It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


New JFK evidence proves Oswald innocent

page: 10
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 02:58 AM

Originally posted by spooky24
Despite some good work done in his book Assassination Science Jim Fetzer lost all respect for his ridiculous statements about 9/11 including his musings that the FBI planted bodies and plane wreckage outside the Pentagon. Saying that the wreckage was from plane crashes 5 years prior and the FBI stored all this in anticipation of the big hoax is just silly and while it may please his 9/11 truth buddies he lost all respect within the research community-and he is simply ignored by the mainstream of researchers and investigators.

The Oswald/Lovelady discussion, while interesting, has little bearing on the case as a whole. All sides of the discussion agree that LHO's statements about being in the 2nd floor lunchroom at 12:15, as witnessed by Carolyn Arnold, are not deceptive since he was making statements that turned out to be true in the interview with Chief Curry. Page 58 of the HSCA final report is still the accepted explanation of the similarities of the 2 men however this is still open for discussion.

James Douglass's book "JFK and the Unspeakable" is an excellent, well researched book. That being said Jack Kennedy was notoriously closed lipped about his thinking, and confided his real intentions only to his brother Bobby. Mr Douglass's contention that he, and only he, knows the real truth about the Presidents Vietnam policy is flawed. There is plenty of conflicting evidence that John Kennedy was going to expand America's involvement in Southeast Asia.

The statement "He chose peace. They marked him for murder" does not fit the profile of a man who had so many issues telling the truth in both his private and personal life-let alone his inability to react to situations only when the political ramifications were in his favor.

Your last sentence makes no sense. So what if a man keeps his affairs with other women private. That's his business, not yours, and has NOTHING to do with him wanting peace rather than war. JFK's actions pointed toward peace. He averted the Cuban Missile Crisis, stopped the Bay of Pigs Invasion, and was planning to withdraw from Vietnam. He had no motive to start an unnecessary war in Vietnam and was not hungry for bloodshed. Stop trying to obfuscate things. If Kennedy had planned to escalate the Vietnam War, then the conspirators would have had no reason to assassinate him. The reason his policies toward Vietnam seemed conflicting was because he had to play along with the military industrial complex in order to buy time to eventually pull out of the war.

As to your statements about Fetzer's claim about the planted debris at the Pentagon, I checked with him and he said that you have your head where the Sun does not shine. The most prominent piece of airplane debris at the Pentagon appears to have been stripped from the fuselage of a 757, showing no signs of having been involved in a violent crash or of having been exposed to an intense fire. It also has a significant piece of vine snared in the metal itself.

James Hanson, an attorney from Columbus, OH, traced this piece of fuselage back to a crash in Cali, Columbia, in 1995. Few 757s crash and this one is the only one that fits the evidence. Since Jim has explained this in many places, he believes that one of you has discredited themselves but it's not him. The only body part he thinks you could be talking about relates to John Judge.

John Judge has claimed that a stewardess of his acquaintance was allowed into the Pentagon and saw a piece of hand/arm of another stewardess friend of hers, who was wearing a distinctive piece of jewelry (a bracelet, as he recalls). But there is no evidence that any plane hit the building, so if there was a body part from the plane vs. personnel in the building, it has to have been planted.

To see how grotesquely you've distorted Fetzer's position, check out these links:

"Seven Questions about 9/11"

"What didn't happen at the Pentagon"

"The 'official account' of the 9/11 Pentagon attack is a fantasy"

For those who want more about framing Oswald for a crime he did not commit, see:

"Framing the Patsy: The Case of Lee Harvey Oswald" (with Jim Marrs)

"The JFK War: The Challenging Case of Robert Groden"


"JFK Part 1: A National Security Event - Oswald didn't do it" (Preview)

“JFK Part 2: A National Security Event – How it was done”

The proof that Oswald was in the doorway is abundant and compelling. Look at the evidence.

edit on 25-7-2013 by Eurofile007 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 03:09 AM

Originally posted by spooky24
No notes of any kind were taken during any of Oswald's interrogations. The were reproduced from memory later at the request of the FBI. If you read Captain Fritz's reproduced notes carefully Oswald states at the time of the shooting-Fritz could not recall the precise question he ask-Oswald replied "I was eating lunch with the colored boys I work with" that would have been the 2nd floor lunch room. 74 seconds after the shots were fired Oswald was confronted by Officer Marrion Baker in the foyer of that lunch room at the coke machine.

Through out 3 decades of this case that one fact has always stuck out to me. If LHO was a trained operator with the CIA or Naval Intelligence I doubt we will never know for sure however no one can look at his reaction at the news that the President is dead and he is the only suspect without noticing his reaction-top notch, elite training not withstanding he is horrified to hear this.

It has always been my contention that in this part of the case-Lee Harvey Oswald is telling the truth about where he was. I could be wrong but all my instinct tells me I'm not-just take another look at the press conference at his reaction. I don't see any need to post it since it's easily available.

edit on 7-7-2013 by spooky24 because: grammar

How do you know? Have you considered that maybe they did take notes during the interrogation or recorded it, but just won't release them to the public? Anyone can lie you know. And it's unlikely that they would not have recorded one of the most important interrogations in US history.

I agree with you that Oswald's behavior is strange and paradoxical. He seemed too calm and cool, especially for a 24 year old. He did not look guilty at all. Yet, if he was innocent, then why didn't he act angry and outraged for being falsely accused? Why was he so calm and cool about it?

Also, LHO's girlfriend Judity Vary Baker said that he loved Kennedy. If so, then wouldn't he be outside catching a glimpse of the President as he was passing by?

Why don't Presidents today do motorcade parades in public? Is it because no US Presidents are popular or liked enough nowadays?

edit on 25-7-2013 by Eurofile007 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 05:28 AM
It really does not help your case quoting Jim Fetzer constantly as though he were an infallible researcher who supports your thesis that the man in the doorway is Oswald. Undoubtedly, Fetzer did very valuable research into the JFK assassination, and he is rightly one of the world's leading researchers on this subject. But he lost all credibility as an 9/11 researcher when he was duped by various video experts into concluding that no planes hit the two WTC towers. His analysis of the video footage is totally wrong, as is his conclusion that the Naudet brothers film of the North tower being hit is a hoax. Although he is not a physicist but a philosopher of science, he thinks he understands the three Newton's laws of motion better than every physicist or engineer who finds nothing suspicious in the videos of the planes hitting the two towers in his arguing that a plane travelling at over 500 mph could not have penetrated the South Tower. His claim that the videos show no sign of impact is plain wrong and based upon highly compressed, poor resolution, third-generation videos. The side view impact of Flight 175 in one video clearly shows smoke and debris created at the very instant of collision, refuting his claim that the plane seems to dissolve into the building without any physical reaction when it hit its wall, which he thinks confirms his claim that the images were created by CGI.

Fetzer's work on 9/11 is a mixed bag of good and very flaky analysis. He tends to elevate ad hoc assumptions into self-evident truths that only he has discovered and he ignores photographic evidence of plane engine components at the Pentagon. If it were not for his established reputation as a published JFK researcher and radio show host, he would have little credibility in the 9/11 truth movement, so idiosyncratic and glaringly wrong are some of his views. It therefore adds little to your conclusions that you cite his reputation in supporting your conclusions. That once-solid reputation as a researcher, sadly, has become cracked and tarnished.

posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 05:43 AM
reply to post by Firsk

I think your evidence is very compelling, personally. I think the biggest red flag for me is all of the oddities in the original picture. BT man also seems to intersect doorway man's face in a strange way that seems to indicate the photo was tampered with (as well as the other oddities you have pointed out). There are a lot of really weird things going on in that picture that just scream tampering. While I can see the arguments for both sides, if the photo was tampered with we have to ask why, and your theory provides a reason why the picture would have needed to be doctored.

I also see what you are talking about with doorman's lapel and Oswald's, and the fact doorman is missing his shoulder is a huge red flag. I don't think it's fair for your theory to have been so harshly dismissed, as I see a lot of compelling things here. The one thing I see that could potentially poke a hole in your theory is that doormans shirt seems to have a lot of white on it (white blotches as you pointed out), but oswalds shirt doesn't seem to have much white on it at all.

Enjoyed the thread at any rate

edit on 25-7-2013 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 05:45 AM
Sorry if this question has been answered somewhere in this thread but how is it that this Lovelady guy is present at the door of the building watching the goings on and then later at the police station watching Lee being brought in or taken out of the police station?

Funny to me that this person who might have been an innocent bystander is appearing in a few photographs in a very suspicious murder case.

posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 07:31 AM
Billy Lovelady was a family member of mine. It's him in the doorway. This is not a new conspiracy because I was told he was hounded about it until he died. He was just a regular guy from East Texas.

Here is a link to a PDF of his testimony to the Warren Commission:

In the report, he said he heard what sounded like firecrackers coming from "between the underpass and the building right on that knoll", when the shots were fired. He said the crowd and police even ran in that direction after.

I, personally, think there is enough weirdness to the event without having to look for something that isn't there.

posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 03:04 PM
reply to post by ceruleanblue

I definitely agree with your last statement. Even if the OP is wrong, there is so much information out there regarding the JFK assassination that points to a conspiracy that I think it would be erroneous to get hung up on one particular theory. In the end I suppose that is what keeps people interested in the events of that day, right up to the present.

posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 04:17 PM
My half-assed attempt to do a little biometrics. I think I can do a better job with this with a better photo of Lovelady. But even with a bad photo of Lovelady, lining up the eyes, it seems to me like Lee Harvey Oswald's ears, chin and the top of his head just don't match up right. Just the wrong shaped head, in general.

Here's another one. I'm trying pretty hard, but I just can't get Oswald's ears to line up. They're too high.

And here's Lovelady again. Eyes. Check. Chin. Check. Mouth. Check. Ears? Check.

edit on 25-7-2013 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 09:12 AM

Spooky24, Your last sentence makes no sense. So what if a man keeps his affairs with other women private. That's his business, not yours, and has NOTHING to do with him wanting peace rather than war. JFK's actions pointed toward peace. He averted the Cuban Missile Crisis, stopped the Bay of Pigs Invasion, and was planning to withdraw from Vietnam.

Granted, you have a point, and I'll recluse that statement as his private life, while not becoming of the image portrayed of him, is irrelevant to some extent.

My point was, and still is, that Mr Douglass has no more incite into his foreign policy intentions than anyone else since those even closest to Jack Kennedy didn't even know themselves when he was alive and still president.

Although L. Fletcher Prouty tended to contradict himself after the publication of his book 'JFK The CIA, Vietnam and the plot to Assassinate John Kennedy'. The Colonel spins an incredible series of events that starts with document 146 of the Pentagon Papers. The infamous NSAM #263 in which The President, while excepting the opening statements of the McNamara report sends a separate cable to Ambassador Lodge withdrawing the recommendations of 263 for only a paper reduction of forces before Christmas time 1963. In reality, the number of advisers and weapons assistance was going to double! Solders were going to be rotated out and a big coming home deal for the media was planned. The Colonel's explanation is difficult to understand and it seems he just wanted to find a way to say JFK was noncommittal without saying it.

This is complex and it begins on page 266 of the Colonel's book however it is plain that it's totally illogical for a writer to profess a profound knowledge of someones intentions 45 years after the fact-when the subject of his seer didn't even know himself!

John Kennedy's herky-jerky, non committal politically savvy approach to Southeast Asia is even more confusing than his assassination in some respect.

While I'll forever praise Mr Douglass's book for it's clarity and research it still has enormous holes in it's supposition. Had Jack Kennedy lived-he could have just as easily changed his mind again.

posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 11:03 AM

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
If Oswald was innocent, why did he kill Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit?

Correct me if I am wrong, but was there not an eyewitness that claimed multiple men were seen running away from the area where Tippit was shot?

I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure I remember that.

new topics

top topics

<< 7  8  9   >>

log in