnesses, 24%, didn’t say where the shots came from. 1 witness, 2%, said they came from up in the air and didn’t know for sure. If you combine the first 3 bullet points you come up with 22 witnesses or 44% didn’t know where the shots came from or didn’t say. 3 witnesses, 6%, said the shots came from the Triple Underpass. 6 witnesses, 12%, said the shots came from the 6th floor of the TSBD. 7 witnesses, 14%, said the shots came from the TSBD. If you combine the last two bullet points on the TSBD then you would have 13 witnesses, 26%, who said shots came from the TSBD. 1 witness, Junior Jarmen on the 5th floor, said he heard shots from low and to the left. 1 witness, Billy Lovelady, heard shots from across the street. 1 witness heard shots from the Court House. 1 witness heard shots from the Court Records building. When you combine the last 4 bullet points of witnesses hearing shots from near Houston Street you have 8%. 1 witness heard shooting in front of the TSBD and thought is was a party celebration. 7 witnesses, 14%, said they heard shooting from the Grassy Knoll. With 48% of the witnesses surveyed saying the shooting began when the President’s limousine turned into the intersection of Elm and Houston or was in front of the TSBD casts reasonable doubt on the Lone Gun Man theory. And, in court in with a jury, if there is reasonable doubt about an event then that event didn’t happen. You can’t use it. So, there goes a good deal of evidence about the Kennedy assassination. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a killer. Because of reasonable doubt you cannot prove that Lee Oswald or anyone fired a rifle from the alleged sniper’s nest. Here’s a brief explanation concerning witnesses closest to the alleged sniper’s nest. There were 3 men on the 5th floor of the TBSD when the assassination occurred. They were just below the sniper’s nest. They are: Harold Norman- testified in detail about shooting from the sniper’s nest Bonnie Ray Williams- said essentially the same as Norman but in less detail James “Junior” Jarmen- said in his Warren Commission testimony he heard shots from low and to the left. What’s going on there? Shots from the Dal-Tex? There were 4 women two floors below the sniper’s nest and about 40 feet away on the 4th floor. Forty feet away is less than the average distance across an American home. They should have heard what the men heard. Vickie Adams- said she was at the third sets of windows from the east side of the building on the fourth floor. She heard shots in the direction of the Grassy Knoll Sandra Styles- couldn’t tell where the shots came from Dorothy Garner- said she heard shooting coming from the west. Elsie Dorman- said she heard shooting coming from the Court Records Building. If you were a smart defense lawyer wouldn’t you love to have this kind of testimony to work with? A good question is why didn’t the investigators pick up on this? Five out of seven witnesses closest to the sniper’s nest said they did not hear shots coming from the alleged sniper’s nest. Read what Barry Krusch has to say about the legal consequences of reasonable doubt in his book Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald. It only takes one incidence of reasonable doubt to cast a whole pile of evidence into disarray. List of 50 witnesses closest to alleged Sniper’s Nest 6th Floor Witnesses Jack Daugherty- not there at the time of the assassination Bonnie Ray Williams- not there at the time of the assassination Witnesses outside the TSBD who saw something on the 6th floor or elsewhere Carolyn Walther Mrs. Pearl Springer Arnold Rowland Garland Slack James Worrell Robert Edwards Ronald Fischer Amos Euins Harold Brennan Mrs. Earle Cabell Robert Jackson Malcom Couch Tom Dillard James Underwood 5th Floor Witnesses Harold Norman Bonnie Ray Williams James “Junior” Jarman Mary Hollies- the two women are included here due to Mary Hollies 2011 statements. They will only be counted once Betty Alice Foster The Fourth Floor Witnesses: They Were: Elsie Dorman Sandra Styles Vickie Adams Dorothy Garner Mary Hollies- allegedly on the 5th floor Betty Alice Foster- allegedly on the 5th floor Ruth Nelson Yola Hopson 3rd Floor Witnesses: They were: Steven Wilson Doris Fay Burns Sandra Sue Ellerson Edna Case The Second Floor Witnesses They were: Carol Hughes Vida Lee Whatley? Geneva Hine Geraldine Reid (aka Jeraldean or Geraldean) Lee Harvey Oswald First Floor Witnesses They were: Eddie Piper Troy West Out Front of the TSBD Witnesses Betty Jean Thornton William “Bill” Shelley Billy Lovelady Carolyn Arnold Danny Arce Jane Berry Judith McCully Ochus Cambell Otis Neville Williams Pauline Sanders (Mrs. Robert E. Sanders) Mrs. R. A. Reid Virginia Rackley *Not all of these witnesses provided relevant testimony. Lee Oswald and Vida Lee Whatley are examples.
  4. looking through some material regarding George Bouhe and friends, I found this statement as recorded in an FBI interview by SA Malon Jennings on 12/3/63. "Kleinlerer stated that he's a very good friend of Max Clark. When he saw in the paper that Oswald was returning to the US with his Russian wife, he spoke to Max Clark and his wife at that time, and he was against having anything to do with Oswald because he said he did not trust him. He stated that at that time, Max Clark seemed to feel the same way, but later Oswald and his wife were brought to Ft Worth by some of the Dallas acquaintances of Max Clark." (2nd attachment, 2nd paragraph) Now this interview of Kleinlerer was in the context of investigating "other individuals" connected to George Bouhe and the St Nich Parish Russian community; I can't imagine Kleinlerer saying he didn't trust Oswald on the sole basis of whatever a newspaper article would have stated about him or the fact that he was returning from Russia. The way this statement is written, it certainly sounds to me like there was some kind of knowledge of or familiarity with Oswald by both K. and Max Clark previous to O's trip to Russia. On the previous page to this one, Kleinlerer is described as saying he just met O. 14 months ago, through Elena Hall. Am I missing something, or reading too much into this...??? Or does that sound kinda curious to anyone else, too?
  5. Here is a forwarded question from Jeff Carter, who has been working with me on the 5o Reasons series: Watching same-day TV coverage of the assassination and I am curious when Oswald was first identified by name in the media. The earliest I have found is interesting. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbiS7AaUDfA (at aprox 2 minutes 45 seconds). Footage originates from ABC's network studio in New York, where news anchor Don Goddard is on camera with network VP and former Eisenhower press man James Hagerty. Over the course of several segments, Hagerty had been making a case that this has the appearance of a well-planned conspiracy. He is finishing up a discussion of the difficulties of Secret Service protection in large-city motorcades when Goddard says: "Well, this adds one to the case for conspiracy then. and the Dallas Police are apparently trying to add another - they have arrested a 24-year-old man, Lee Oswald in connection with a slaying of a Dallas policeman and presumably also the slaying of a secret service man in another part of Dallas which happened shortly before the President…" Hagerty inhales and cuts Goddard off to praise quick reaction by the Secret Service in speeding away from Dealey Plaza. (Based on eyewitness report from ABC reporter Bob Clark, who also interestingly said that the motorcade came to a complete halt, which Hagerty does not mention). (The story of a dead Secret Service man has been attached to the news from Oak Cliff up to this time, but soon is dropped. ) This sequence occurs soon after Zapruder's appearance on the local affiliate (WFAA-TV), which began approx 2:10 PM CST - so the Oswald ID as delivered by Goddard happens somewhere between 2:20 - 2:25 PM CST (certainly before 2:30). Not only that, Goddard appears to read this information from a piece of paper which has been sitting before him since they returned to air immediately following Zapruder. Interestingly, the local affiliate WFAA follows up about a half hour later with information attributed to DPD captain Pat Gannaway that the "suspect" worked at the TSBD and lived in Russia (WFAA Part 14). Oswald's name and age are not mentioned. Would this mean that Oswald's name and age was available to ABC's network office in NYC before it was announced to reporters in Dallas?
  6. Good Day.... When you have an opportunity, please take a moment + vote for as many suspects as you want (or, type your suspect into the "other" category) in my JFK assassination poll, provided here, .... Thank You for your help.... http://www.poll-maker.com/poll582529x14164d8d-25 Best Regards in Research, + ++Don Donald Roberdeau United States Navy U.S.S. John F. Kennedy, CV-67, plank walker Sooner, or later, The Truth emerges clearly For your key considerations + independent determinations.... Homepages Website: "Men of Courage": President Kennedy-elimination Evidence, Witnesses, Photographers, Outstanding Researchers Discoveries, Suspects, + Key Considerations.... http://droberdeau.blogspot.com/2009/08/1-men-of-courage-jfk-assassination_09.html The Dealey Plaza Detailed Map: Documented 11-22-63 Victims Precise Locations + Reactions, Evidence, Witnesses Locations, Photographers, Suspected Bullet Trajectories, Outstanding Researchers Discoveries, + Important Information + Key Considerations, in One Convenient Resource.... http://i.imgur.com/rGmmWxD.gif ( updated map, + new information ) Discovery: Very Close JFK Assassination Witness ROSEMARY WILLIS's Zapruder Film Documented 2nd Head Snap: West, Ultrafast, and Directly Towards the Grassy Knoll .... http://droberdeau.blogspot.com/2011/01/discovery-close-jfk-assassination.html Visual Report: The First Bullet Impact Into President Kennedy: While JFK was Still Hidden Under the "Magic-limbed-ricochet-tree".... http://i.imgur.com/rfRH5jX.gif Visual Report: Reality Versus C.A.D. : the Real World, versus, Garbage-in-garbage-out.... http://i.imgur.com/r8Ga26x.gif T ogether E veryone A chieves M ore For the United States: http://www.dhs.gov
  7. Good Day.... FYI.... http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/01/25/conspiracy-theorist-entitled-to-foia-fees.htm <QUOTE> Courthouse News Service Conspiracy Theorist Entitled to FOIA Fees By JACK BOUBOUSHIAN (CN) - A reporter who fought the CIA for over 10 years to force it to release documents related to the Kennedy assassination is entitled to attorney's fees even if the records reveal little new information, the D.C. Circuit ruled. Former Washington Post reporter Jefferson Morley has spent years investigating a potential link between a deceased CIA officer and accused Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald. Morley asked for records on George Joannides, the chief of psychological warfare operations in the CIA's Miami station at the time of the assassination. On the his website jfkfacts.com, Morley writes that Joannides controlled the Revolutionary Cuban Student Directorate, also known as the DRE, "one of the largest and most effective anti-Castro groups in the United States." He claims Joannides gave the group up to $25,000 a month and insisted the members "submit to CIA discipline." Members of the Directorate had an allegedly contentious relationship with Oswald, an ex-Marine who idolized Castro. They confronted Oswald on a street corner, "stared him down in a courtroom," challenged him to a radio debate and called on Congress to investigate him, Morley claims. Unsure of what to make of Joannides-DRE-Oswald connection, Morley asked for Joannides' personnel file. He says the CIA gave him 150 pages of "heavily redacted and obviously incomplete records." The CIA claimed it withheld information on privacy grounds or because it couldn't find the requested files. But in 2007, the D.C. Circuit ordered the CIA to look again. "Despite its burden to show that withholding is necessary, the CIA has failed even to articulate the privacy interests in the records, let alone demonstrate that such privacy interests meet the standard for an agency's withholding" under the exemption, the court wrote. The agency has to show that disclosure would constitute a "clearly unwarranted" invasion of personal privacy. The CIA eventually turned over several hundred documents, including travel records and a photograph, the value of which is "at best unclear," the D.C. Circuit said Friday. According to Morley, the records revealed that Joannides received a Career Intelligence Medal just two years after "stonewalling congressional investigators about what he knew of contacts in 1963 between accused assassin Lee Oswald and CIA-funded anti-Castro exiles in New Orleans." Morley sought attorney's fees as the prevailing party in the litigation, but a federal judge denied him, finding that Morley's efforts "yield little, if any, public benefit." On appeal, the D.C. Circuit agreed that "the released documents appear to reveal little, if anything, about President Kennedy's assassination." However, it said the court's job was not to evaluate the public value of the information received, but the potential value of what documents Morley sought. "Morley's request had potential public value. He has proffered - and the CIA has not disputed - that Joannides served as the CIA case officer for a Cuban group, the DRE, with whose officers Oswald was in contact prior to the assassination. Travel records showing a very close match between Joannides's and Oswald's times in New Orleans might, for example, have (marginally) supported one of the hypotheses swirling around the assassination,"U.S. Circuit Judge Stephen Williams said, writing for the three-judge panel. It was therefore plausible that Morley's documents request could have generated useful new information on Kennedy's assassination, "an event with few rivals in national trauma in the array of passionately held conflicting explanations," Williams said. DOCUMENT: http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/01/25/kennedy.pdf <END QUOTE> Best Regards in Research, + ++Don Donald Roberdeau United States Navy U.S.S. John F. Kennedy, CV-67, plank walker Sooner, or later, The Truth emerges clearly For your key considerations + independent determinations.... Homepages Website: "Men of Courage": President Kennedy-elimination Evidence, Witnesses, Photographers, Outstanding Researchers Discoveries, Suspects, + Key Considerations.... http://droberdeau.blogspot.com/2009/08/1-men-of-courage-jfk-assassination_09.html The Dealey Plaza Detailed Map: Documented 11-22-63 Victims Precise Locations + Reactions, Evidence, Witnesses Locations, Photographers, Suspected Bullet Trajectories, Outstanding Researchers Discoveries, + Important Information + Key Considerations, in One Convenient Resource.... http://i.imgur.com/rGmmWxD.gif ( updated map, + new information ) Visual Report: The First Bullet Impact Into President Kennedy: While JFK was Still Hidden Under the 'magic-limbed-ricochet-tree'.... http://i.imgur.com/rfRH5jX.gif Visual Report: Reality Versus C.A.D.: the Real World, Versus, 'garbage-in-garbage-out'.... http://i.imgur.com/r8Ga26x.gif Discovery: Very Close JFK Assassination Witness Rosemary Willis's Zapruder Film Documented 2nd Head Snap: West, Ultrafast, and Directly Towards the Grassy Knoll .... http://droberdeau.blogspot.com/2011/01/discovery-close-jfk-assassination.html T ogether E veryone A chieves M ore For the United States: http://www.dhs.gov
  8. Good Day.... Several auctions for JFK memorabilia that can be bid for, including the 11-22-63 keys to the presidential limousine. (You can view the descriptions + item photos of each individual auction lot from within the "GOLDINAUCTIONS" website).... http://www.auctionreport.com/auction-preview/historic-jfk-assassination-related-memorabilia-for-sale-in-the-goldin-auctions-2016-winter-auction/ <QUOTE> Historic JFK Assassination Related Memorabilia for Sale in the Goldin Auctions 2016 Winter Auction Ten lots of rare artifacts directly related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy are up for auction from January 11th through January 30th, 2016, online at www.GoldinAuctions.com. The lots include keys to JFK’s limousine, the keys that unlocked both Lee Harvey Oswald’s jail cell and handcuffs, plus a lock of hair from the President and a small leather swatch of bloodstained leather cut from the rear seat of the limousine. Nearly as unique as these artifacts is a lot featuring the 1963 White House Christmas Card signed by the President and First Lady. One of just 15 cards the First Couple got to sign before that fateful day in Dallas. “The assassination of President Kennedy is one of America’s darkest days and as a result artifacts from it are treasured by collectors and historians,” said Ken Goldin Founder of Goldin Auctions. “We are honored to share these lots with the diverse universe of collectors and historians.” Here are brief descriptions of the ten lots. To register for the auction or to receive a free catalog, visit http://www.GoldinAuctions.com . Lot #14: 1963 White House Christmas Card Signed by JFK and Jackie – Just one of 15 such cards the President and First Lady were able to sign before that fateful day in Dallas. (LOA from PSA/DNA) Lot #15: 1962 Lee Harvey Oswald Envelope Addressed to his Mother from Russia –The envelope features a Minsk postmark and a USPS employee’s notation “1st Notice. 12-12-61″ in ballpoint pen. The envelope has been paired with Oswald’s mugshot and the entire piece is professionally matted and framed to 17 1/2″ x 22 1/2″. Letter of Authenticity from PSA/DNA. Lot #16 – 1961 Lee Harvey Oswald Letter to his Mother from Soviet Union – This three-page hand written letter from Oswald to his mother in Texas dates from January 2, 1962. In the letter Oswald asks his mother to help secure visas for him and his wife to return to the U.S. Lot #17: Key from Cell Block F of the Dallas City Jail that housed both Oswald and Jack Ruby – The key shows great use and has taken on a brownish-gold patina with age. It is mounted alongside a color photo of cell F-2 and a black and white 8×10 of Dallas Assistant Jailer Henry Ellison who[se] job it was to carry this key. Ellison’s signed letter describing the provenance and significance of the key is mounted alongside the other artifacts. Lot #18 – Original Keys to the Presidential Limousine in which JFK was assassinated in. The two metal keys are just over two inches long and are embossed with the Lincoln Motor Company’s logo. The keys are mounted with a color 8×10 photograph of the car and its occupants on that fateful day in Dallas. Comes with a provenance in the form of a notarized statement from R. Steven Turner that reads: “This is an original set of keys to the Presidential limousine (SS-100-X) that President John F. Kennedy rode in on November 22, 1963. I obtained them from the Secret Service motor pool, while I was a criminal investigator with the Department of Justice.” Also comes with a Certificate of Authenticity from Erik L. Dorr of the Gettysburg Museum of History. Lot #19 – Oswald Handcuff Key – The key is mounted along with a dramatic black and white 8×10 of Oswald in the handcuffs this key unlocked and a copy of Assistant Jailer Henry Ellison’s Dallas Police identity card. Also mounted is a 1998 signed letter from Ellison that states in part “This was my personal handcuff key that I used to unlock the handcuffs that were holding Lee Harvey Oswald when he arrived at the Dallas City Jail on the fifth floor November 22, 1963…I was on duty working as an assistant Jailer of the Service Division of the Dallas Police Department. Lee Harvey Oswald was captured at the Texas Theatre, handcuffed and transferred to the Dallas City Jail. Lot #20 – JFK Assassination Artifact Collection — This unique five item collection of historical artifacts relating to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy is diverse. Two pieces relate to the President: a lock of about ten strands of the President’s hair which was cut at the home of Kennedy’s brother-in-law Peter Lawford in 1963 and a small leather swatch of bloodstained leather cut from the rear seat of the limousine the President was riding in when he was assassinated. Oswald is represented by a 4 1/4″ x 6″ registered letter envelope he sent from Minsk to his mother in Texas. Jack Ruby is represented by a 1951 dated check from one of his nightclubs, the “Silver Spur”. The lot also includes a type written and signed document from Gerald Ford, member of the Warren Commission. This display comes with notarized letter from barber Harry Gelbart attesting to the provenance of the President’s hair and various articles featuring him as a celebrity stylist. The bloodstained leather swatch is accompanied by documentation from F. Vaughn Ferguson, Technical Service Representative at the White House and a Certificate of Authenticity from John Reznikoff of University Archives. Lot #21 – Bullet and Spent Cartridge from the Gun used by Ruby to Shoot Oswald – This display features a bullet fired from the revolver Ruby used to change the course of history. The bullet and spent shell cartridge are mounted together with a color photo of Ruby’s Colt Cobra and a black and white 8×10 copy of the infamous shooting below the Dallas Police Headquarters. The photo has been signed in blue ballpoint by two of the men in the picture, Detective James Leavelle who was handcuffed to Oswald and L.C. Graves who disarmed Ruby after the shooting. Accompanied by a brass plaque is engraved “Historical Collectable Owners Proof Edition An Original Bullet Shot from ‘The Most Famous Gun in the World’ The ‘Jack Ruby’ Colt Cobra .38 Special” and a small certificate from the National Historical Mint attesting to the bullet and cartridge’s authenticity. Lot #22 – Signed Police Statement from the Men Who Captures Oswald – This souvenir two-page type written document relates the events of Oswald’s capture as told by the four men who played starring roles in the episode: Sergeant Hill, Investigator Ray Hawkins, Detective Paul Bentley and Patrolman M. N. McDonald. It is signed by the four Dallas policemen in blue ballpoint pen and is accompanied by a page with photographs of the four men signing the statement. Lot #23 – Tickets to Texas Welcome Dinner for JFK dated Nov. 22, 1963 – The 2 ¼ x 4 ticket is printed on gold stock and is paired with a color photograph of the Kennedy’s and Connally’s in the limousine moments before the assassination. About Goldin Auctions Sports memorabilia impresario Ken Goldin has sold more than $600 million in memorabilia from many of the biggest names in sports, history and pop culture and was the pioneer of using the medium of television to sell sports memorabilia. Over the past few years, Goldin Auctions sold Babe Ruth’s 1918 contract for a record $1.02 million, a Honus Wagner T206 card for a public sale record $2.1 million and a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle Rookie Card for a then record price of $400,950. Goldin Auctions strives to break new ground and offer collectors the best in collectible treasures up for auction in the marketplace. All game worn or autographed items come with team, player, league or additional LOA from industry leading authenticators; and collectors can bid with confidence that their proxy/ceiling bids remain confidential. For more information, visit http://www.goldinauctions.com <END QUOTE> Best Regards in Research, + ++Don Donald Roberdeau United States Navy U.S.S. John F. Kennedy, CV-67, plank walker Sooner, or later, The Truth emerges Clearly For your key considerations + independent determinations.... Homepages Website: "Men of Courage": JFK-elimination Evidence, Witnesses, Photographers, Outstanding Researchers Discoveries, Suspects, + Key Considerations.... http://droberdeau.blogspot.com/2009/08/1-men-of-courage-jfk-assassination_09.html The Dealey Plaza Detailed Map: Documented 11-22-63 Victims Precise Locations + Reactions, Evidence, Witnesses Locations, Photographers, Suspected Bullet Trajectories, Outstanding Researchers Discoveries, + Important Information + Key Considerations, in One Convenient Resource.... http://i.imgur.com/rGmmWxD.gif ( updated map, + new information ) Visual Report: The First Bullet Impact Into President Kennedy: While JFK was Still Hidden Under the "Magic-limbed-ricochet-tree".... http://i.imgur.com/rfRH5jX.gif Visual Report: Reality Versus C.A.D. : the Real World, versus, Garbage-in-garbage-out.... http://i.imgur.com/r8Ga26x.gif Discovery: Very Close JFK Assassination Witness ROSEMARY WILLIS Zapruder Film Documented 2nd Head Snap: West, Ultrafast, and Directly Towards the Grassy Knoll .... http://droberdeau.blogspot.com/2011/01/discovery-close-jfk-assassination.html T ogether E veryone A chieves M ore For the United States: http://www.dhs.gov
  9. This is my first post on this forum. I tried to join years ago and was told it was closed to newcomers. Recently, a current member told me that it was now open to newcomers, so I'm glad I could join. Anyway, I've learned a lot about the JFK case through the years but then came across the photo of an Oswald lookalike in Ruby's bar which is pretty amazing: Photo of LHO Lookalike in Ruby's Club Can someone tell me if that lookalike was ever identified or when the photo was taken? Thanks.
  10. I wanted to take a moment here to post about the new Netflix series "Making A Murderer." As I've been watching the various episodes, it's amazing to me how there are so many similarities between this case and the JFK case. When Steven Avery was first accused of the rape of his victim, there was no DNA evidence available to him in 1985. Eighteen years later, when DNA evidence became available, it freed him because the DNA evidence proved that it was another guy named Allen who did it. Just as Avery's lawyers were ready to file the wrongful civil lawsuit against the county, he was accused again of a horrendous murder. During one of the episodes, one of the former cops who was involved in the first case was called to testify. When the defense lawyer asked him about the first case and how the DNA evidence exonerated his client, the cop on the stand actually had the nerve to say to the effect, "I have doubts about that evidence, but..." There are numerous other examples that I've seen - how Avery was railroaded (even though he was convicted of the murder I still don't believe had anything to do with it);tampering of evidence, and so on. One chilling example is how, when one of the cops discusses the possible planting of evidence against Avery, he says to the effect, "It's harder to plant evidence. If we'd wanted to make him go away, it'd be easier to just kill him." For Lee Harvey Oswald, getting rid of him *and* planting evidence was the way to go in the JFK case. Here is the trailer on YouTube: Disclaimer: I do NOT work for Netflix.
  11. Here's an IBM punch card that was used in the 1960s to program computers: Here's a 1961 postal money order whose design was based on the IBM punch card: Now, here's the 1963 Hidell money order: Notice anything missing from the Hidell money order? (Or rather, not missing?) Hint: Ask Chris Newton. EDIT: I no longer believe this to be an issue. Post-1962 cards no longer used the cut-corner feature. See post 41 on page 3.
  12. A report on Paul Groody's 2006 appearance on the Coast to Coast AM radio show and a discussion on his apparent theory of the exhumation: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/paul-groody.html
  13. I am 45 years old, I work in lubricant sales and marketing, and I've been researching the JFK assassination for 30 years. I currently host The Lone Gunman Podcast which is exclusively about different aspects of the assassination and can be found here http://www.spreaker.com/user/thelonegunman and co-host of Quick Hits: A JFK Assassination News & Notes Podcast with fellow researcher Doug Campbell.
  14. Walking around in Dallas and New Orleans makes a man hungry and thirsty. In my new blog I wrote about places to visit when in need for a beer or a burger. All places have a relation to key players of the events in November, 1963. I'm curious: who has ever visit The Ozzie Rabbit Lodge, Lee Harvey’s, Campisi’s, Henry’s Uptown Bar and Le Bon Temps Roule? http://threeshotswerefired.com/?p=1290 And who can answer my question: do we know if Oswald was a frequent visitor of bars? The New Orleans bars claim he was a regular. He doesn’t seem like one in my eyes, being a loner with an empty wallet...
  15. First time when I visited New Orleans, I couldn't find the exact structure where Oswald lived, in Magazine Street. Earlier this month I visited the great city again and now I found it. Wrote about it this day, and want to share my pictures of the small cottage. You'll find it all on http://threeshotswerefired.com/?p=1055 Scoll to the bottom of that page for six photos of 4905 Magazine Street. All the best from Holland, Perry
  16. The Doors of Perception - Why Oswald Is Not Guilty of Killing JFK By William Kelly JFKcountercoup The assassination of President John F. Kennedy remains an unsolved cold case homicide because it has never been properly investigated as a criminal case, the main suspect and accused assassin was murdered while in police custody before he could be tried in a court of law, and no one has been convicted of the crime today. The FBI said that they will maintain it as an open case forever, while many hundreds of independent citizens continue to investigate the case and try to answer some of the outstanding questions that can still be resolved, and researchers pour of recently released government records and continue to seek the many documents still being withheld for reasons of national security. The assassination of President Kennedy is not yet a matter of history, but remains a cold case unresolved homicide that can and should be solved to a legal and moral certainty, as it can be if the remaining records are released and the still living witness are properly deposed before they die. Still there are those who claim that the case has been solved all along - by the Dallas Police, within a few hours of the assassination, and the one and only guilty person - Lee Harvey Oswald did it for his own perverted, psychological reasons that we will never know. While only an extremist - less than 20% of the people believe Oswald is guilty of killing JFK alone, [1] they include the most powerful people in government, law enforcement, academia and the media, including former Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) Chairman Judge John Tunheim and former prosecutor Gary Cornwell, a deputy counsel to the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). Excuse me, Judge John Tunheim and Gary Cornwell and those who have publicly pronounced Lee Harvey Oswald guilty of killing President Kennedy, but I’d like you to consider a few facts that prove to me that Oswald is not guilty of murdering the president. Can you give Lee Harvey Oswald a break? Can you give the accused assassin of President Kennedy the benefit of the doubt? Can you assume that he’s innocent, if only for a few minutes while I try to convince you he didn’t kill President Kennedy? Do you support the time honored American tradition of presumption of innocence - a constitutional right that presupposes one’s innocence until proven guilty in a court of law? Well Oswald was never convicted in a court of law - other than for disturbing the peace for rumbling around on a New Orleans street corner with some anti-Castro Cubans, and now he can’t defend himself because he was murdered while in custody of the Dallas Police, which greatly reflects on the law enforcement officers who first considered him a suspect. [2] If you can at least try to keep an open mind, and consider a few basic previously established facts - four facts that if true, prove Oswald is innocent of killing the President, then maybe you can view the assassination in a new light and from a different perspective, and join the effort to try to identify the real assassins. For a variety of reasons, most people believe Oswald is not guilty of being the assassin and was framed as a patsy, as he himself claimed, and they consider him a pawn in a larger conspiracy, one that still affects us today. The unresolved nature of the assassination of President Kennedy still affects us today in the continued unhindered use of political assassination as a means of controlling power and the continued withholding of government records relating to the assassination on grounds of national security. But a few people still believe that Oswald was the lone, deranged gunman, and maintain he is guilty of the crime. Those who think Oswald did it alone also usually attribute to him a psychological motive - such as seeking fame. As Judge Tunheim put it: “I think his motivation is he thought he was supposed to be someone famous in his own mind, and if he did this he would be viewed with great glory in the Soviet Union and Cuba,” an informed opinion that belies the fact that Oswald denied the deed. Since it can be clearly shown, as I will do, that Oswald could not have been the Sixth Floor Sniper, then what can be made of the motivation of the patsy, framed for the crime, just as he claimed to be? Whatever you believe, your opinion is based on something - probably some true facts that you learned over the years - or maybe it is based on an accumulation of a lot of knowledge about the case, but the positive proof Oswald is not guilty of killing JFK is based only on a few simple officially acknowledged facts that were established in the first few minutes after the assassination. Those predisposed to Oswald’s singular guilt usually list the hard, circumstantial evidence that proves to them, that Oswald shot the president from the Sixth Floor Sniper’s nest. As they attest, the rifle found on the Sixth Floor was ordered by Oswald, his palm print was on the rifle, three bullet shells found at the scene were ejected from Oswald’s rifle and the bullet found at Parkland hospital was fired from the rifle. What more do you need to convict him? [3] Although Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry was one of the first to proclaim Oswald guilty, - after he was told by Washington officials that “You have you’re man,” Curry also acknowledged that, after all is said and done, “we can’t put him in that window.” And for good reason. [4] The preponderance of testimony and evidence supports the fact Oswald wasn’t the Sixth Floor Sniper, as those who did eyeball the man in the window exonerate Oswald as they unanimously agree the gunman wore a white shirt, while Oswald was wearing a brown one, and as one witness noticed, the sniper had a distinguishing bald spot on the top of his head, a detail that excludes Oswald as a sniper suspect. [5] There are also witnesses who saw a man with a rifle in the Sixth Floor widow at 12:15 p.m., [6] when Oswald was seen on the first floor. [7] And after the assassination a court clerk from across the street saw a man in the Sixth Floor window five minutes after the last shot was fired, [8] when Oswald was on the second floor. If Oswald was the Sixth Floor Sniper, then who was the man seen in the window with a rifle fifteen minutes before the assassination, when Oswald was on the first floor? And if not Oswald, who was the man in the sniper’s window five minutes after the last shot, when Oswald could not have been there? These questions don’t seem to bother those who are set in their belief that Oswald shot the President from that window and then quickly ran down the steps to the Second Floor Lunchroom, and it seems like that regardless of whatever exculpatory evidence is presented, Oswald is the designated patsy. TECHNICALLY NOT GUILTY The bottom line is - Oswald was not convicted in a court of law and probably wouldn’t have been if subjected to a trial for a number of reasons, as enumerated by former Manhattanprosecutor Robert K. Tanenbaum, the first deputy chief counsel to the HSCA. [9.] When he was Chairman of the ARRB, Judge Tunheim didn’t take a public position as to whether there was a conspiracy, or pass judgment on Oswald, as his job was not to investigate the assassination, but to locate and release sealed government records to the public and to let people make up their own minds. But Judge Tunheim has more recently been quoted in the media that he personally believes Oswald guilty. [10] Judge Tunheim must have read a lot about Lee Harvey Oswald, and he certainly knows much more about the accused assassin than most people, but he’s also a federal Judge and should know better than to describe Oswald as “guilty,” a legal term that applies only to those who have been convicted in a court of law. When discussing Oswald, open minded and honest people, especially those familiar with legal terminology, refer to Oswald as the “accused assassin” or “alleged assassin,” as the TSBD historic marker correctly calls him, because that’s what he is. And the gunman in the window should be referred to as the Sixth Floor Sniper, because it has never been established for certain that it was Oswald, and there is a preponderance of evidence that Oswald wasn’t on the Sixth Floor at the time the shots were fired, as I will demonstrate. OSWALD - PAWN & “MERE PATSY?” Judge Tunheim isn’t the only well-informed person to publicly express a personal belief in Oswald’s guilt, as Gary Cornwell, the former Deputy Chief Counsel to the HSCA does in his book. After the resignation of the first HSCA Chief Counsel Richard Sprague, Cornwell was recruited by second chief counsel G. Robert Blakey. In his book “Real Answers” Cornwell wrote: “…we confirmed that much of what the Warren Commission said was wrong. But we also found that most of the many reasons that led critics of the Warren Commission to conclude that Oswald was a mere patsy were also wrong, and were based upon inadequate access to the available evidence, questionable assumptions and logic, and/or faulty ‘scientific’ analysis…” [11] “Mere patsy”!? Certainly if Oswald was framed for the crime, and was set up as the patsy, as he claimed, and as much of the evidence indicates, then the assassination wasn’t the work of a deranged lone nut, but was a well planned and successfully executed conspiracy by unknown confederates still at large, and the case is an unsolved homicide and a major national security threat today. There’s nothing “mere” about it. If Oswald wasn’t the Sixth Floor Sniper and was a patsy, then he most certainly played a smaller role - that of a sacrificial pawn - in a much larger game and a scheme of things that has yet to be figured out. Since Gary Cornwell not only thinks Oswald guilty, but that those like me who have concluded Oswald was a “mere patsy” are wrong because we have had inadequate access to the available evidence, make questionable assumptions and use faulty logic and/or make faulty scientific analysis, I’d like him to evaluate the four facts, the logical reasoning and the scientific analysis that leads me to believe that Oswald is not guilty of killing the President. I’d like for him to point out where I am wrong, or acknowledge Oswald is really not guilty, if these four facts and reasons are agreed on and correct. While Cornwell, like Tunheim, probably knows a lot about Oswald, I’m pretty sure neither of them have reviewed these four basic facts, acknowledged by the Warren Commission, that whatever else you believe about him, if they are true, prove Oswald didn’t kill the President. My purpose here is to present this evidence in a public forum and use it to convince them and anyone else who believes Oswald is guilty, that he deserves the benefit of the doubt and a presumption of innocence that the Constitution, as well as the evidence in the case, legally and morally grants him. So I publicly ask, challenge Gary Cornwell and Judge Tunheim to consider the following facts and refute or agree 1) that Oswald should not be considered or referred to as “guilty” and 2) there’s at least the distinct possibility that Oswald was not the Sixth Floor Sniper. Judge Tunheim must recognize that Oswald, not having been convicted in a court of law, should not be considered “guilty,” as that word is a legal term reserved for those convicted in a court of law, and Cornwell should acknowledge, based on these four acknowledged facts, that it is possible that Oswald wasn’t the Sixth Floor Sniper, and therefore the investigation into this unsolved homicide should consider the probability that someone other than Oswald killed the President. In his book Cornwell doesn’t address the reasons that lead me to believe that Oswald could not have been the Sixth Floor Sniper, but I would like him and Judge Tunheim to consider them and respond. I base my conclusion on just four facts from the evidence and testimony provided to the Warren Commission, four facts that if true, completely exonerate Oswald from being the Sixth Floor Sniper. This is not to say that Oswald is innocent of everything. I don’t know who killed President Kennedy, I don’t know who took a shot at General Walker and I don’t know who killed Dallas Police officer J.D. Tippit, but I do know for a fact that Lee Harvey Oswald didn’t kill President Kennedy. Not my original observation, I credit Howard Roffman, in his book “Presumed Guilty,” of first pointing out most of these details, though I’ve since come across some additional documents (Truly Affidavit) and evidence that supports the contention that Oswald is not guilty and was framed as the patsy, and I believe it can be proven to anyone interested in reviewing these facts, that Oswald was not the Sixth Floor Sniper. [12] Oswald did not kill President Kennedy if you believe the two men who claim they ran into Oswald in the Second Floor lunchroom ninety seconds after the last shot - Dallas police officer Marrion Baker and Roy Truly, the superintendent of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD). There are dissenting voices who think they are lying, and there are those who believe the first police reports and discount the later official testimony, and these objections are certainly worth considering. [13] But the following analysis is based strictly on four points of fact that have been entered into evidence in the official record as published in the Warren Report, and it rests entirely on the credibility of Dallas Policeman Marrion Baker and TSBD superintendent Roy Truly, and what they said occurred in the first two minutes after the assassination..... Continued: JFKcountercoup: THE DOORS OF PERCEPTION - WHY OSWALD IS NOT GUILTY w/notes Also See: Chapter 7, Oswald at Window?, "PRESUMED GUILTY", 1976 Chapter 8, The Alibi: Oswald's Actions after the Shots, "PRESUMED GUILTY", 1976 Complete Book: "PRESUMED GUILTY, How and why the Warren Commission framed Lee Harvey Oswald, A factual account based on the Commission's public and private documents", by Howard Roffman
  17. I have a few questions someone may be able to answer. The photo of Oswald included here... - Does anyone know when this was first made available to the press before 1963 and where? - Where did the Warren Omission get theirs from?
  18. On youtube there is a piece of film footage from that day showing a Ruby lookalike and LHO. Oswald climbs over the steps. I am sure it is him. The Ruby character keeps looking towards Oswald; and LHO only got down from the steps when he saw this Ruby character. I don't think the man is Ruby. But I do believe it is LHO. http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=3-CpuEJ8mCk If it's Ruby in disguise, maybe -- hat, dark suit jacket, more corpulent than Ruby; then that has a lot of implications here. Kathy C
  19. Good Day.... FYI.... http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2013/02/17/jfk-assassination-newseum-lee-harvey-oswald/1918279/ <QUOTE> JFK Assassination Artifacts to get First Public Viewing More than 100 artifacts are included in an exhibit at the Newseum in Washington, D.C. PHOTO: Lee Harvey Oswald was wearing this shirt, seen in this Nov. 22, 1963, photo, when he was arrested and charged in the death of President John F. Kennedy. STORY HIGHLIGHTS Newseum exhibit of Lee Harvey Oswald items opens April 12 The exhibit contains more than 100 artifacts Collection of photos, Newseum-produced film also showing WASHINGTON — An off-white jacket. A casual long-sleeve shirt. A turquoise-and- orange wool blanket. A wallet that contains a Social Security card and family snapshots. While these relics from the early '60s sound like everyday items, they are priceless pieces of history tied to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Beginning April 12, visitors to the Newseum in the nation's capital will have the rare chance to view these never-before-displayed artifacts belonging to Lee Harvey Oswald, the presumed gunman, as part of an exhibit marking the 50th anniversary of JFK's death. Oswald, who wore the shirt and carried the wallet when he was arrested on Nov. 22, 1963, in Dallas, was himself shot and killed two days later by Dallas nightclub owner Jack Ruby, a crime that was caught live on TV. The jacket was found at a gas station near the Texas Theater, where Oswald was captured. Oswald's rifle, which was kept wrapped in the blanket in a friend's garage, was found at the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas shortly after JFK was shot. "This is a pretty incredible opportunity to work with the National Archives and be able to display these pieces," says Carrie Christoffersen, Newseum curator and director of collections. Christoffersen says the purpose of "Three Shots Were Fired," an exhibit of more than 100 artifacts, including the first UPI report about the attack on the presidential motorcade, "is to tell the story of how news media responded and how it fulfilled its responsibility to the public. It was a unique time in American and journalism history. The shooting led to unprecedented TV coverage over four days on the networks commercial-free. This was at a time when nightly newscasts had only just expanded from 15 minutes to a half-hour." A collection of photos, "Creating Camelot: The Kennedy Photography of Jacques Lowe," as well as a Newseum-produced film, A Thousand Days, will bring to life the youthful glamour that the first family brought to the White House, as well as newsworthy moments of JFK's short presidency. The exhibit, which runs through Jan. 5, 2014, will include an interactive feature that allows visitors of all ages to share the defining "JFK moment'' in their life, whether it was the bombing at Pearl Harbor or memories of 9/11. <END QUOTE> Best Regards in Research ++++Don Donald Roberdeau United States Navy U.S.S. John F. Kennedy, CV-67, plank walker Sooner, or later, The Truth emerges Clearly For your key considerations and independent determinations.... Homepage: President KENNEDY "Men of Courage" speech, and Assassination Evidence, Witnesses, Suspects + Outstanding Researchers Discoveries and Considerations.... http://droberdeau.bl...ination_09.html The Dealey Plaza Map Detailing 11-22-63 Victims precise locations, Witnesses, Films & Photos, Evidence, Suspected bullet trajectories, Important information & Considerations, in One Convenient Resource.... http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/3966/dppluschartsupdated1111.gif (new info, 2012 updated map) Visual Report: The First Bullet Impact Into President Kennedy: while JFK was Still Hidden Under the "Magic-limbed-ricochet-tree".... http://img504.images...k1102308ms8.gif Visual Report: Reality versus C.A.D. : the Real World, versus, Garbage-in, Garbage-out....http://img248.images...ealityvscad.gif Discovery: "Very Close JFK Assassination Witness ROSEMARY WILLIS Zapruder Film Documented 2nd Headsnap: West, Ultrafast, and Directly Towards the Grassy Knoll".... http://educationforu...?showtopic=2394 T ogether E veryone A chieves M ore For the United States: http://www.dhs.gov
  20. Good Day.... FYI.... http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/jfk-oswald-and-the-raleigh-connection/Content?oid=3192079 **NOTE** There are additional article key considerations for your further reading provided by links from within the actual article (QUOTE) JFK, Oswald and the Raleigh Connection by Randolph Benson The call slip showing Oswald tried to place a collect call to John Hurt of Raleigh It was 11:30 on a foggy night in Raleigh on Saturday, Nov. 23, 1963. The previous afternoon, President John F. Kennedy had been shot on the streets of Dallas. Just a block from the North Carolina State Capitol, at 201 Hillsborough St., Apartment No. 1 was about to be thrust into one of the most profound mysteries behind the assassination. And it would be a generation before its meaning would be understood. That night, nearly 1,200 miles away at the Dallas Municipal Building, Alveeta A. Treon arrived for her shift at the telephone switchboard. Treon would relieve her co-worker, Louise Swinney, who had been given orders by their supervisor to assist two men in listening to a call that would come through their switchboard. Treon assumed the men were Secret Service. She suspected that Lee Harvey Oswald, the accused assassin being held in the downstairs jail, would be making another call. He had already phoned his Russian wife, Marina, and an ACLU lawyer in New York. This call, however, was different. Oswald rang the switchboard at a quarter till 12, Raleigh time. Swinney took the call and scribbled Oswald's information as the two men listened in. "I was dumbfounded at what happened next," Treon later told a former Senate investigator. "Swinney told [Oswald], 'I'm sorry, the number doesn't answer.' Swinney then unplugged and disconnected Oswald without ever really trying to put the call through." Afterward, Swinney tore the sheet from her note pad and threw it into the trash. She left, her shift having ended. Treon retrieved the wadded piece of paper from the trash and copied the information onto a standard long-distance telephone call slip to save as a souvenir. The slip reveals that Oswald had given Treon the name "John Hurt of Raleigh, N.C." After the release of the Warren Report, the U.S. government's official version of the assassination, in 1964, a CBS poll found that more than 40 percent of Americans surveyed said there was more to the assassination than the U.S. government had revealed. In 1976, a Gallup Poll found that 81 percent believed in a conspiracy. A recent CBS survey found that 90 percent of Americans reject the Warren Commission's conclusions. In the nearly 50 years since President Kennedy's assassination, hundreds of respected researchers have dedicated decades of their lives in their search for the truth, not just about the assassination but for what they describe as America's hidden history: How the "official version" of events is promoted by the U.S. government and perpetuated by a cooperative, if not complicit media. Although many are professional investigators, photo analysts, pathologists, journalists, historians or lawyers, most approach the assassination not as a vocation but as an avocation. An engineer conducted crucial studies of the president's autopsies. A flight attendant performed respected research into Oswald's ties to military intelligence. A high school teacher uncovered important information about the Texas connection. And key facts about JFK's Vietnam withdrawal directive was revealed by a Southern California real estate agent. Grover Proctor, a Raleigh native, is among the researchers. A university dean and statistical analyst, he now lives in Cary and has become widely recognized as a meticulous and respected researcher. Every major discussion of the assassination that includes facts about Oswald's call cites his work. His website was awarded the JFK Site Award in 1997. (Yes, there are enough websites on the assassination to justify awards.) In fact, because of Proctor, Oswald's attempt to reach out to John Hurt has become known as the Raleigh Call. Nine years after the assassination, Proctor, then a graduate student at Wayne State University in Michigan, was transfixed as the Watergate scandal unfolded on television. "Every evening, several of my friends and I would sit glued to the news, fascinated by the unfolding constitutional drama," Proctor said. "Late- night discussions inevitably gravitated to the conspiracy being brought to light by the televised hearings—and to the wider subject of political conspiracies in general." A friend of Proctor handed him a paperback copy of A Heritage of Stone, a book by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison that concluded that the Kennedy assassination was plotted and executed by the CIA. "Until then, I had never given the assassination a second thought," Proctor recalled. "I reasoned, 'They know who did it, right? What's the big deal?' But both Watergate and this book told me to ask, 'Could there have been a conspiracy in Dallas?' "Already disturbed by the high crimes and misdemeanors of a fallen president as a result of the Watergate scandal, I was shaken to the core. Watergate had already convinced me that the government could lie to its own people. This book forced me to ask the question whether sometimes it also kills them." It was through the work of independent researcher Michael Canfield that a copy of the Raleigh Call slip first became public. He secured a copy of the slip, which became available as the result of a Freedom of Information lawsuit filed by a civil rights activist, while conducting research for the 1975 book Coup d'Etat in America. The book, co- authored with Alan Weberman, was the first major work to deal with the Raleigh Call, and the slip was reprinted in the appendix. On the slip were two numbers attributed to a "John Hurt": one for a John W. Hurt, one for a John D. Hurt. Canfield called both numbers. John W. Hurt turned up nothing of interest. However, when Canfield spoke to John D. Hurt, he sat stunned, silent when Hurt revealed, "I was in the counterintelligence corps in the Army during World War II." That Oswald called a former military intelligence officer from jail—only to be assassinated by Jack Ruby a little more than 12 hours later—was notable and, to that point, publicly undisclosed. Proctor became aware of Oswald's attempted call while riding on a train from Hartford to New York in 1980. Proctor was engrossed in Anthony Summers' book about the assassination, Conspiracy, when he came across a short paragraph about Oswald's call from jail: "The note preserved by Mrs. Treon reportedly shows that Oswald booked a call to Area Code 919." Proctor says: "I remember being pulled up short after reading that, thinking, 'Something about that sounds familiar.' It took a few seconds, but then I realized the area code 919 was Raleigh, my hometown." Proctor later dialed the first number on the phone slip and, to his surprise, John D. Hurt answered and confirmed the revelations in Canfield's book. In the way in which researchers have built upon one another's work to add to the wealth of information about the assassination, Proctor took the Raleigh Call a step further: Suspecting that Oswald had intelligence connections, he interviewed a former CIA agent. Victor Marchetti was a 14-year veteran of the CIA who had served as executive assistant to then-Deputy Director Richard Helms. Marchetti had also written extensively about the Raleigh Call in The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence, the first book on the assassination censored by the U.S. government. In an interview with Proctor, Marchetti stated that in calling Hurt, Oswald was clearly following standard procedure for a CIA asset under duress. This includes contacting his case officer through a "cut-out," an intermediary with no direct involvement in an operation—John Hurt. "[Oswald] was probably calling his cut-out. He was calling somebody who could put him in touch with his case officer," Marchetti told Proctor. "He couldn't go beyond that person. There's no way he could. He just had to depend on this person to say, 'OK, I'll deliver the message.' Now, if the cut-out has already been alerted to cut him off and ignore him, then ..." Here is an excerpt from Proctor's interview with Marchetti: Proctor: OK, if someone was an agent, and he was involved in something, and nobody believes he is an agent ... He is arrested, and trying to communicate, let's say, and he is one of you guys. What is the procedure? Marchetti: I'd kill him. Proctor: If I was an agent for the [Central Intelligence] Agency, and I was involved in something involving the law domestically and the FBI, would I have a contact to call? Marchetti: Yes. Proctor: A verification contact? Marchetti: Yes, you would. Proctor: Would I be dead? Marchetti: It would depend on the situation. If you get into bad trouble, we're not going to verify you. No how, no way. Proctor: But there is a call mechanism set up. Marchetti: Yes. Proctor: So it is conceivable that Lee Harvey Oswald was .... Marchetti: That's what he was doing. He was trying to call in and say, "Tell them I'm all right." Proctor: Was that his death warrant? Marchetti: You betcha. Whether the switchboard operator connected Oswald's call is irrelevant, especially since there appeared to be government agents monitoring the activity. His intentions were enough. As Marchetti told Proctor: "This time [Oswald] went over the dam, whether he knew it or not, or whether they set him up or not. He was over the dam. At this point it was executive action." Assassination. Proctor says he remembers thinking, as he had Marchetti on the phone: "I have really stepped over into a place where I have NO referent at all. I had no background for the necessarily dirty world of spycraft. I suppose now, 30-plus years later, I have just about the same reaction." Raleigh wasn't Oswald's only connection to North Carolina. Although the U.S. government has contended that Oswald defected to the Soviet Union, he had been spotted at the Illusionary Warfare Training base in Nags Head, which instructed young idealists to be fake defectors to the Soviet Union. Marchetti wrote that the program created "young men who were made to appear disenchanted, poor, American youths who had become turned off and wanted to see what communism was all about." The existence of the Nags Head base was confirmed in the 2004 testimony of former CIA pilot William "Tosh" Plumlee: "When I later learned [in November 1963] that Oswald had been arrested as the lone assassin, I remembered having met him on a number of previous occasions which were connected with intelligence training matters, first at Illusionary Warfare Training in Nags Head, North Carolina, then in Honolulu at radar installation and at Oahu's Wheeler Air Force Base, then in Dallas at an Oak Cliff safe house on North Beckley Street run by Alpha 66's Hernandez group, who had worked out of Miami prior to the assassination." Oswald's intelligence connections were further verified in a 1975 congressional investigation. In September of that year, U.S. Rep. Richard Schweiker was appointed to chair the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities. Schweiker had the credentials for the job: He had served on the Church Committee, which revealed gross misconduct of the CIA, FBI and the military in their surveillance of U.S. citizens. The Select Committee was tasked to investigate intelligence agencies with respect to the JFK assassination. Afterward, Schweiker revealed: "We do know Oswald had intelligence connections. Everywhere you look with him, there are the fingerprints of intelligence." A year later, Congress launched another investigation, this one by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), also charged with probing the assassinations of JFK and the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Surell Brady was on the committee's staff and investigated the Raleigh Call. Brady wrote an exhaustive 28-page report outlining Canfield and Weberman's findings. Although the report clearly states that Oswald attempted to call a former military intelligence officer with whom he had no identifiable ties, that detail was omitted from the HSCA Final Report. The trend of ignoring provocative evidence in government investigations continued. The Raleigh Call remains one of the most disturbing, unexplained and ignored aspects of the JFK assassination. In an interview Proctor conducted with HSCA Chief Counsel G. Robert Blakey, he reaffirmed what has become the last official word on Oswald's attempted call. "I consider it unanswered," Blakey said, "and I consider the direction in which it went substantiated and disturbing, but ultimately inconclusive. The bottom line is, it's an unanswerable mystery." As we enter the 50th year after the assassination, expect an onslaught of books, television programs and movies pertaining to the assassination. Virtually every network will produce a show purporting to have the definitive word on the JFK assassination. Judging from previous efforts, they will likely support the conclusions of the Warren Commission and not those of the government's more recent investigations. And odds are good that researchers who have uncovered key documents will be, at best, dismissed. You can find the enormous body of work at Andy Winiarczyk's Last Hurrah Bookshop in Williamsport, Pa., the world's definitive book store devoted to the JFK assassination. The three-story converted house reveals the massive scale of independent research: more than 2,000 titles. Of those, only a small minority reflect the Warren Report. The rest document the indefatigable work of independent researchers such as Proctor, whose findings have added up into a coherent and compelling counter-narrative. "In many cases, researchers fight the institutions for years—FOIA request after FOIA request—trying to get one document pertaining to one tiny piece of evidence," said Andy, as he's known among his fellow researchers. "When they finally get that piece of information, they piece it together with their previous research or with the research of others, and then write a book. And while that one book might be incomplete, taken in toto with the work of the research community, the truth behind the assassination becomes quite clear." Despite the 2,000 titles at the Last Hurrah, most of the national attention given to books about the assassination has focused on just two works that defend the government's official version: MSNBC contributor Gerald Posner's best-seller Case Closed, published in 1993, and 2007's Reclaiming History by former Los Angeles prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi. Posner's Case Closed was released in time for the 30th anniversary of the assassination. "It caught this incredible wave," Andy says. "It appeared on the desks of all the major media who would say, 'We don't have to read anymore, we don't have to trouble ourselves, here's someone who's sorted it all out.'" But Posner's research was selective. Although he reviewed the 26 volumes of the Warren Report, Andy says, "he found what he wished to find. But he didn't go really much beyond that." Nonetheless, Posner made the press rounds: 60 Minutes, network specials, the Sunday morning political roundtables and even the morning shows. Posner appeared on the Today Show in the now infamous segment "Truth or Conspiracy." Host Katie Couric proclaimed that the three to four years Posner spent on the case amounted to "tons and tons of research." While Case Closed was a best-seller, Bugliosi's 1,648-page defense of the Warren Report hovered at No. 800 in the Amazon rankings. Yet even at that length, the book ignores the staggering 6 million documents that have been released under the JFK Records Act, as well as the mountains of independent research. The book's dismal sales didn't dissuade media outlets from booking its author. A staunch supporter of the Warren Report, Bugliosi appeared on The Colbert Report, The Daily Show, C-Span and 20/20 to herald his confirmation of the government's version of events—and in doing so, marginalizing the work and evidence that counters that view. "The dismissal and ostracizing of the pro-conspiracy group—including independent researchers, members of Congress and congressional investigators—continues [to this day]," Proctor says. The media's role in perpetuating the official government version is significant—and very effective. And for good reason: Reporters and editors have helped the government itself. Among the revelations of the Church Committee hearings was CIA Document #1035-960. This document, dated Jan. 4, 1967, and marked "PSYCH" for Psychological Warfare, directs CIA agents to counter critics of the Warren Report by using "liaison and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors)" and "to employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics." Those cozy relationships were revealed in 1977, when Washington Post reporter Carl Bernstein—who had earned fame from his groundbreaking Watergate coverage—wrote extensively on information released by the Church Committee. His article detailing revelations of the committee hearings, The CIA and the Media, appeared in the Oct. 20, 1977, issue of Rolling Stone. The article exposed details of Operation Mockingbird, the CIA's effort to control the media. Through documentary evidence, Bernstein revealed a list of high-profile media organizations that willingly cooperated with the CIA: These include ABC, NBC, the Associated Press, Reuters, Newsweek, The Miami Herald and even The Saturday Evening Post. "But the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, has been with The New York Times, CBS, and Time Inc.," Bernstein wrote. Quoting an unnamed CIA agent, Bernstein added, "One reporter is worth 20 agents." Yet some of the most strident voices against the idea of conspiracy have recanted, Proctor said. Case in point: Robert MacNeil of the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour, who recently stated in a filmed interview for the documentary Beyond JFK: "We've seen revealed one conspiracy after another. Anybody would have to be a fool, nowadays, to dismiss conspiracies. And perhaps we lived in a fool's paradise before the Kennedy assassination." Even New York Times columnist Tom Wicker, a former defender of the Oswald-as-lone-nut theory, reconsidered his position. "I think there's enough evidence now that there's certainly doubts about that," wrote Wicker, a North Carolina native. There are many psychological theories that people innately need to believe in conspiracies. However, Walt Brown, author of numerous books on the JFK assassination and a college history professor, offers a counter view: "Imagine the police come to your house to tell you that, God forbid, your daughter has been killed. Once you get it together, you ask, 'What happened?' Well, the cop tells you, we're not sure. It's either a psycho that got loose from the asylum or a bunch of Hell's Angels that killed her. "In this scenario, the guy from the asylum was just one of those fluke things that happens: an accident. At least it wasn't systemic, institutional and organized. Well, Lee Oswald is the accident and conspiracy is systemic. As a father, I'm going to pray for the accident." John Judge, co-founder and director of the Coalition on Political Assassinations, put it best: "The political paralysis in America is based on the fact that we are allowed to believe anything but to know nothing, [author] Martin Schotz said so perceptively in History Will Not Absolve Us," Judge said. "And if you cannot know, you cannot act." That's precisely why, Judge believes, the word of independent researchers is so important. Will we ever know the truth? We may already. "Who is to say that, somewhere in that morass of opinion and deception, the real answer hasn't already been revealed?" Proctor says. "The government and the press—by abrogating their responsibilities—have deprived us of the normal and official venues for discerning the truth." It's important to know the truth about the Kennedy assassination not only to correct the historical record but to reveal the motivations for obscuring it in the first place. The knowledge should prompt us to be circumspect about what we "know," and to question other official versions of contemporary events. "Why is it important?" Proctor asks. "For the same reason it was important to Galileo to correct the prevailing official position that the sun revolved around the earth. Those who have devoted their lives, resources and intellect to trying to uncover the truth about the Kennedy assassination have decided that, twice now, the U.S. government has been less than candid about its conclusions on who killed the President of the United States. At the level of American politics and freedom itself, can there be a more worthy cause?" ______________________ Randolph Benson is an award-winning, Durham-based filmmaker. His films have garnered the Gold Medal in the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences' Student Academy Awards and a Kodak Excellence in Filmmaking Award at the Cannes Film Festival, among others. His work has been featured on the Bravo Network, the Independent Film Channel and UNC- TV as well as several international channels. His current project, The Searchers, is a portrait of researchers of the Kennedy assassination. The film is slated for a spring release. A graduate of Wake Forest University and the North Carolina School of the Arts, Benson has taught at the Center for Documentary Studies at Duke University for more than 10 years. Contact him at rbenson@thesearchersfilm.com (END QUOTE) Best Regards in Research, ++Don Donald Roberdeau U.S.S. John F. Kennedy, CV-67, plank walker Sooner, or later, The Truth emerges Clearly For your key considerations.... Homepage: President KENNEDY "Men of Courage" speech, and Assassination Evidence, Witnesses, Suspects + Outstanding Researchers Discoveries and Considerations.... http://droberdeau.bl...ination_09.html Dealey Plaza Map Detailing 11-22-63 Victims precise locations, Witnesses, Films & Photos, Evidence, Suspected bullet trajectories, Important information & Considerations, in One Convenient Resource.... http://img831.images...dated110110.gif (updated map coming in 2012) Visual Report: "The FirstBullet Impact Into President Kennedy: while JFK was Hidden Under the 'magic-limbed-ricochet-tree' ".... http://img504.images...k1102308ms8.gif Visual Report: Reality versus C.A.D. : the Real World, versus, Garbage-In, Garbage-Out.... http://img248.images...ealityvscad.gif Discovery: "Very Close JFK Assassination Witness ROSEMARY WILLIS Zapruder Film Documented 2nd Headsnap: West, Ultrafast, and Directly Towards the Grassy Knoll".... http://educationforu...?showtopic=2394 T ogether E veryone A chieves M ore For the United States: http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/
  21. Reasoning about Doorman “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth”. – Sherlock Holmes (A. Conan Doyle) Jim Fetzer Since there appears to be considerable confusion about reasoning scientifically in a case of this kind, the most valuable contribution I can make to the discussion of Doormån and Oswald concerns the pattern of reasoning that applies here. Having offered courses in logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning to college students for 35 years, I am well positioned to explain the principles that apply in cases of this kind, which are part and parcel of the application of the scientific method. Scientific method is a process involving four steps or stages of investigation or inquiry, beginning with PUZZLEMENT, where some phenomenon or event does not fit into your background knowledge and understanding; SPECULATION, where the full range of appropriate alternative explanations are advanced; ADAPTATION, where those alternatives are tested relative to the available relevant evidence; and finally, EXPLANATION, where the alternative that is best supported is acceptable as true but in the tentative and fallible fashion of science. Scientific Reasoning The key stage is ADAPTATION, which involves the application of inference to the best explanation to the available evidence. This requires comparing the relative degrees of evidential support for alternative hypotheses by calculating the probability of the data on the assumption that the hypothesis is true. Do that for each of them and see which of them confers the highest probability on the evidence, if it were true. It sounds like a process of reasoning backwards and, in a way, it is: you are treating the evidence as the effect of a cause and comparing the probability with which various causes could have brought about an effect. If you found a tree that had been cut in half and felled, what is the probability that that had been done with a pen-knife, a Swiss Army knife or a chain saw? Consider the effects and figure out which among its possible causes is most likely. An hypothesis with a higher likelihood is preferable to one with lower, where the one with the highest likelihood is acceptable as true when the evidence has “settled down”. It is always possible to return to make a recalculation when new evidence or new alternatives become available. Here I want to highlight a few of the key considerations that have led me to conclude that Doorman and Oswald are indeed one and the same, where, in this case, we are essentially dealing with only two alternatives, namely: that Doorman was Billy Lovelady, as the government contends, or that Doorman was Lee Oswald, as David Wrone, Ralph Cinque, Richard Hooke, Orlando Martin and I – among others – contend. Because there are only two serious candidates, evidence that favors one of them disfavors the other, and evidence that disfavors one of the favors the other. Doorman is one or the other. If Doorman was Oswald, he wasn’t Lovelady; if he was Lovelady, he wasn’t Lee. “Out with Billy Shelley in front” It was astonishing to me to learn – only last year, 2011 – that the Assassination Records Review Board had discovered the handwritten interrogation notes of Will Fritz, the DPD Homicide Detective who had interrogated Lee Oswald, notes that had been released way back in 2007, that said Oswald told Will Fritz that he had been “out with Bill Shelley in front” during the assassination. This discovery led me to take a second look at Altgens6 and to revist the question of whether Doorman could have been Oswald. Some have claimed Lee was not talking about his location during the shooting but some time thereafter. That makes no sense at all, however, since we know he was observed in and around the lunchroom at 11:50 AM, Noon, 12:15 PM and as late as 12:25 PM by Carolyn Arnold, the executive secretary to the Vice President of the TSBD. So, Oswald could not have been referring to being outside with Bill Shelly before the shooting. Within 90 seconds, after the shooting, Oswald had been accosted in the lunchroom by Roy Truly and motorcycle officer Marion Baker. Oswald could not have meant he was “out with Bill Shelly in front” after the shooting because Bill Shelly was not there then. Shelly said he left immediately, with Billy Lovelady, to walk down to the railroad tracks to look around. When Lovelady and Shelly returned, they re-entered the building through the backdoor, of the TSBD, and went to the base of the back stairwell (in the northwest corner (rear) of the building). So, Bill Shelly was definitely not out in front when Oswald was leaving. The Altgens6 was Altered It would have been unbelievably remiss of Detective Fritz not to have asked Lee Oswald where he was at the time of the shooting; that is the most pertinent question Will Fritz would have needed to ask. Three questions therefore arise about what Lee told Fritz: (1) Why would Lee have said he was “out in front” if it were not true? (2) Why mention Shelley unless Lee believed that he would confirm it? (3) How could Lee have known Shelley was there if Lee had not been? These questions appeared to me to create a prima facie presumption that Lee was telling the truth during his interrogation. I therefore began to take a closer look at Altgent6 and was astonished to discover—and on a John McAdams site!—that Altgens6 was altered: Notice I am NOT talking about Doorman but the figure to his left / front (our right / front viewing the images). I original inferred that the face that was obfuscated must have been that of Lee Oswald, but I now believe—based on new research by Richard Hooke-- that it was instead that of Bill Shelley. For Shelley to have been in the immediate vicinity of the enigmatic Doorman would have made Lee’s remark to Will Fritz just a bit too intriguing, which would have invited taking a closer look and risk exposing the entire charade. As we have taken a closer and closer look, it is remarkable how many of the features used to pull off this charade are present in this composite image, including not only Billy and Lee but the man in a checkered shirt, who was a Lovelady imposter, and frames from a faked film. Taking a Closer Look That the Altgens6 was altered at all creates the presumption that something was wrong. Surely it would only have been altered if someone had been there who should not have been there. The only candidate for that role would have been Lee Oswald. While I now believe that the face that was obfuscated was that of Bill Shelley, his importance there would only become apparent when Oswald’s remarks to Fritz would eventually become available. And, to the best of my knowledge, that did not occur until 1997. I published my first article accenting this discovery, “JFK: What we know now that we didn’t know then” (21 November 2011), mistakenly asserting that the obfuscated face was that of Lee, which led Ralph Cinque to contact me to explain why he thought that I was right about my conclusion—that Oswald HAD been in the doorway—but that I was wrong about my reasons for thinking so, where the clothing that Doorman was wearing was the key! It did not take long for Ralph to convince me that he was right, which led to our joint article, “JFK Special: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!” (25 January 2012). The uniqueness of Oswald’s clothing had never really been addressed before. Well, perhaps it had, but not in a long time, and not with any widespread recognition. When you compare the clothing of Oswald and Doorman in detail, you realize it had to be the same clothing, which means it had to be the same man. Unless Billy was wearing Lee’s clothing, the probability that Doorman was Lovelady approaches zero and the probability Doorman was Lee approaches one. Not only is there no serious chance that Billy Lovelady just happened to dress himself exactly the same way as Lee Oswald, that particular day, but Billy himself would go to the FBI and show them the shirt he had been wearing that day —an incredibly implausible thing to do unless it was true—and it was not the same shirt! Inference to the Best Explanation As you will find on the pages of The Oswald Innocence Project, Ralph Cinque and Richard Hooke have done brilliant work in displaying the full range of alterations to which this photo has been subjected, where the more they have done, the stronger the case has become. Any one familiar with the principles of scientific reasoning--most importantly, of inference to the best explanation--will have no difficulty appreciating that the case for alteration has been made, again and again. The complexity of what was done is rather astonishing, but the price of failure would have been to blow apart the greatest hoax in American history, namely: that JFK had been killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, a lone, demented gunman. We know that cannot be true on multiple grounds, but this proof is as powerful as they come. An hypothesis has been proven beyond reasonable doubt when no alternative hypothesis is reasonable. There would have been no reason to alter Altgens6 unless someone had been there who should not have been. Altgens6 was altered. Therefore, someone was there who should not have been. The only person that could have been was Lee Oswald, the designated “patsy”. Questions have long revolved over the identity of Doorman, but they have been pursued in the past in ignorance of what Lee told Fritz and that Altgens6 had been altered in at least one respect—and now turns out to have been altered in many others. We have found that the man in the checkered shirt appears to have been used as a “target of opportunity” to explain away the differences between the shirt Doorman was wearing and the shirt that Billy was not. As you will discover here, there is no reasonable alternative to the hypothesis that Lee was Doorman, which has been further confirmed in detail by more recent studies. Beyond a reasonable doubt, the charade has been exposed. Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer and journalist with Veterans Today, has joined The Oswald Innocence Project (now aka The Oswald Innocence Campaign) which he highly recommends. Fifty years of deceit and deception are enough.
  22. Good Day .... FYI.... http://www.thedailyb...del-castro.html (QUOTE) The Evil Genius of Fidel Castro Jun 10, 2012 4:45 AM EDT A legendary spymaster, the Cuban dictator knew of Lee Harvey Oswald’s intention to kill President Kennedy, but didn’t direct his assassination, according to a recent book. During the 1960s, Maurice Bishop was the alias used by an infamous CIA officer in Mexico City, whom conspiracy theorists believe met Lee Harvey Oswald shortly before President John F. Kennedy was murdered in 1963. The alleged meeting is cited as clear evidence that CIA officers were somehow involved in Kennedy’s assassination. I knew Maurice Bishop, whose real name was David Atlee Phillips. A long time ago, he got me into the agency. I know for certain that the CIA did not kill President Kennedy. Yet Castro’s Secrets: The CIA and Cuba’s Intelligence Machine, a recent book by former CIA analyst Brian Lattell, has taught me many things I did not know about our shadow war against the tiny, communist nation. And it has provided context and overwhelming evidence for many of our intelligence failures vis-à-vis our Cuban counterparts. Namely, that the claims against Phillips and the CIA are the products of a decades-old Cuban disinformation campaign, and that over the past 50 years, Castro has shown himself to be among the greatest spymasters in modern history. Castro’s Secrets begins like a slow murder mystery then builds damning fact after damning fact into a conclusive, ground-breaking portrait, based on firsthand sources, of how the Cuban strongman—in all his evil brilliance—frequently ran circles around the CIA. Readers who start Lattell’s book with the now widespread image of Castro as a slightly avuncular, foolish caudillo will likely finish it wishing that President Kennedy had followed through during the Bay of Pigs and rid us of this sociopath and his murderous, corrupt regime. Lattell has the background to write about Castro with authority: he began tracking the Castro brothers for the agency back in the 1960s, finished his career as the U.S. intelligence community’s most senior analyst for Cuban affairs, and now is a senior research associate at the Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Relations. The most interesting parts of his narrative revolve around how much Castro knew about the plot to kill Kennedy, and a parallel attempt, on the part of the CIA, to assassinate the Cuban dictator. Lattell delves into this cloak-and-dagger tale through the story of Comandante Rolando Cubela, a senior Cuban military officer who defected to the United States. Yet Lattell alleges that Cubela, a hero of the revolution against Batista, was actually one of Castro’s supreme triumphs, a double agent run so well run that any intelligence officer would admire it. During the 1960s, the agency knew Cubela by the pseudonym AMLASH, and made him the centerpiece of its supreme assassination plot against Castro. According to Lattell, the CIA trained Cubela to use a special pistol with which to kill Castro from close range. He was then to assume control of the country. The plan had the full backing of the president and was likely set to begin in December 1963, just a month after Kennedy was shot. But Cubela always avoided taking the pistol. Lattell offers new evidence alleging that Castro personally ran Cubela against the CIA from the start, dangling him in front of the agency in 1961 in Mexico City where Phillips, my eventual mentor, was stationed. Castro even tipped the agency off that he knew all the details, in an effort to convince Americans to back away from their plans. In October 1963, just days after Cubela and his CIA handlers finalized the assassination plot against Castro, the Cuban leader reportedly told a U.S. congressman in Havana: “We don’t trust President Kennedy. We know of the plans the CIA is carrying out.” Castro also gave multiple public warnings that there would be grave consequences if the Americans continued with their plans: “U.S. leaders should think that if they are aiding terrorist plans to eliminate Cuban leaders, they themselves will not be safe,” he said in early September 1963. While conspiracy theorists harp on an alleged meeting between Oswald and Phillips, Lattell shows that Castro actually had advance knowledge of Oswald’s desire to kill Kennedy; in fact, he was told of it less than 24 hours after Oswald declared his intentions to Cuban intelligence officers in Mexico City. Lattell concludes that Castro did not direct Oswald to pull the trigger— only that he did nothing to stop him. But elsewhere in Latin America, he says that Fidel was intimately involved in assassination plots—from sustained efforts to kill Venezuelan President Rómulo Betancourt— Castro’s other bête noire after Kennedy—to the retribution assassinations of almost everyone involved in the killing of Castro’s own darling, Che Guevara. No one in the CIA who noted Castro’s warnings appeared to take them seriously, or knew of the plot to kill him; apparently, the White House never became aware of the warnings, according to Lattell. Had the importance of Castro’s comments been recognized, a decent counter- intelligence officer should at least have thought twice about the AMLASH operation. Despite its efforts to kill Castro, the agency never established a way to communicate with Cubela, on the ground in Havana. He frequently talked tough, but did nothing; he had no real links to any military units in Cuba; he continually raised his demands, in the end asking to meet with Attorney General Robert Kennedy before agreeing to take any action. And yet, Lattell says, the CIA pressed on. On Nov. 18, 1963, the agency briefed Kennedy on the AMLASH plans, and received the go-ahead. Three days later, Kennedy was dead. And the Cubela plot withered in the chaotic aftermath of the president’s death. Years later, the CIA did learn what Castro knew about Oswald, but essentially did nothing with the information; it was apparently too incendiary. As Lattell writes: “Even tentative evidence of a Cuban hand in Kennedy’s death could have sparked a clamoring for punitive action...(so the) story was squirreled away.” It is possible that the information was considered so extraordinary that lower-level officers didn’t believe it—an institutional blunder that prevented anyone with authority or the proper perspective to pass it on to policymakers; this, too, is typical, as my colleagues and I learned to our chagrin after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center. One of the successes of Castro’s Secrets is that it offers readers a view of both sides of the shadow war. As Jackie Gleason beamed his escapism from Miami Beach to a public focused on the good life, the CIA ran desperate, suicidal raids against Castro, conducted more often than not to show President Kennedy that the agency was doing something than out of any real expectation their plans would work. There are familiar tales of half-baked assassination attempts and exploding cigars. But as Lattell recounts them, he takes readers past what was previously known and shows that the Kennedy brothers were as single-minded in their efforts to eliminate Castro as he was ruthless and devious. The Kennedy’s had good reason. During the Cuban missile crisis, Castro was eager for a fight with the U.S., according to Lattell. Though Castro has spent roughly 50 years obfuscating his role—yet another of his disinformation triumphs—Lattell offers convincing evidence that, at the supreme moment of tension during the crisis, it was Castro who ordered the downing of an American U-2 spy plane, not an overly excited local commander. Likewise, Lattell says, it was Castro who urged Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev to launch a nuclear war against the U.S. in response to the deteriorating situation that the Cuban dictator had engineered. “Castro suggested that in order to prevent our nuclear missiles from being destroyed, we should launch a preemptive strike against the United States,” Lattell writes, quoting Khrushchev’s memoirs, which are backed up by quotes from Cuban defectors and other Russian officials. One shares the horrified reactions of successive Soviet officials to the man they called their “excitable,” communist ally, who was apparently willing to see us all killed to serve his ego. Only a megalomaniac would vehemently argue for Armageddon so that he could survive in a bunker, the revolutionary hero presiding over an irradiated hemisphere. But then, in Lattell’s account, this is Castro through and through: a sociopath from early manhood, who in the barrios of Havana after World War II, gunned down rivals, shooting them in the back from a distance. For all his determination, Kennedy failed to kill Castro, not just because the determined loser Oswald shot him, inflecting history, but because before his death, Kennedy’s plans against Castro were based on the overly optimistic assessments of our intelligence community. Yet, the cynicism, delusions, and wishful thinking—all presented as sensible— that plagued the CIA efforts to eliminate Castro were characteristic of several agency operations during my own career decades later (one only has to remember the contra war in Nicaragua in the 1980s and so many of the Bush administration’s actions during the war on terror). Yet I sympathize with my predecessors: for I experienced the intense pressures from policymakers to solve the problem, when my colleagues and I knew full well that we could offer little but puffed up hopes and demonstrations of aggressive action, while having to downplay our pessimism. During the mid-1980s, I was spared the misfortune of working Cuban operations. But by the late 1980s, it seems the CIA fared much better in its battles with Castro. The tables had turned. And in the end, it seems that Phillips, my old mentor, maligned as he has been by Cuban disinformation, will have the last laugh. For after reading Castro’s Secrets, no one will be able to think of Fidel as anything but what Lattell shows him to be: a murderer, sociopath, and deluded egomaniac. Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long. Glenn L. Carle spent 23 years in the Clandestine Services of the CIA, and is the author of The Interrogator: An Education. For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com. (END QUOTE) Best Regards in Research, ++Don Donald Roberdeau U.S.S. John F. Kennedy, CV-67, plank walker Sooner, or later, The Truth emerges Clearly For your considerations.... Homepage : President KENNEDY "Men of Courage" speech, and Assassination Evidence, Witnesses, Suspects + Outstanding Researchers Discoveries and Considerations.... http://droberdeau.bl...ination_09.html Dealey Plaza Map : Detailing 11-22-63 Victims precise locations, Witnesses, Films & Photos, Evidence, Suspected bullet trajectories, Important information & Key Considerations, in One Convenient Resource.... http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/2192/dpupdated110110.gif Visual Report : "The First Bullet Impact Into President Kennedy: while JFK was Still Hidden Under the 'magic-limbed-ricochet-tree' ".... http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/2446/206cropjfk1102308ms8.gif Visual Report : Reality versus C.A.D. : the Real World, versus, Garbage-In, Garbage-Out.... http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/8543/realityvscad.gif Discovery : "Very Close JFK Assassination Witness ROSEMARY WILLIS Zapruder Film Documented 2nd Headsnap: West, Ultrafast, and Directly Towards the Grassy Knoll".... http://droberdeau.bl...assination.html T ogether E veryone A chieves M ore For the United States: http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/ .
  23. Tom Scully has LOCKED the Cinque/Lovelady thread and alleged that I have committed some dire offense by posting on his behalf when we all know that new admissions to the forum are virtually non-existent. I have not been spending a lot of time on this thread other than posting on behalf of Ralph, which I had not realized was supposed to be some kind of gross breach of forum policy. Until just now, I had not seen Scully's post #38 admonishing me for posting on his behalf. Egad! How serious an offense is that supposed to be, when Ralph is advancing our understanding of how the fakery was pulled off? I am all for the forum having rules, but I submit that my posting is a nice test of the question, "Which is more important: exposing the cover-up or following the rules?" I would prefer that Ralph post for himself and so would he. So why didn't Scully suggest he would look into it? I have in the past found John Simkin to be difficult to reach. But for Scully, I assume, it would be a "piece of cake". Here is another example of why I believe he has been doing brilliant work, where everyone who cares about exposing falsehoods and revealing truths is in his debt. This is what he has now written to me, which I believe ought to be shared with every EF member: Both of these are purported to be images of Billy Lovelady sitting at the Dallas police station on 11/22/63. The one on the left is from the film of Oswald being led through the Dallas PD. The second is unsourced. To capture the first image, I stopped the film, printed the image, then scanned the image, and that's how it came to be. The one on the right is just a widely circulated image of Lovelady at the Dallas PD, and I don't know where it came from. But, the scenes are the same! Exactly the same! It's the exact same set up! Lovelady sitting at a desk with his back to the desk on some kind of stool, and a column of men walking by. File cabinets at the top of the scene, topped with files and books. And look at that clock! It's on a pole, and it says 2:00. You can see it much better on the right, but you can also see it on the left. It's in both pictures! That unusual clock! How often do you see a clock on a pole? Look at the objects on the desk, including two sheets of paper neatly lying there, caddy-corner to each other. Move your eyes back and forth. It's the exact same scene. They staged it .. . twice! Using two different men. Those two men, both purported to be Lovelady, are definitely not the same individual. The man on the right is at least 30 pounds heavier. He's got his hair combed differently, straight back, whereas the other guy has it combed over. Also, his outer shirt seems to be more open, more unbuttoned. It's the exact same scene, except for a few minor details, such as the lineup of men being different. And the most important difference, of course, is that there are different Loveladys. Please, we need to put our differences aside and reckon with this. This can be no accident and no coincidence. This was staged, twice, using two different men. I believe the man on the left was the real Lovelady, and I don't know who the man on the right is. These are obviously the same situation, the same location, the same circumstance, but they are definitely different shoots, different versions. I shouldn't have to tell you what this means. They staged it, twice! Ralph Here is a closer comparison, which, in my opinion, supports Ralph's belief that the man on the left (above) was the real Billy Lovelady and on the right (above) the imposter. How many discoveries of this caliber could we expect to have after nearly fifty years of JFK research? And it is coming from a man who has a different background, which gives him a distinctive point of view and a fresh approach: Now it seems to me that discoveries of this magnitude should be published and discussed on this forum. I still do not quite grasp what offense I am supposed to have committed in posting on behalf of Ralph, when gaining membership has been so difficult and time-consuming in the past. I believe that moderators ought to be assisting in research on JFK, not thwarting it. I am very disappointed. Ralph has also been participating in threads on the Lancer forum, where Jerry Dealey has been about as welcoming of him there as Scully and others are being receptive to him here. If Scully can assist in making Ralph a member, it would be sensational. I willing apologize for any transgressions of forum rules, but I really think locking a thread over formalities in this case is simply inexcusable.
  24. For an extended version with many more photographs, which lays the context for this article, see "JFK Special 3: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!" http://www.veteranst...rway-after-all/ The Two "Lovelady"s Ralph Cinque Look at these two images, and tell me if it is the same man. If they are not the same man, then the entire official story of the JFK assassination falls completely apart. Everything hinges on those two individuals being the same person. If they are different human beings, then it’s all over for the Warren Report. The man on the left is Billy Lovelady, who worked at the Texas School Book Depository alongside Lee Harvey Oswald. When the Altgens photo came out, many people, from all over the world, thought that the man standing in the doorway was Lee. But, it was quickly announced that, no, it was Billy. But, it was a hard sell. As much as they raved about how much Lee and Billy looked alike, Lee was 5’9” and weighed 135 pounds whereas Billy was 5’8” and weighed 170 pounds. That’s a big weight difference, and it hardly makes them twins. And most agree that Doorway Man had a slender build, much like Lee. And with Doorman wearing a loose-fitting, unbuttoned outer shirt over a notched t-shirt, it was a perfect match to Lee’s garb. But what was Billy wearing? That’s where it gets dicey. At first, Billy said that he wore a red and white striped shirt and blue jeans. He told that to the FBI, and they wrote it down and sent it to the Warren Commission. And the shirt, which you can see above, was short-sleeved. That immediately ruled him out as Doorway Man. And keep in mind: this is a default situation: If it wasn’t Billy, then it had to be Lee. There were no other candidates, no other possibilities. It had to be one or the other. And so, the story had to be changed. Are you aware that other aspects of the assassination also got changed? For instance, they didn’t go with the “Magic Bullet” theory in the beginning. At first, they said that JFK and Connally were struck by different bullets, which is also what Connally claimed. But then when they discovered that there had been a missed shot that nicked bystander James Tague, they had to account for all the wounds with just two bullets. And since the last and fatal head shot was considered a solo event, they had to attribute all of the remaining seven wounds in two men to just one bullet, the so-called magic bullet. But, they definitely would not have gone that route if the fragment that hit Tague had not been found. They weren’t going that route. It’s like they hit a wall, and they had to go around it. So, flexibility, it seems, is the key to effective story-telling when it comes to political assassinations. And since they had to get Lovelady out of that short-sleeved shirt and into a long-sleeved one- for there to be any chance of him being Doorman- the story became that he actually wore a long-sleeved plaid, checkered shirt that day. As for what he told the FBI earlier, that was just a misunderstanding. And to prove it, they came up with the image that you see above on the right. That is, supposedly, an image of Billy Lovelady taken outside the Dallas Police Department just hours after the assassination, and you can see that he is wearing a long-sleeved, plaid, checkered shirt. Ain’t detective work grand? If you’re smart and cunning like Lieutenant Columbo, all the pieces come together, they fit like a glove, and there are no loose ends. Except in this case, Lieutenant Columbo would have been the first to point out that FBI Lovelady and DallasPD Lovelady were not the same man. The Two "Osama"s What exactly do they have in common? The only thing I can see is a similar pattern of hair loss, but even that isn’t identical. Nothing else about them is even a good match, let alone a perfect one. So, how is it that people came to accept that they were one and the same person? The answer is simple: the psychological power of officialdom. When something comes from high above, that is, from government and media, it flies on the wings of authority, and the critical faculties of the mind shut down. The very same thing is happening right now, this day, in perfect parallel with the events of 1963. Here’s what I mean: It is now the one-year anniversary of the (alleged) assassination of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. But, did he really live until 2011? Ten years earlier, in 2001, his kidneys were failing, and he was on dialysis. Do you know how long the average dialysis patient lives in the United States? About 5 years, and that’s with the best medical care. For a while, Osama was living in a cave. And he had a myriad of other health problems, including: diabetes, hepatitis, osteoporosis, and Marfan’s syndrome. The left picture below is Osama bin Laden from 2001 and to its right is an image from 2011 which was released by the Pentagon. Which man looks older and which man looks younger? They say that he dyed his hair, but forget about that. Compare their eyes, and hone in on the tired, old eyes of the “younger” Osama. Compare the fullness of their faces, or I should say that lack of it in the older-looking, more decrepit Osama from 2001. Look at the firmness and solidness of the musculature around the shoulders of the latter-day bin laden compared to how he looked 10 years earlier. Those are some solid trapezoid muscles. What, was he lifting weights at his compound in Abbottabad? With all his health problems and with the stress of living in a cave, living on the run, remaining in hiding as the most wanted man in the world, do you really think there is any chance that bin laden could emerge in 2011 in the obvious good, robust condition that you see above? We’re talking about 10 years on dialysis! I happened to watch the movie "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" in which a man aged in reverse, where he got younger with each passing year. But, I needn’t have to tell you that that never happens in real life. People only age in one direction – from younger to older. Osama, above, seems to have defied the laws of biology. Apparently, he spent the whole time on a spaceship travelling at the speed of light so that he didn’t age, as per Einstein. But hey, he not only didn’t age, he actually got younger- a lot younger. And all while on dialysis! Heck, maybe we should all start doing it. But the question is, why does any American believe that that second picture was really Osama bin laden? And the answer again is: the psychological power of officialdom. The Lovelady Imposter But getting back to the two images of Billy Lovelady, there are people today, supposedly intelligent people, who are still arguing that they are the same person. Allow me to re-present the basic points of comparison, most of which were laid out by Canadian researcher, Kelly Ruckman. What follows is an excerpt from the last article in this series: First, DallasPD Lovelady's head (right) is wider from front to back than is FBI Lovelady's (left). Second, the slope of FBI Lovelady's head is more vertical, and the angle of his forehead with the top of his head is more rectangular. On DallasPD Lovelady, there is no angle at all, rather there is just a long, gentle, slope, like a ski slope, and it reminds me of the images we have seen of Cro-Magnon Man or Neanderthal. Third, FBI Lovelady seems to have a longer nose, and DallasPD Lovelady seems to have a shorter, stubbier nose. Fourth, the hairlines are different. FBI Lovelady's hairline at the temple seems to go straight up whereas DallasPd Lovelady's hairline angles back more. Fifth, the ears look different, with the real Lovelady's on the left being longer and narrower. Remember that ears are very distinctive, like fingerprints. Thank you Kelly Ruckman for pointing out the above. But there is a difference between the two of them which jumps out even more at me: their necks. DallasPD Lovelady (on the right) has got a condition known as FORWARD NECK SYNDROME. Any orthopedist or chiropractor can see it- at a glance. Instead of going up, his neck is going forward. FBI Lovelady (on the left) has a much more vertical neck. The basic, fundamental direction that it is going is UP. But on DallasPD Lovelady (on the right), his neck isn't going up so much. His neck is going more FORWARD, and that has the effect of shortening his neck. And that is something we can measure. Take a ruler and measure the length of the visible neck on each of them, going from the bottom of the ear to wherever the vertical line reaches the shirt. As I measure it, I get a full inch of neck length on FBI Lovelady, but only 2/3 inch on DallasPD Lovelady. So, from the perspective of DallasPD Lovelady, FBI Lovelady has 50% more length in his neck. Next, I want you to drop a plumb line on each of them. And the way you can do it is to take a ruler and place it right behind the ear, and holding it vertical, track it down and see where it goes. With good posture, the ear should not be too much in front of the sagittal plane of the shoulder, and FBI Lovelady is doing quite well in that respect. His isn't bad alignment. I like what I'm seeing. But DallasPD Lovelady's ear is much farther forward than that; his plumb line is well forward of his shoulder. He is really quite contorted, and he's the kind of guy who is destined to have osteoarthritis of the neck. In holding his neck forward like that, he has to do something to maintain his eyes level, that is, parallel with the ground, and what he's doing is cocking his head back sharply at the very top of his neck. You may not be able to see it as well as I can, but if you were to see it on an x-ray, it would jump out at you. So, his neck is going forward, and at the very top of his neck, his head is rocking back on his neck. And that is like putting a heavy weight on a spring, compressing it. And that puts pressure on all the cervical joints, and over time, they wear out from it. The compressed cervical discs thin out until they are practically non-existent. Cervical disc herniations are also possible with this kind of posture. Here's another way you can tell the difference: look at the axis of FBI Lovelady's ear. It's pretty much vertical: straight up and down. Not perfectly so, but close. But, on DallasPD Lovelady, the ear is rocked back more. It's got more pitch to it. The line of greatest length through the ear is more diagonal, with the upper part back and the lower part forward. Again, it's rocked back, and the reason it's rocked back is because the whole head is rocked back. This is a very rigid, locked, dysfunctional posture that compromises mobility, flexibility, and coordination. As a chiropractor, it's a pleasure for me to look at FBI Lovelady because he has such nice lengthening in his neck and that translates into freedom of motion, lightness of being, and a generally expansive state of the body, which is what you want. But, it's very distressful for me to look at DallasPD Lovelady because he looks solid, rigid, steeped in stiffness, and destined for pain. Is there any chance that Lovelady was just standing and comporting himself differently on the two days? No. There is absolutely no chance of that. Postural habits are deeply ingrained. They are the MOST deeply ingrained of all the habits you've got. It's extremely hard to break them- even if you try, and there is no reason to think Lovelady was trying. And the reason that it's so hard to change them is because your habitual way of carrying yourself is the only thing you know; it's the only thing that feels right to you; anything else would feel way out of balance, terribly wrong, like you were going to fall. It's like your own little world that you're living in- your way of responding to gravity and other forces- and it's the only one you can even conceive of. Having been a chiropractor for 36 years, I can tell you that this one factor of the FORWARD NECK SYNDROME on DallasPD Lovelady and its absence on FBI Lovelady completely eliminates any possibility that the two of them were the same man. It clinches it like different dental x-rays. It is not just a different position that DallasPD Lovelady is holding his neck; he is anatomically fixed that way. He could not make his neck look like FBI Lovelady's no matter what he did. It would be anatomically impossible. The Experts Speak That concludes the excerpt, and I hope you are convinced now that the case for them being different individuals is solid and compelling. However, our opponents, including all lone-nutters and even some conspiracy theorists, say things like: “you can’t tell anything from old photographs,” “it’s too blurry to make precise comparisons,” “posture fluctuates from day to day,” (actually, it doesn’t) and more. They have actually been fighting tooth and nail to defend the idea that those two disparate men are both Billy Lovelady. For lone-nutters, it may be that they are wise enough to realize that they have to cling to that claim or else they lose everything. As for the CTs who are fighting me, I haven’t a clue as to what motivates them. But, to ratchet it up a notch, I decided to seek the opinions of some other doctors whom I know. And in order not to bias them, I made no mention of the JFK assassination, and I made no mention of what my opinion is. I certainly did not include the excerpt above. Here is all I said: Doctors, I have a favor to ask of each of you. Please look at this composite picture of two men. I wish for you to tell me, based on anatomical comparisons, whether you think there is any chance they are the same individual. It's important concerning some research I'm doing. Thank you. Dr. Ralph Cinque Now, let’s take a look at the results, and I am going to post them verbatim. And I am going to provide the names and locations of the doctors, just so that you know, without a doubt, that I am talking about real people. There is no bull-xxxxting going on here. This is from Dr. David Peters, who is an eye doctor in Lockhart, Texas. Hello Raffie! Based on the bone structure, they do not appear to be the same person. Pal David * * * * * * * * * * * * Dr. James Panzetta is a dentist from Virginia. Hi Ralph: I'll give you my opinion. I do not believe they are the same person. My reasons are as follows: 1. The bridge of the nose on one man appears convex and the other appears concave. 2. The lips appear different to me. Bottom lip seems more retruded on the right than on the other. 3. Eyes and eye brows appear different to me. 4. Head and neck articulation appear different to me. 5. Man on right has more robust chest. * * * * * * * * * * * * This is a response from Dr. Glenn Skene, a chiropractor, from Anaheim CA. Ralph, I see them as two distinct individuals. True, they are both working on a good "reverse yamaka' with their hairlines, but the ears are wrong, the cervical curves are way different, and so are the slopes of their shoulders. There is also the overall size difference- the guy on the left is slighter of build. So, my analysis is: 2 different dudes, both bad dressers! Glenn * * * * * * * * * * * * This is from Dr. Gary Skene, who is the brother of Glenn Skene, and also a chiropractor. He practices in Boca del Toro, Panama. Ralph, they're not the same guy. Their faces are different, and the guy on the right is a lot stockier. But, he also has that short, anterior bulldog neck, and the other guy doesn't. Is someone really saying that they are the same guy? Who? I can't believe it. I mean, I can't believe that anyone would say that. They're definitely not the same guy, and it's not a matter of belief. Hey, when are you coming down here? You gotta see this place. Gary * * * * * * * * * * * * * This is from Dr. Alan Goldhamer, a chiropractor from Santa Rosa, CA. These appear to be two different individuals. I suppose picture quality and angle could alter perceptions, but many features appear to be different, including the noses, the ears, and especially the cervical anatomy. * * * * * * * * * * * * * This is from Dr. Erwin Linzer, who is also a chiropractor from Santa Rosa, CA. Hi Dr. Cinque It looks to me like two different people. The ear size is different, and the jaw size seems different. Dr. Erwin Linzner * * * * * * * * * * * * This is from Dr. John Wilbur who happens to be my dentist here in Austin TX. They are not the same man. With enough surgery, you might be able to change the left man into the right one, but I can’t see it going the other way. * * * * * * * * * * * * * This is Dr. Theresa Longo M.D., who is a pediatric intensive care specialist from southern Illinois. Dear Ralph, I would have great difficulty saying that those two men are the same man. The man on the right has a very different slant of his forehead and brow, and his eye socket configuration is different too. And his whole face seems to plane farther back, that is, to be wider. They are two individuals. Theresa * * * * * * * * * * * Finally, here is Dr. Ward Dean, a brilliant medical doctor, the author of several textbooks, two of which I have read: The NeuroEndocrine Theory of Aging and Biological Aging Measurement, which has to do with fine observations and measurements of the human body, which therefore applies directly to what we are talking about. Dr. Dean said: Ralph, Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. They look like different men to me. Their cranio-facial features look distinct, and the man on the right looks heavier and older. And what a difference in physiognomy! The man on the left looks relaxed, but I wouldn't want to tangle with that guy on the right. He looks mean! Just an impression. Ward * * * * * * * * * * * * I could continue posing the question it to other doctors, but since I’m getting a unanimous verdict- that they were different men- there is hardly any point. But feel free to send the pictures around yourself to doctors or non-doctors. I asked doctors simply because they know anatomy and they are used to studying the human body. But, Jim Fetzer put it as well as anyone when he said that one of them looks like a man and the other like a gorilla. In lay terms, that’s as good a way as any to express the magnitude of the differences between them. Concluding Reflections What does all this mean? It means that the totality of the single gunman theory collapses to nothingness. Lovelady was not the one wearing the plaid checkered shirt on 11/22/63, yet, he posed in that shirt, or one like it, several times over the years, and as late as 1978, as photographed by Robert Grodin. Lovelady knew very well that he was not the one wearing that shirt that fateful day in 1963. Rather, it was his imposter who wore it. So, Billy Lovelady was part of, or at least became part of, the conspiracy. He was not the Doorway Man in the Altgens photo, which means that Lee Harvey Oswald had to be. And if Lee was standing in the doorway during the shooting, he could not have been up on the 6th floor doing the shooting. This is open and shut. There is no longer any doubt about it. The image of Doorway Man in the Altgens photo is visual proof that Oswald was innocent. And all the pining of Vincent Bugliosi, Gerald Posner, John McAdams, SV Anderson, Max Holland, and others cannot change it or contradict it. The only thing left to do now is to spread the word, one mind at a time. Unfortunately, the power and dominance of government and media are utterly on their side. Even the talking heads mentioned above have got the hobnail boot of the state backing them up. Ironically, there can’t be more than a few individuals still living who were involved in any way with the assassination, and none of them are in power. No one in power now can be considered the least bit culpable for the murder. Obama had nothing to do with it. Neither did Attorney General Eric Holder. So, why won’t they re-open the case? The answer is that it’s not just the perpetrators who would be on trial if the case were reopened. It’s the integrity and the moral authority of the whole US federal government and also the whole corporate media that would be on trial because they have been feeding us the lies for 48 years. So, they are not going to cooperate; they are never going to cooperate. They correctly recognize that, ultimately, it is their own hides that are on the line, if not for the murder, then for the cover-up. They have already crossed the Rubicon concerning JFK, and there is no turning back for them. They are going to stick to their story to the bitter end- despite how preposterous it is and always was. They control the television and radio broadcasts; they determine the content of the school books; and they know full-well about the psychological power of officialdom, and so they use it. But, that doesn’t mean that we can’t win. You have to think of this as a guerrilla war. We have the power of the internet. We have sister truth movements, such as the 9/11 truth movement and the Ron Paul movement, with whom to network. And once the light goes on in someone’s head, there will be no turning back for that person. We’ll have them on our side for life. We can win this war of attrition. So, please start now by urging every person you know and love to read this article. Help spread the truth about the murder of JFK. Doing so will help galvanize the revival and restoration of our country. It really will.
  • Create New...