RSS

Category Archives: JFK

Oswald in the Doorway positively identified in Altgens6 photo using computer graphics techniques

The man in the doorway identified
By Larry Rivera © 10/22/15

The man in the doorway in the Altgens6 photograph can now be positively identified using modern computer graphics techniques. The techniques used here can be completely and reliably reproduced using the materials and methods described herein.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2015/10/oic-chairman-larry-rivera-has-done_24.html

Look inside the books: 
Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy 
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
LINKS TO WEB/BLOG POSTS FROM 2004
Click on a graph or photo to view the source post:Election Model graphs and JFK images

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 24, 2015 in JFK

 

Tags: , ,

JFK Myths Exposed: Oswald as Doorman was “put to bed in 1978 and makes CTs look foolish”; Lovelady was Doorman because “it looks like him”

JFK Myths Exposed: Oswald as Doorman was “put to bed in 1978 and makes CTs look foolish”; Lovelady was Doorman because “it looks like him”

Richard Charnin
Oct.14, 2015

Look inside the books:
Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
LINKS TO WEB/BLOG POSTS FROM 2004

Regarding Oswald in the Doorway, a poster wrote: “This was put to bed in 1978 and is irrelevant except to make conspiracy people look foolish”.

Another poster commented: Lovelady was Doorman because “it looks like him”. I asked him to prove it but he kept repeating “it looks like him”. I showed him links to my posts which provide powerful evidence that Oswald was Doorman. It was like debating a wall, but it is instructive to see how disinformationists and trolls operate. Show them proof and they just ignore it – and keep repeating their nonsensical one-liners. View the thread here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/864733820211085/permalink/1105414642809667/

This was my reply to the first poster.
It was also decided by the HSCA in 1978 that the Mafia did it, and that the CIA and FBI were not involved, and that Oswald was a shooter in the TSBD, and that it was just a coincidence that the other shooter was independent of Oswald, and there was no definable witness universe and therefore it was impossible to calculate witness death probabilities, and that the London Times actuary was wrong and that…

the Oswald backyard photos were not fakes, and Oswald shot Tippit and shot at Walker, and that Oswald was a lone nut, not a CIA asset or FBI informer, and that Hoover, LBJ and the Warren Commission were honest in their search for the truth, and that the Zapruder film was not altered, and the magic bullet theory was credible, and that Clay Shaw was not CIA, and that just 4 bullets were fired based on acoustics and that…

THE MAJORITY OF DEALEY PLAZA WITNESSES  STATED THAT THE SHOTS CAME FROM THE TSBD, and that the CIA  did not have to respond to a subpoena from HSCA investigator Richard Sprague, and that’s why they hired Blakey who would not investigate the CIA and who stated that the mob did it, and that there was no coverup, and that the photos of JFK head wounds were not altered and that…THE WC SINGLE BULLET THEORY MADE SENSE…and that OSWALD WAS NOT IN THE DOORWAY…

(A) OSWALD DEFENDERS SAY HE DID NOT WANT TO VIEW THE MOTORCADE AND WAS SEEN IN THE 2ND FLOOR LUNCHROOM CALMLY HOLDING A COKE 75 SECONDS AFTER THE SHOOTING … WHILE (B) LONE NUTTERS BELIEVE THE WC CLAIM THAT HE RAN DOWN TO THE LUNCHROOM FROM THE 6TH FLOOR IN 75 SECONDS..

AND YES, THIS WAS ALL DECIDED IN 1978, SO IT MUST ALL BE TRUE…

According to the poster’s logic, anyone who does not believe the above must be a CT and looks foolish. Such twisted logic from one who is not a Lone Nutter.  Lone Nutters believe the impossible SBT and that Oswald was on the 6th floor shooting JFK and cannot be Doorman, and that he outdid Superman by hiding the rifle and  ran down four flights to the lunchroom in a little over a minute,  and that he was not seen by Victoria Adams (the girl on the stairs).

Strangely, posters who are not Lone Nutters also believe that Oswald was confronted by Roy Truly and Officer Baker drinking a coke on the 2nd floor – and he was not out of breath. But Baker and Truly did not mention seeing Oswald in their original testimony in which they reported seeing someone on the third or fourth floor who did not resemble Oswald. That was easy.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 14, 2015 in JFK

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Philip Stahl: Exposing JFK Media Propagandists and Warren Commission apologists

Richard Charnin
Sept. 14, 2015

JFK Blog Posts
Twitter Chronological Links
Look inside the book:Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy

Philip Stahl: Exposing JFK Media Propagandists and Warren Commission apologists

Stahl is a prolific Astronomer, Physicist and JFK researcher who has written many Physics texts and The JFK Assassination: Final Analysis. The following posts on his blog illustrate the extent to which the media will go in covering up the truth about the JFK assassination.

I sent Stahl this link: Debunking Scott Aaronson’s “Twenty Reasons to Believe Oswald Acted Alone”
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/04/29/10285/

Stahl responded with this set of devastating articles which closed the book on Aaronson:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/10/why-some-quantum-physicists-need-to.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/10/scott-aaronson-in-over-his-head-on-jfk.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/10/rebuttal-of-scott-aarons-2o-reasons-for.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/10/rebuttal-of-scott-aaronsons-20-reasons.html

JFK Forum Lone Nutters
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/05/why-i-dont-waste-time-posting-on-jfk.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/05/why-i-remain-uniquely-qualified-to-have.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/05/educating-australian-bloke-on-basic.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/09/will-lone-nuts-trot-out-more-malarkey.html

John McAdams
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/04/john-macadams-tries-to-rip-my-review-of.html

Rachel Maddow (MSNBC): In this video Maddow lies about Lee Oswald and the Mannlicher Carcano.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/02/rachel-maddow-again-lies-about-lee.html

The Beltway Crowd: Bob Woodward vs. Oliver Stone
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/12/why-i-trust-oliver-stone-over-bob.html

Gerald Posner and Vince Bugliosi:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_22.html

Vince Bugliosi
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/04/vince-bugliosis-magnificent-obsession.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/04/vince-bugliosis-magnificent-obsession_29.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/04/vince-bugliosis-magnificent-obsession_30.html

Bill O’Reilly
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/killing-kennedy-what-it-got-wrong-pt-2.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/03/oreillys-lies-in-killing-kennedy-show.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/11/be-still-my-heart-oreilly-does-jfk.html

Bob Schieffer: CBS
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/bob-schieffer-not-worthy-to-be-called.html

Time Magazine
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/13-pages-on-conspiracy-industry-and.html

Stanley Kutner, Bill Maher, Tom Brokaw
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/what-have-we-learned-this-past-week.html

NAT GEO
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/11/nat-geo-continues-with-elites-kennedy.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/11/more-on-nat-geo-explorer-lost-bullet.html

Stephen King
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/11/stephen-king-really-prepared-to-get-his.html

Jill Abramson: NY Times
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/ny-times-reviewer-jill-abramson.html

Philip Shenon: NY Times
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/author-philip-shenon-is-he-idiot-or-dupe.html

Steve Kornacki: MSNBC
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/even-liberals-can-be-victims-of.html

Michael Smerconish
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/beware-conspiracy-theorists-no-beware.html

Larry Sabato: Univ. of Virginia
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/larry-sabatos-new-book-does-not.html

Glenn Garvin: Miami Herald
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/glenn-garvin-fact-dont-matter-in-jfk.html

Marilyn Elias: Southern Poverty Law Center
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-southern-poverty-law-center-still.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-second-assassination-today-fifty.html

The “Skeptics Society”
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/11/top-ten-ways-to-test-conspiracy-claims.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/11/hyper-skepticism-of-conspiracy-phobics.html

 
1 Comment

Posted by on September 13, 2015 in JFK

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Michael T. Griffith: Evidence of Alteration in the Zapruder film

Michael T. Griffith: Evidence of Alteration in the Zapruder film

Richard Charnin
June 19, 2015

JFK Blog Posts
Twitter Chronological Links
Look inside the book:Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy

The following is a summary of Griffith’s key points in his 1997 essay.
http://johnfitzgeraldkennedy.net/evidenceofalterationinthezapruderfilm.htm

GRIFFITH’S KEY POINTS

What follows are some of the indications that the Zapruder film has been altered. By “altered” I mean that certain frames have been removed and that others are composites. Why was the film altered? To remove episodes and images that clearly showed there were more than three shots (at least one from the front) and therefore that there were multiple gunmen involved in the shooting.

The Limo Stop
* Numerous witnesses, over 40, including the escort patrolmen to the rear of the limousine, said the limousine stopped or slowed down drastically for a second or two. This event is not seen in the Zapruder film; in fact, the limousine never comes close to performing this action in the current film.

Impossible timings
* In Z353-356 we see Malcolm Summers diving to the ground. Summers is to the right of James Altgens. In Z353 Summers’ left leg is extended most of the way out. But, in the very next frame, Z354, amazingly, the foreleg is bent markedly backward. Can anyone flex their foreleg to that degree so quickly? In 1/18th of a second?

* Another seemingly impossible action in the Zapruder film is the extremely rapid and precise movement of Charles Brehm’s son in Z277-287. In Z277 Brehm junior is standing behind his father. Then, from Z277-287, or in just over half a second, he bolts out from behind his father and comes to stand beside him, clapping his hands no less.

JFK reaction
* Several witnesses said Kennedy was knocked visibly forward by a shot to the head, and Dan Rather reported seeing this event when he viewed the film the day after the shooting. No such motion of the head is now visible in the film, only the split-second forward movement from Z312-313, which no one could have noticed.

* Former FBI official and J. Edgar Hoover aide Cartha DeLoach recently provided further evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film (albeit unintentionally and unknowingly, I’m sure). DeLoach recalls in his book HOOVER’S FBI that he watched the Zapruder film at FBI HQ the day after the shooting and that he saw Kennedy “PITCHING SUDDENLY FORWARD” in the film. No such motion, of course, is seen in the current film.

* Special Agent George Hickey, riding in the follow-up car, said the final shot made Kennedy “fall forward and to his left.”

* William Newman, who was standing on the Elm Street sidewalk right in front of the grassy knoll and who had one of the best views of the shooting, tried to tell New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison that JFK was knocked forward and to the left as if struck by a baseball bat, but Garrison wouldn’t believe him because the event wasn’t in the film.

I believe the above is good evidence that the original Zapruder film showed Kennedy being knocked rapidly forward. How do defenders of the film’s authenticity explain this testimony?

The head snap
*The violent, dramatic backward head snap in Z313-323, which for so many years was thought to be concrete proof of a shot from the front, actually constitutes further evidence of alteration. It has been established that no bullet striking the front of the skull could have caused the backward head snap. However, no bullet striking from behind could have caused this motion either. Warren Commission supporters have put forth two theories to explain how a bullet striking from behind might have caused the head snap, the jet-effect theory and the neuromuscular-reaction theory. Both theories are untenable.

So if neither a bullet from the front nor a bullet from behind could have caused the head snap, what caused it? So how can we explain it? Dr. David Mantik, who holds a doctorate in physics, suggests that what we now see as the head snap was originally a much slower motion and was actually the action of Jackie lifting her husband back up to look at him.

Visual anomalies
* Seemingly impossible inconsistencies occur in the streaking of background figures in relation to the camera’s movement. Mathematician Daryll Weatherly’s vector analysis of image streaking constitutes powerful evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film.

* A white spot on the grass behind the limousine is seen to behave in an unnatural manner. When the spot’s width is measured in relation to the camera’s tracking, the spot should be at its smallest when the image is at the left edge of the frame. But it doesn’t do this. On some occasions, the spot’s width is two to three times what it should be.

* The head turn of the driver, William Greer, from Z315-317 is too fast–it seems to be well beyond human capability. His head turns about 165 degrees in six frames, or in only 1/3rd of a second.

Blood and brain splatter to the left rear
* At least four witnesses saw blood and brain from Kennedy’s skull blow out toward the rear of the limousine. Blood and brain splattered onto the left side of the follow-up car’s windshield and onto the driver’s arm. A considerable amount of blood and brain also splattered onto the two patrolmen who were riding to the limousine’s left rear. At least one of those witnesses specified that the brain matter blew out from the back of the skull, and dozens of witnesses, including doctors and nurses, saw a large hole in the right rear part of President Kennedy’s head. In the Zapruder film no blood or brain is seen to spray backward. (It cannot be said that the right frontal explosion of blood and brain, which is itself suspect, caused all the blood splattering. In the Zapruder film the right-frontal spray blows mainly forward, and also up and toward the camera, and quickly dissipates–in fact it dissipates in no more than three frames. This effusion of spray could not have caused all of the blood splattering that occurred.)

Right-rear head exit wound
*Kinney’s description of a large, blown-out right-rear exit wound matches the reports given by numerous Parkland doctors and nurses and by several witnesses at the autopsy. Also, his account of particulate matter exploding out the back of the skull and landing on his windshield and left arm agrees with Patrolman Bobby Hargis’s report that the head shot sent blood and brain flying toward him so fast that when it struck him he initially thought he himself had been hit and that the debris got all over his motorcycle and uniform (in an interview he gave a few years ago, Hargis described the head shot as an “explosion”). Hargis, of course, was riding to the left rear of the limousine.

*Another example is the account of surveyor Chester Breneman, who was allowed to study enlargements of Zapruder frames to aid him in determining locations and distances. Breneman insisted that on some of the frames he saw a blob of blood and brain blow out from the back of Kennedy’s head. No such event is visible on the current film. (As mentioned, some witnesses in the plaza likewise saw blood and brain blown backward.)

One frame right-frontal explosion
* The bloody spray from the right-frontal explosion that is seen in the film blows upward, forward, and also toward the camera, and is really clearly visible for only one frame, and dissipates in two to three frames–or in no more than 1/6th of a second. Yet, in films of two ballistics tests the resulting spray is visible for multiple frames. In other words, the right-frontal effusion in the Zapruder film seems to disappear too quickly, with unnatural speed.

More anomalies
* There is a “remarkably symmetric” plus sign at the center of Elm Street in Z028 (Z28). This might have been used as a register mark for aligning the film when it was being copied by those who altered the film.

* There are magnification anomalies in the film for which there appears to be no credible natural or innocent explanation. One clear example of this is the measured width between the two posts on the back side of the Stemmons Freeway sign from Z312-318. This distance increases by over 12 percent in only six frames. Yet, from Z191-207 the interval remains constant.

Location of start of film
*Abraham Zapruder told CBS News that he began filming as soon as the President’s limousine turned onto Elm Street from Houston Street, as one would logically expect him to have done. But the present Zapruder film begins with the limousine already on Elm Street at Z133. On the day after the assassination, Dan Rather of CBS News watched what was quite possibly an earlier version of the film. Rather reported that in the film he watched that day the limousine “made a turn, a left turn, off Houston Street onto Elm Street.” Again, no such event is now seen in the film.

Why forge the rapid head snap?
Before I conclude, I would like to address two questions that have been raised by those who deny alteration: Why would the forgers, who were presumably trying to conceal or remove evidence of multiple gunmen and of shots from the front, produce an altered film that included the rapid backward head snap seen in the current film? And, why would the forgers have produced a film that contained indications of more than three shots? My answer to both of these objections is twofold:

One, they do not explain the evidence of alteration. If there is scientific proof of alteration, then these philosophical objections must be rejected.

Two, I do not believe the forgers were at all satisfied with the results of their tampering. I think they had to create the backward head snap because they had to remove images that were even more unacceptable and problematic.

We must keep in mind that the Zapruder film was suppressed from public view for over a decade. In short, I believe the forgers concluded that even after all of their editing the film was still unacceptable, and that this is why the film was suppressed for so long.

Extensive editing
A strong case can now be made for extensive editing of the Zapruder film. In fact, the conclusion seems inescapable–the film was deliberately altered. No other explanation is in the same league, in terms of explanatory power, for the myriad of anomalous characteristics that are seen everywhere in this case. Many frames were excised, some individual frames were extensively altered, others were changed only enough to fill in for missing frames, and others were left alone. . . .

Too many anomalies to dismiss
Even if some of the apparent technical anomalies in the Zapruder film can be explained, strong indications of tampering would still remain. To put it another way, if opponents of alteration are able to explain the absence of background streaking in certain frames, the magnification anomalies, the odd behavior of the white spot, and other seeming difficulties, would this establish the film’s authenticity? No.
Do we dismiss..
1-the witnesses who reported the limousine stopped or slowed drastically?
2-the witnesses who saw blood and brain blown visibly to the rear?
3-the fact that the backward head snap is physically impossible according to everything we know about physics and the human body?
4-the fact that Zapruder said he filmed the motorcade from the time it turned onto Elm Street?
5-the fact that Brehm’s son is positioned behind his father one moment but half a second later is standing calmly clapping at his side?
6-the fact that the 12/5/63 Secret Service survey placed the last shot at Z358 and that this placement matches the testimony of Emmett Hudson and James Altgens regarding the explosive head shot?

Questions
The numerous indications of alteration in the Zapruder film naturally raise some disturbing questions. The answer to the question of why the film was altered is fairly apparent–to conceal obvious evidence of a frontal shot, of multiple gunmen, and of more than three hits. But, who performed the alteration? Whoever they were, they were very well connected (so as to gain access to the film) and had at their disposal considerable technical expertise. It would seem self-evident that those who altered the Zapruder film were either working with or following orders from the men who were responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy.

Doug Horne (Chief ARRB Analyst for Military Records)

The following post contains a link to an essay by Doug Horne  and to a video on the Z-film chain of custody.
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/jfk-assassination-mathematical-proof-that-the-zapruder-film-was-altered/
Horne interviews Dino Brugioni (a photo interpretation expert) who viewed the original Zapruder film on the weekend following the assassination. http://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/
Horne writes:
“As discussed earlier in this paper, Dino Brugioni opined during his July 9, 2011 interview with the author that the head explosion seen today in the extant Zapruder film is markedly different from what he saw on 11/23/63, when he worked with what he is certain was the camera-original film. The head explosion he recalls was much bigger than the one seen today in frame 313 of the extant film (going “three or four feet into the air”); was a “white cloud” that did not exhibit any of the pink or red color seen in frame 313 today; and was of such a duration that he is quite sure that in the film he viewed in 1963, there were many more frames than just one graphically depicting the fatal head shot on the film he viewed in 1963. Mr. Brugioni cannot, and does not, accept frame 313 of the extant Zapruder film as an accurate or complete representation of the fatal head shot he saw in the camera-original Zapruder film on the Saturday evening following President Kennedy’s assassination”.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on June 19, 2015 in JFK

 

Tags: ,

Oswald in the Doorway: Why is the preponderance of the evidence dismissed?

Oswald in the Doorway: Why is the preponderance of the evidence dismissed?

Richard Charnin
May 30, 2015
Updated Nov.1, 2015

JFK Blog Posts
Twitter Chronological Links
Look inside the book:
Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy

Why is it so important for the naysayers to insist that LHO was not in front? Is it to maintain a sliver of doubt that maybe Oswald did actually run from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor as the Warren Commission wants us all to believe?

The answer is simple. It would finally close the book on the framing of Oswald. The Parlor game would be over. JFK researchers would have to change the focus of their analysis. There would no longer be any doubt. It would be 100% proof of the BIG LIE.

One might say that it’s a moot point since the evidence is clear that Oswald was on the first floor at the time of the shooting – but may have gone up to the second floor lunchroom. So why the big fuss? Well, only a fool takes anything in the Warren Report seriously. It sure makes you wonder.

These are facts that no one has discussed. Namely the testimony of Lovelady and Frazier that Lovelady was standing on the steps in front of Frazier and Sarah Stanton. If you believe their testimony, then it must be Oswald on the TOP level (the first floor entrance).

There is ZERO evidence that Lovelady was Doorman. ALL of the evidence (including the pixel analysis of Doorman’s shirt) points to Oswald as Doorman standing on the first floor (TOP level) while LOVELADY WAS STANDING IN FRONT A FEW STEPS BELOW FRAZIER who was standing to the left of Oswald on the TOP level.

The testimony of Frazier and Lovelady has been hidden in plain sight. It is proof that LHO was standing at the entrance to the Doorway since Lovelady was standing on the STEPS in front of Frazier; IT’S THE CLINCHER. HOW COME THIS HAS NOT BEEN A POINT OF DEBATE IN 51 YEARS?

THIS IS ABOUT CLOSING THE BOOK ON ALL THESE LIES:
1) OSWALD SHOT JFK FROM THE 6 FLOOR OF THE TSBD
2) HID THE MANNLICHER-CARCANO,
3) RAN FROM THE 6TH TO THE 2ND FLOOR,
4) BOUGHT A COKE,
5) WAS NOT BREATHING HARD WHEN SEEN BY TRULY AND BAKER,
6) AND DID ALL THIS IN 75-90 SECONDS.

REALLY?

The naysayers have yet to explain the following.

-Oswald (LHO) told Fritz he was “out front with Bill Shelley”.
-Why would Oswald lie when he had Shelley as an alibi?
-Fritz’s notes were not made public until 1997. Why not?

-Lovelady and Frazier both testified multiple times that Lovelady was standing on the steps in front of Frazier – not on the first floor where Doorman was standing.

-In their initial 11/22/63 testimony, Roy Truly and Marrion Baker did not say they encountered Oswald in the lunchroom on the second floor.
-TSBD witnesses said LHO always ate lunch in the Domino room on the first floor.
-LHO was seen on the first floor a few minutes before and after the 12:30 shooting.
-It’s a 10 second walk from the Domino room to the TSBD entrance.

-Witnesses were intimidated, ignored or testimony altered.
-Carolyn Arnold told the FBI that she saw Oswald on the first floor at 12:25 – but was never interviewed by the Warren Commission.

-Doorman’s V-neck open shirt was that of Oswald – not Lovelady.
-Pixel analysis of the shirt is scientific proof that Doorman was not Lovelady.

-Lovelady died at 41 in Jan. 1979 during the HSCA from complications due to a heart attack. He was never interviewed by the HSCA. The probability of a 41 year old white male dying from a heart attack in 1979 were approximately 1 in 10,000.

-Since Oswald was on the first floor, one must assume he would watch the motorcade.
-The process of witness elimination indicates that Oswald was “Prayer Man” with hands folded watching the motorcade on the first floor.

-The Altgens 6 photo printed in the 11/22 Oakland Times differs from the Groden version. The figure standing in front (who had to be Lovelady according to the testimony of Lovelady and Frazier) was whited out.

This is the “evidence” naysayers claim that proves Lovelady was Doorman.
1) “Doorman looks like Lovelady”.
But Doorman also “looks” like Oswald. And they disregard the obvious: Doorman is wearing Oswald’s shirt. http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2013/02/newseum-displays-oswalds-shirt-proof.html

2) No one testified that they saw Oswald out front.
But would they be allowed to give the testimony? Witnesses were ignored, intimidated and testimonies altered. Oswald was the designated patsy – come hell or high water.
http://garyrevel.com/jfk/girlonstairs.html

3) There is no evidence that Altgens 6 was altered.
But note the differences between the early Oakland Tribune photo and later Groden version. A memo from FBI official Cartha DeLoach indicates that Altgens 6 could have been altered shortly after the assassination.The Zapruder film and the Oswald backyard photos were also once believed to be authentic.
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2013/09/jfk-cartha-deloach-fbi-memorandum-and.html

Related Posts Indicating that Oswald was Doorman:

JFK: Oswald on the Top Level; Lovelady on the Steps 2 JFK: Judyth Baker’s analysis of the shirt proves Oswald is Doorman 3 JFK: To Believe Oswald was NOT standing in front of the TSBD you must believe  4 JFK: Oswald was “Out with Bill Shelley in Front” 5  JFK: Oswald in the Doorway – an Opinion Survey 6- Evidence Oswald was on the first floor minutes before the shooting

Discussion on the Education Forum started by Sean Murphy.
Was Marrion Baker the True Source of Inspector Sawyer’s Suspect Description?
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19782&page=1

Oswald on the first floor of the TSBD watching the motorcade:
https://scontent-mia1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xft1/v/t1.0-9/11202578_10204293270752101_3880872768881082301_n.jpg?oh=cf1cf186c261d928d687facbf2cb7443&oe=55ED1841

Six witnesses saw Oswald on the first floor close to the time of the shooting: Junior Jarman, Harold Norman, Carolyn Arnold, Robert MacNeil, Pierce Allman, and Terry Ford. The last sighting was that of Carolyn Arnold at 12:25. But, her testimony was corrupted by the FBI (they tried to change it to 12:15), and in the end, the Warren Report did not mention Carolyn Arnold- at all. The Commision’s 26 volumes never mention her testimony, even though she did testify.

The following is from http://www.oswald-innocent.com/wrap.html
Cinque cites the work of David Wrone, who wrote “The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK’s Assassination”

Chapter 11: The Man In The Doorway
by David Wrone, synopsis by Ralph Cinque
28 July 2012

The Altgens6 photo:
The Warren Commission failed to
1) obtain large close-up photos of Oswald and Lovelady to compare to Doorman.
2) ask everyone at the TSBD about Doorman’s identity? They only asked three people: Bill Shelley, Billy Lovelady, and Buell Frazier, all of whose testimony was “delayed, confused, and tainted” according to Dr. Wrone.
3) use Oswald’s shirt to prove identification.

Lovelady made various shirt claims. Billy said that he wore a “red and white striped sport shirt buttoned near the neck.” But Doorman’s shirt was unbuttoned. There are posted pictures of the striped shirt. It was short-sleeved.

In the footage of Lovelady milling around outside the TSBD after the assassination. Dr. Wrone reveals that the Martin film left Martin’s hands almost immediately and sold it to Life magazine. On December 17, the FBI “borrowed” it from Life magazine. Eventually, a local Dallas group was allowed to include part of the Martin film in a documentary of 18 films. It showed the 6 second clip of Lovelady milling around outside the TSBD after the assassination. Information from Dr. Wrone about the handling of the Martin film indicates that there was time and opportunity to corrupt the film. Note also that Billy

Lovelady’s own testimony of his actions after the assassination rule out any possibility that he was milling around out in front of the TSBD after the shooting, as he left for the railroad tracks immediately with Bill Shelley, and upon returning, they re-entered the building through the back door. Both Lovelady and Shelley said that. And, as we demonstrated on the Lovelady page, anatomically, Gorilla Man could not have been Lovelady.

Dr. Wrone: “Notably, neither the striped shirt nor the check shirt resembled the shirt on the Man in the Doorway.” The most you can say is that the shirt they used was closer to Doorman’s than the short-sleeved striped shirt that Lovelady actually wore. It was not the same shirt.

The shirt pattern was a better match to Oswald’s than to Lovelady’s Dr. Wrone said that Oswald’s shirt had a “grass leaf pattern, essentially brown, with gold flecks through it.” Lovelady’s shirt had “two-inch dark blue (almost black) and red squares or checks, separated by thin white lines.” The upper right side of Doorman’s shirt was a perfect match to Oswald’s.

Dr. Wrone pointed out that in comparing Doorman’s shirt to Lovelady’s, “the collars of the two shirts “furl” differently. “Finally, Oswald’s shirt is loose and baggy (like that of the Man in the Doorway), whereas Lovelady’s has a more tailored fit.”

“Such persuasive evidence supports Oswald’s location in the doorway of the TSBD viewing the motorcade at the moment the President was shot. Conceivably, Oswald, himself, tried to explain this and urged his captors to confirm his story by locating witnesses who would verify his location in the doorway and lunchroom, before and after. Just as likely, amid the chaos of his capture and incarceration, and in the face of official pressure to pin the assassin’s badge on him, such protests of provable innocence were brushed aside as the rush to judgment gained momentum.”

Detective Will Fritz wrote down that Oswald told him that he was “out with Bill Shelley in front.” He was referring to during the assassination and not after because Shelley wasn’t out there after. Oswald could not have encountered Shelley outside as he was leaving because Shelley wasn’t outside at that time. And there was no reason for Oswald to lie about that. He wasn’t committing a crime in leaving, and he did not need an alibi for it. Why would Fritz be more concerned about where Oswald was after the assassination than during?

 
5 Comments

Posted by on May 30, 2015 in JFK

 

Tags: ,

JFK: Evidence Oswald was on the 1st floor minutes before the shooting

JFK: Evidence Oswald was on the 1st floor minutes before the shooting

Richard Charnin
May 24, 2015

JFK Blog Posts
Twitter Chronological Links
Look inside the book:
Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy

This post is largely based on Gil Jesus’ excellent analysis.
http://www.giljesus.com/alibi.html

Oswald’s whereabouts between 11:45am and 12:25pm is documented by 4 different witnesses who claimed to have seen him on the first floor. According to Dallas Homicide Captain Will Fritz, Oswald told him that he was on the first floor in the “Domino Room” at the time of the assassination having his lunch. Fritz testified: “I asked him what part of the building at the time the President was shot. He said he was having lunch at about this time on the first floor.” But it was not until 1997 that Fritz’s notes of his interview of Oswald were released in which Oswald said that he was “out with Bill Shelley in front”.

The “Domino Room” was a recreation room on the first floor where the employees would take their breaks. The lunchroom was on the second floor, but many of the warehouse employees used the first floor “Domino Room” to eat lunch and play dominoes. TSBD witness testimony was unanimous: Oswald ALWAYS ate his lunch in the Domino room-which was on the same floor as the entrance to the TSBD.

No less than 4 witnesses reported seeing Oswald on the first floor between 11:45 am and 12:15 pm.

1. Charles Givens told the FBI that he saw Oswald reading a newspaper in the Domino room at 11:50 am. Givens testified that when he saw Oswald reading, it was usually “right at lunch time” – and Oswald always ate lunch in the Domino Room.

2. William Shelley gave testimony supporting Oswald being in the first floor Domino Room at 11:50.

3. Janitor Eddie Piper also saw Oswald on the first floor at about noon.

These sightings of Oswald on the first floor between 11:45 and 12:00 give credibility to Givens’ original account of seeing Oswald reading the newspaper in the Domino Room at 11:50 am. They also imply that Givens, under tremendous pressure, changed his story to not seeing Oswald at all that day.

4. Carolyn Arnold told the FBI that after she left the TSBD, she caught a glimpse of someone she thought was Oswald on the first floor. FBI notes indicated that she claimed to have seen Oswald “a few minutes before 12:15. But in her original statement she indicated that she left the building at 12:25, a fact that she repeated in a March 1964 affidavit.

If Arnold left the building at 12:25 pm to watch the parade and saw Lee Harvey Oswald on the first floor “standing between the front door and the double doors leading to the warehouse”, he could not have been the killer of President Kennedy. It also means that the FBI lied in its report on the time that she claimed to have seen him. They needed Oswald in the sixth floor window at 12:25, so they changed the time to a few minutes before 12:15, rather than a few minutes after 12:25, in order to give Oswald time to get to the 6th floor.  Arnold was never called as a witness by the Warren Commission.

The sightings of Oswald on the first floor by these four witnesses BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER Arnold Rowland saw a man on the sixth floor with a rifle, make it IMPOSSIBLE for Oswald to have been that man.

At least six witnesses claimed they saw Oswald on the first floor.

Did Officer Baker and TSBD manager Roy Truly encounter Oswald on the 2nd floor? Roy Truly told Will Fritz on the day of the assassination that he saw Oswald near the storage room on the first floor as he went inside with officer Marrion Baker.
http://assassinationofjfk.net/the-coke-incident-fritzs-notes-and-the-limo-stop/
http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-lunchroom-encounter-that-never-was.html
Baker made no mention in his 11/22/63 affidavit of encountering a man in the 2nd floor lunchroom as he made his way up the stairs. Why didn’t the WC question Baker about the affidavit in which he stated that he saw a man who did not match Oswald’s appearance on the third or fourth floor walking away from the stairwell? Roy Truly said the man worked at the TSBD. There was no mention of encountering anyone in the 2nd floor lunchroom. http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0426-001.gif

Occhus Campbell, Vice-President of the TSBD, informed the NY Herald Tribune on 11/23/63 that shortly following the assassination, Oswald was seen on the ground (first) floor near the storage room.

During questioning by FBI agent James W. Bookhout, Oswald claimed that he saw two “Negro employees” in the Domino Room. One he recognized as “Junior”; the other was a shorter man whose name he did not recall. The “Junior” he referred to was James “Junior” Jarman; the other man was Harold Norman.

In his WC testimony, Jarman admitted being in the Domino Room at the time Oswald said he was, but denied seeing Oswald. He said that after descending from the sixth floor he went to the first floor to wash up. He then picked up his lunch in the Domino Room and went upstairs to the second floor to buy a soda from the machine. He returned to the “Domino Room” where he ate a part of his sandwich while standing, then walked around on the first floor eating his sandwich and drinking his soda.

Harold Norman also ate his lunch in the Domino Room. Although he admitted that there was someone else there with him, he “could not remember who ate in the domino room with me”. Norman’s lack of memory of who had lunch with him on the day the President of the United States was assassinated is strange. He remembered that after eating his lunch, he stood on the sidewalk with Danny Arce. He recalled seeing Roy Truly and TSBD Vice President O.V. Campbell and Billy Lovelady outside as well. He said that he returned to the building with James Jarman. He remembered coming out of the building after the shooting and seeing Howard Brennan. He remembered being interviewed by an FBI agent named Kreutzer on November 26th.

Harold Norman could remember all of these details, but not who he had lunch with in the “Domino Room”. Could the other person in the Domino Room have been someone other than Oswald? The FBI never investigated or determined who that person was.

If Oswald had been on the sixth floor prior to 12:15, as the Commission believed, it was a remarkable coincidence that out of all of the employees of the TSBD, Oswald was able to pick out two who were together as he claimed, on the same floor as he claimed, in the same room as he claimed and at the same time as he claimed.

These co-workers of Oswald all testified that Oswald ate his lunch in the first floor Domino Room. Givens went so far to say that Oswald always ate lunch there. Williams and Jarman gave testimony that proved that Oswald’s leaving the building after lunch was not out of the ordinary.

The Doors of Perception, by William Kelly, is a comprehensive analysis of the Truly and Baker movements: http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-doors-of-perception-why-oswald-is_14.html

Discussion on the Education Forum started by Sean Murphy.
Was Marrion Baker the True Source of Inspector Sawyer’s Suspect Description?
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19782&page=1

Covering up the evidence: http://ahabit.com/witness/

Was ‘Prayer Man’ Lee Harvey Oswald?
http://22november1963.org.uk/oswald-on-tsbd-front-steps

Prayer Man’s location, at the top of the steps, suggests that he is unlikely to have been a passer–by. He is more likely to have been someone who worked inside the TSBD building, as were the fourteen witnesses known to have been standing in the doorway during the assassination. All of the TSBD white, male, manual workers, except for Oswald, were accounted for. A process of elimination indicates that Prayer Man may have been Oswald.
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSJrvNQ98uN-QsdFgdnqWvQbzuz_KgPLg4qfjvVmqpmBeDXzPfbmw

Related Posts: 1 JFK: Oswald on the Top Level; Lovelady on the Steps 2 JFK: Judyth Baker’s analysis of the shirt proves Oswald is Doorman 3 JFK: To Believe Oswald was NOT standing in front of the TSBD you must believe  4 JFK: Oswald was “Out with Bill Shelley in Front” 5  JFK: Oswald in the Doorway – an Opinion Survey

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 24, 2015 in JFK

 

Tags: ,

JFK: Oswald in the Doorway – An Opinion Survey

Richard Charnin
April 5, 2015
Updated: Oct.16, 2015

Click Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy to look inside the book.
JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database

The purpose of the 20 questions in this post is to gauge the OPINIONS of readers as to whether or not they believe that Oswald was”Doorman” standing on the first floor (Top level) of the entrance to the Texas Schoolbook Depository at the time of the assassination. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/10137/

I believe the evidence is overwhelming that Oswald was Doorman. The best way to gauge the opinions of those who may or may not agree is to compare their YES or NO answers to mine.

On May 5, I posted the survey on John McAdams’ JFK assassination forum – a disinformationist hang-out. As of May 8, there were 182 views and 37 posts in the thread, but not ONE individual has taken the survey. What are they afraid of? That the “litmus test” would reveal the implausibility of their belief that LHO was not Doorman?https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/9rar6nNazGg

One individual (Mr.X) took the survey (below). His responses were evasive. I specifically asked for a YES or NO answer to each question, but he failed to do so. This was not a court trial.

1: Assume Oswald was in front of the TSBD at the exact time of the assassination. If so, do you believe that’s why Det. Fritz’s notes (Oswald said he was “out with Bill Shelley in front”) were hidden for 30 years? Yes or No?
X. Not solid proof of anything.
RC. I did not ask for proof, just an opinion – assuming the hypothetical that Oswald was in front of the TSBD.

2: In his WC testimony, Lovelady was asked to point to himself  in the Altgens6 photo by placing a DARK arrow in the DARK area. The head of  the arrow appears to be pointing to Doorman who was standing on the TOP level. Frazier also placed an arrow pointing to Doorman. However, both Lovelady and Frazier stated multiple times under oath that Lovelady was standing in FRONT on the STEPS – not on the TOP level. Do you find this suspicious?
X. Why don’t you provide us with the picture so we can decide for ourselves what it “appears” to show?
RC. The picture is the Altgens 6 photo in the original post I linked to above.

3: If a photo, video, document or witness testimony had to be altered or fabricated to convict Oswald, do you suppose it would have been?
X. That is definitely a possibility.
RC. Of course it is a possibility, but do YOU think the evidence would have been altered or fabricated?

4: If a witness could confirm that Oswald was standing out front, would he/she be allowed to so testify?
X. What witness are you talking about? Or is this hypothetical?
RC. ANY witness. It is a hypothetical. I am just asking for your opinion.

5: If a witness called to testify could confirm that Oswald was out front, would he/she be asked the question?
X. Same as above.
RC. Same answer. It’s a hypothetical. I am just asking for your opinion.

6: If a witness was a participant in the conspiracy and saw Oswald out front, would he/she be allowed to say so?
X.This is speculative psychology. What is the point?
RC. No speculative psychology. I am just asking for your opinion.

7: TSBD witnesses were not asked directly if they saw Oswald out front. Would it have been a logical question to ask?
X. If they considered it a possibility, they should have asked.
RC. Of course it was a POSSIBILITY. Therefore your answer should be YES.

8: Oswald told Will Fritz that he was OUT FRONT WITH BILL SHELLEY. The Warren Commission concluded that he ran from the 6th to the 2nd floor lunchroom in 75-90 seconds, He was allegedly seen by officer Baker and Roy Truly holding a coke but not short of breath. It’s a 10 second walk from the first floor entrance to the 2nd floor lunchroom. Do you believe that Oswald told the truth to Fritz since he already had an alibi (he saw Bill Shelley out front)?
X. It’s possible that Oswald was out front, but no photograph yet discovered can prove this.
RC. Yes, it’s possible (see Altgens6). But do you believe LHO told the truth to Fritz?

9: Lovelady died in Jan. 1979 (during the HSCA investigation) from “complications” due to a heart attack. The probability of a 41 year old white male dying from a heart attack was approximately 1 in 10,000. Lovelady did not testify at the HSCA. Do you believe he should have been called?
X. I don’t understand the question. Was Lovelady an important witness? Would they have called Lovelady to testify at the HSCA? How many other TSBD witnesses did they call? ZERO. They didn’t seem too concerned with that end of the case at that point.
RC. Not true. They called Frazier. Like Frazier, Lovelady was an important witness.

10: Many JFK researchers believe that Oswald was framed but insist that he is not in the Altgens6 photo. They claim that no one testified they saw LHO out front and that Doorman “looks like” Lovelady. But is that a sufficient response? Doorman also “looks like” Oswald. Note that Doorman’s open long-sleeve jacket/shirt (open in a V to reveal his tee shirt) is the same shirt Oswald wore at the police station. And it is different from the shirt Lovelady was wearing.
X. There is not enough visual evidence to conclusively use the shirt as a source of identification.
RC. But are the responses sufficient to just say “it looks like” Lovelady or that no one testified that they saw LHO in front?

11: Is it just a coincidence that TSBD witnesses are not clearly shown in Altgens6?
X. What do you mean “not clearly shown?” How about giving us photographic examples?
RC. I specifically said the Altgens6 photo. “Not clearly shown” means that the identity of the witnesses in Altgens6 are indecipherable (blurry and whited out).

12 Do you believe the Oswald backyard photos were fakes?
X.They seem fairly consistent to me, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they were altered. It is a possibility.
RC. They were proven to be fakes. But do YOU believe they were?

13: Do you believe the Z-film was altered?
X. Definitely a possibility.
RC. The Z-film has been proven to be altered. But do YOU believe it was?

14: Is there at least a possibility that Oswald is Doorman?
X. I don’t believe Oswald was Doorman, but there is not enough evidence to prove it. So,I would have to say “I don’t know.”
RC. “I don’t know” means YES, it is possible that Oswald was Doorman.

15: Do you believe Carolyn Arnold, a TSBD secretary, was mistaken in her statement that she saw Oswald was on the first (i.e. ground) floor of the TSBD at 12:25pm?
X. She could have been mistaken. Happens all the time.
RC. But she could have actually seen Oswald. What is your best OPINION?

16: Do you consider it odd that Arnold was not interviewed by the Warren Commission?
X. A lot of potentially valuable witnesses were not interviewed by the Warren Commission.
RC. The question referred specifically to Carolyn Arnold. She was not just ANY witness. She was CRITICAL since she claimed Oswald was on the first floor – not the 6th – FIVE MINUTES BEFORE THE SHOOTING.

17: At the 2 minute mark of this video, a balding figure who looks like Billy Lovelady appears at the lower right of the screen facing the TSBD. He is wearing a checkered shirt buttoned to the collar. No tee shirt is visible. It is NOT the shirt that Doorman was wearing. Do you agree that it appears to be Lovelady? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XNHtUDEDAI
X. It does appear to be Lovelady.
RC. If it is Lovelady, then his closed shirt proves that he cannot be Doorman.

18: In the Altgens6 photo, Doorman is wearing a long-sleeve shirt open to reveal his tee shirt. An FBI photo of Lovelady taken 2/29/64 shows him wearing a short-sleeve striped shirt that he supposedly wore on 11/22/63. Given the discrepancy, does the fact that Doorman is wearing a long-sleeve shirt seem odd to you?
X. Not enough visual evidence.
RC. That was not the question. I asked if it is ODD that the FBI claimed Lovelady wore a short-sleeve shirt and Altgens6 showed Doorman in a long-sleeve shirt.

19. Naysayers claim that Lovelady must be Doorman because no TSBD employee claimed to have seen Oswald out front. Since the FBI concluded within a few hours of the assassination that Oswald killed JFK, do you believe that the FBI/WC would inhibit witnesses from testifying that they saw Oswald in front, destroying their case?
X. What is the point of speculating in this way?
RC. It is reasonable to ask if testimony which completely exonerated Oswald would be allowed at the WC. If witnesses were inhibited from saying they saw LHO out front, then that is just additional proof the WC/FBI was determined to frame Oswald.

20: Lovelady and Frazier both testified multiple times that Lovelady was standing on the STEPS in front of Frazier who was standing on the TOP level (the first floor entrance to the TSBD). Since Doorman was standing on the TOP level, do you agree that their joint testimony is powerful evidence that Lovelady could not be Doorman?
X. Maybe they moved around?
RC. No. The Altgens6 photo was taken at 12:30 – the EXACT time of the shots.

My answers vs. those of Mr.X:
1. YES. Did not ask for proof, just opinion.
2. YES. The Altgens6 photo is included in the post.
3. YES. A photo,video or document that proved Oswald was innocent would have been altered,destroyed or hidden.
4. NO. Evades the question (any witness)
5. NO. Evades question
6. NO. Evades question
7. YES. Evades question.
8. YES. Not asking for proof, just opinion.
9. YES. Simple question.
10 NO. Evades the fact.
11.NO. Altgens6 is altered. You have the photo, not an example.
12.YES.The backyard photos are proven fakes.
13.YES. Evades the question.
14.YES. Evades. Of course it is possible.
15.NO. Evades: Do you believe Arnold was mistaken?
16.NO. Evades.The WC would not call her since it destroys their case.
17.YES. I agree. It does appear to be Lovelady in the video.
18 YES. Evades. Doorman was wearing a long-sleeve shirt.
19.YES. No speculation. What is your opinion?
20.YES. Evades the question which is about the Altgens6 photo.
————————————————————

Notes:
– The Timing of the Encounter with Oswald
The FBI reported that Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald after she had left the TSBD. According to the first account, she had left the building by 12:15; according to the second, she left at 12:25. The first statement, which she was not given the opportunity to check, is likely to be less reliable than the second, which she was required to sign.
Both of Carolyn Arnold’s statements, but especially the second, corroborate the accounts of two employees, James “Junior” Jarman and Harold Norman, who indirectly attested to Oswald’s presence on the first floor at “between 12:20 and 12:25,” in Jarman’s words (see Lee Harvey Oswald’s alibi).
http://22november1963.org.uk/carolyn-arnold-witness-oswald

The Earliest Report of Oswald’s Alibi
http://22november1963.org.uk/lee-harvey-oswald-alibi
Two FBI agents, James Hosty and James Bookhout, attended Fritz’s first interview with Oswald. They wrote a joint report on 23 November, from notes taken on the 22nd which no longer exist:
OSWALD stated that he went to lunch at approximately noon and he claimed he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunch room; however he went to the second floor where the Coca–Cola machine was located and obtained a bottle of Coca–Cola for his lunch. OSWALD claimed to be on the first floor when President JOHN F. KENNEDY passed this building. … he then went home by bus and changed his clothes.(WR, p.613)
Hosty’s and Bookhout’s joint account of the first–day interview is the earliest surviving account of Oswald’s alibi. It implies this sequence of actions:
At “approximately noon” Oswald ate his lunch in the domino room on the first floor.
He then went up to the second floor, where he bought a Coke from the vending machine in the lunch room.
Finally, he went downstairs and was on the first floor when JFK came past.

The Second FBI Version of Oswald’s Alibi
The earliest report contains no mention of Oswald being stopped by a police officer, as Fritz would later report. Once Oswald was dead, however, Bookhout alone wrote a new account of the first–day interview, which did include an encounter with a policeman:
OSWALD stated that on November 22, 1963, at the time of the search of the Texas School Book Depository building by Dallas police officers, he was on the second floor of said building, having just purchased a Coca–cola from the soft-drink machine, at which time a police officer came into the room with pistol drawn and asked him if he worked there. MR. TRULY was present and verified that he was an employee and the police officer thereafter left the room and continued through the building. OSWALD stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor and stood around and had lunch in the employees’ lunch room. He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman BILL SHELLEY, and thereafter went home.(WR, p.619)

This version omits Oswald’s claim to have been on the first floor at the time of the assassination. Two events which had originally been reported to have occurred before the shooting, Oswald’s purchase of a drink and his eating his lunch, now occur after the shooting:
Oswald bought a Coke in the second–floor lunch room.
Moments later, he encountered Roy Truly, the TSBD’s building supervisor, and Marrion Baker, the motorcycle policeman who ran into the TSBD within half a minute of the shooting. Oswald then went downstairs and ate his lunch in the first–floor domino room.

Finally, Oswald chatted with his foreman for a few minutes before going home.
The official account of Oswald’s activities has him leaving the TSBD at 12:33, just three minutes after the shooting (WR, p.156), which implies that at least one element of Bookhout’s revised account is incorrect. Oswald must have eaten his lunch before, not after, the assassination. Many accounts by TSBD employees mention that they stopped work and began their lunch break at about 11:45 or 11:50. Two of Oswald’s colleagues make it clear that Oswald did indeed eat his lunch before the assassination:

– Was ‘Prayer Man’ Lee Harvey Oswald?
http://22november1963.org.uk/oswald-on-tsbd-front-steps
Prayer Man’s location, at the top of the steps, suggests that he is unlikely to have been a passer–by. He is more likely to have been someone who worked inside the TSBD building, as were the fourteen witnesses known to have been standing in the doorway during the assassination. All of the TSBD’s white, male, manual workers, except for Oswald, were accounted for. A process of elimination indicates that Prayer Man may have been Oswald. Of the fourteen witnesses, seven women and two black men may be ruled out immediately. The remaining five white men may also be ruled out with varying degrees of certainty.

– Did Officer Baker and Roy Truly encounter Oswald on the 2nd floor? http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-lunchroom-encounter-that-never-was.html
Why didn’t the WC question Baker about the affidavit in which he stated that he saw a man who did not match Oswald’s appearance on the third or fourth floor walking away from the stairwell? There was no mention of encountering anyone in the 2nd floor lunchroom. http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0426-001.gif
TSBD manager Roy Truly said the man worked at the TSBD. According to Occhus Campbell, Vice-President of the TSBD, Oswald was seen near a small storage room on the first floor shortly after the shooting.

– Look closely to see the difference in the figure in front from the original Altgens6 Oakland Tribune photo and the Groden version.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bea_l1BJbWPx2Ju-QxedB3_cui6fCSFF7AE_iutBWGc/pub

– Proof that the AP and the FBI were actively involved in altering the Altgens6 photo is revealed in this memo:
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2013/09/jfk-cartha-deloach-fbi-memorandum-and.html

Note this GIF appeared in the original post:

– The shirt Oswald was wearing in police custody was open in a V to reveal his Tee shirt – just like that of Doorman in the Altgens 6 photo.
https://www.google.com/search?q=oswald+shirt+in+custody&num=100&rlz=1CAACAC_enUS524US524&es_sm=93&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=rn0mVYDcA8W4ggT20YLwBA&ved=0CAoQ_AUoBA&biw=1093&bih=526

 
8 Comments

Posted by on April 5, 2015 in JFK

 

Tags: , , ,

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,177 other followers