New JFK evidence proves Oswald innocent

page: 7
27
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Firsk
 


I have been nothing but polite to you . I have even offered you a few pointers as to where better focus your research and now you insult me just as you did Rising Against .

Your theory is trite to say the least and I will have nothing more to do with this or any of your future threads .




posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Let's put these two handsome devils side by side. Again, you can see the small pseudo-lapel on the right of both. You can see how Oswald's distinctive left side of his shirt is concealed by the art work known as Black Tie Man. You see an awful lot of likeness in terms of the shape of the face and the head. And even the hair isn't far off. I figure they doctored Doorman's hairline a little, but they didn't have to do much. And you see that excess capacity in the shirts on both of them. Doorman's shirt is billowing, but he was outside, and there was probably a breeze. What do sails do in a breeze? They fill with air. Plus, he may have been leaning forward a little bit which caused the shirt to fall away. Another area where you see a lot of likeness is the cuffs.



Anyone who looks at the above collage and doesn't think to him or herself, "There is an awful lot of likeness there- too much to attribute to chance" has got some kind of mental block going on.
edit on 18-1-2012 by Firsk because: typo



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by dawnprince
 


I also believe LBJ was involved. The video I have attached is of LBJ being sworn in, after JFK was killed.

At 1.19....look at LBJ turn around and smile at a man who is winking at him. At 1.37 it is a closeup view. It's like they are saying to each other.....We did it....and By-God I am the President now.

I don't know who that man is, but there is another picture of him, with a big smirk on his face, while looking at LBJ.

Maybe someone can find it. I tried with no success. Also, maybe someone with more computer- expertise, can embed the video.

I have heard that in LBJ's last years, he went through an agonizing hell of mental depression, and mental torture. So glad he did... Karma does not forget anyone.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 07:06 AM
link   
OOPS..forgot to paste the video. www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by zeta55
 



I don't know who that man is


That man's name is Albert Thomas.


Here's some interesting information about him for you:


A member of the Democratic Party, Thomas was elected to the House of Representatives in 1936 and eventually became chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Committee.

Thomas became a member of what became known as the Suite 8F Group. The name comes from the room in the Lamar Hotel in Houston where they held their meetings. Members of the group included Lyndon B. Johnson, George Brown and Herman Brown (Brown & Root), Jesse H. Jones (multimillionaire investor in a large number of organizations and chairman of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation), Gus Wortham (American General Insurance Company), Robert Kerr (Kerr-McGee Oil Industries), James Slither Abercrombie (Cameron Iron Works), William Hobby (Governor of Texas), Richard Russell (chairman of the Committee of Manufactures, Committee on Armed Forces and Committee of Appropriations) and John Connally (Governor of Texas). Alvin Wirtz and Edward Clark, were also members of the Suite 8F Group.


Albert Thomas (far left) with Lyndon Johnson on the day that John F. Kennedy was assassinated.



Thomas also served on the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy and was instrumental in securing the location of the United States National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA) and the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center in Houston in 1961. This involved obtaining 1,000 acres of land that had originally been owned by the Humble Oil Company to Rice University. Thomas persuaded George Brown, a trustee of Rice University, to donate the land to NASA.

Albert Thomas died in Washington on 3rd January, 1966 and was buried in the Veterans' Administration Cemetery, Houston, Texas.
(Source)

Personally I don't think that wink is proof of a conspiracy or anything, more an unneccesary gesture to say "hey, you finally made it to the top" or something like that, even despite the unfortunate circumstances in which he made it. But hey, that's just me and I certainly do believe Johnson did play a vital role in the conspiracy still.

If any of you guys are interested then here's a really great link that Robert Morrow was kind enough to send to me towards the end of last year: lyndonjohnsonmurderedjfk.blogspot.com...

He put together a lot of great stuff there. I'm sure you'll find it really interesting.
edit on 19-1-2012 by Rising Against because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by zeta55
 


I'm still investigating that link, but I have always thought that little wink/nod scene between LBJ and that other man was at least a little strange considering the situation. If not signifying some kind of involvement, then at least sort of congratulatory and not very appropriate for the occasion.

Also, it seems that I've read something or seen something that identified that guy LBJ was having that moment with but I don't remember where or who he could have been. I'll have to look into that too.
edit on 1/19/2012 by wtbengineer because: (no reason given)
edit on 1/19/2012 by wtbengineer because: (no reason given)


Dang RA, always one step ahead!!!
edit on 1/19/2012 by wtbengineer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Firsk
 


You've heard of the Magic Bullet, but now say hello to the Magic Button. I call it the Magic Button because this particular small, ordinary, everyday object exonerates Lee Harvey Oswald for all time.

The picture is a collage of all three shirts: Doorman’s, Oswald’s, and Lovelady’s. You can see the likeness in the right collars of Doorman and Oswald, but Lovelady’s looks very different. It folds over- but at a different angle. Doorman’s and Oswald’s shirts both have a notch in the fold, that is, between the collar and the pseudo-lapel. But, in the way that Lovelady’s shirt folds over, there is no notch. That is a significant difference. It is not trivial. Scroll back and forth and see.

And while discounting the difference between color and black and white, you should still note the tremendous contrast and pattern of Lovelady’s collar and compare it to the bland and uniform patterns of Oswald’s and Doorman’s. Of course, Oswald’s collar looks bland and uniform because it was, as we have seen in all of his pictures. But, what about Doorman’s? If he is Lovelady, shouldn’t we see some evidence of that rich, exorbitant, and complicated pattern in his collar? And if you think it’s because the collar is too small to show the contrast, realize that you can find comparable areas on the sleeve and body of Doorman’s shirt which do show contrast. Of course, Dr. Fetzer and I maintain that the pattern elsewhere on the shirt was faked. The plain truth is that when committing a forgery of this kind, it’s difficult to cover every detail. A lot slips through the cracks. And they forgot about the collar.

Besides, the pattern of Doorman’s shirt does not make a good match to Lovelady’s- in any respect. For example, the only thing white on Lovelady’s shirt are the lines, so why are there white blotches on Doorman’s shirt? Remember, this isn’t horseshoes or hand grenades. Close isn’t good enough. Either it is an exact match or it is no match at all. There can’t be any contradictions in the patterns. None.

Then notice the exposed button, the “Magic Button.” The presence of that button proves that the normal use of that shirt was to button it up, including that button, and when it is buttoned, that spreading effect of the margins of the shirt that you see, creating that space, goes away. Lovelady took action to make his shirt lay the way you see it here- and he did it for the camera- whereas the configurations you see on Oswald and Doorman were spontaneous. That’s a big difference. But, Lovelady did not wake up on the morning of November 22 and do those things. And it proves that when the picture below was taken, Lovelady was part of the conspiracy. He was trying hard to be the Doorman, but he wasn’t thinking very clearly. He should have removed that button.

Do you remember those IQ tests where you had to pick the dissimilar item from a lineup? Try it here. Who is the odd man out among these three?


edit on 19-1-2012 by Firsk because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-1-2012 by Firsk because: typo



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Rising Against
 


Thank you, RA, for the information. I may be sorry I re-opened my quest for the answers to JFK's assasination.

I had to let it go, years ago, along with a lot of other "strange things" , due to the bad effect it was having on my mental thoughts.

The way I look at that picture, of the smille, the wink, and the smirk, is this.....The President of the United States of America has just been killed. Everyone in the country....well almost everyone....was in mourning.....myself included....and for someone to...wink...or smirk........about the situation...says a lot about what that person...or persons....are thinking.

That littlle smirk.....wink....and smile.....tells me more ....than just about any evidence I have seen, or read about, That is just my opinion.

Thanks, again



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by zeta55
 


I don't blame you for coming to that conclusion - I think he was wrong for doing that as well. It was not the time nor was it the place. Hell, Jackie still soaked in blood was only meters away from him and stood right next to Johnson who was also smiling at the time. It's just so wrong.

I still think it's not necessarily enough to say a conspiracy was taking place though but that's just me and like I said before I do still think Johnson was involved in a plot of some kind still. He just has to be, it all points towards it. And let's remember that just because I don't feel the famous wink means anything at all that doesn't make it so, it could very well mean something still. I'm just personally not so sure.

Anyway, I'm really glad you found that information helpful.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Rising Against
 


A new article by me and Dr. James Fetzer was published today by Veterans Today: Military and Foreign Affairs Journal. The title of it is: JFK Special: Oswald was in the Doorway, after all! Here is the link:

www.veteranstoday.com...

Dr. Fetzer and I feel that history was made today, that is, real history was uncovered. This may be the biggest breakthrough in the JFK case to come along in years, perhaps in decades. And hopefully, it's just the beginning.

Lee Harvey Oswald was the Man in the Doorway. It's his shirt, his clothes, and that means that it had to be him. I thank Dr. Fetzer, and I thank Veterans Today.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 02:11 AM
link   
The article you and your "friend " have supposedly co-wrote contains nothing more than the theory you have posted on here .
Perhaps you can explain what is so earth shattering about it , because I and many others just can't see it



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Firsk
 


Ok, let me repeat this one last time so hopefully you understand..

I. Don't. Care. If. You. Know. Fetzer.

Just because you may know this person and he may subscribe to this theory you're promoting (and It's not "your" theory either btw, this theory has been around quite a while), that doesn't automatically make you correct in what you're saying. Constantly name dropping (which even you have to admit you've done for the most part in this thread - I'd go as far as saying about 90% of your posts have had his name in them in fact) isn't going to get you anywhere, and the facts alone should be enough to convince anyone of anything.

Next, the fact that this article has been posted, once again, means nothing. As mentioned by another poster you're just posting the same stuff there as you did here and I've already highlighted why I disagree with you which you've already rejected and for the most part replied with insults and taunts.. which just completely destroyed all credibility you had.

I wish you did have a "breakthrough" here but, in my opinion, you don't and you're very far from it to say the least.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Rising Against
 


Well, just so you know, there are a lot of people who disagree with you about this. For instance, here is the beginning of a long response we received from a famous individual. I'm sure you would agree that he's far more famous than Dr. Fetzer. I'm not going to use his name here because I don't have his permission. But, this is how he started:

"Yes, you and Dr. Cinque have proved the case 100% that Oswald couldn't have fired any rifle of any kind. I have studied this case for many years and read most of the important books. I know the evidence well, but there is no use arguing against this newly presented evidence. It is far too convincing to any reasonable person."

And the issue isn't Dr. Fetzer. I don't say that anything is true just because he says so. It's true because the evidence says so. The evidence is unassailable. You don't seem to get it that Oswald's shirt was too unique, and Dooman's shirt matched it too well, for them to be anything but the same shirt. And, once you've matched the shirts, it's over! It had to be him! Nobody could have been wearing Oswald's shirt but Oswald.

Responses on that forum and elsewhere are coming in very positive. If you don't believe me, just read the comments at the bottom of the page on VT. And it only got posted last night. You don't speak for the JFK truth movement. This is a freight train; there is no stopping it; so you best get out of the way.

edit on 26-1-2012 by Firsk because: typo



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Firsk
 



For instance, here is the beginning of a long response we received from a famous individual


Again, I don't care what supposed "famous people" believe. I have a mind of my own as do most people on this website thank you very much.



so you best get out of the way.


How pathetic, lol. No, I have a difference of opinion to you and I'm going to share that opinion whenever I can. Deal with it.
edit on 26-1-2012 by Rising Against because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by dawnprince
 


What is earth-shattering about it is that Oswald's very unique shirt matched Doorman's very well, and so did their whole manner of dress match very well, and that means that they had to be the same person. There is just no getting around it.

And there is more in the article than I have mentioned on this site. For instance, we provide the evidence that in an official letter to the Warren Commission, the FBI stated that, in his original testimony- to them the FBI- Lovelady reported having worn the other shirt that day, that is, the short-sleeved, red and white shirt with the broad vertical stripes, which could not possibly, by any stretch of the imagination, been Doorman's shirt. Later, Lovelady went on to recant and say that he wore the red, black, and white checkered shirt. But, isn't it more likely that he was telling the truth in the beginning?

Note, however, that regardless of which shirt Lovelady was weaering, our thesis holds. That's because neither of the two shirts that he MAY have been wearing match Doorman's very well. Even his plaid, checkered shirt is a poor match to Doorman's. And as we we point out in the article: this isn't horseshoes or hand grenades: close doesn't count.

As I have been trying to tell you, this is big. It is the biggest development to come along in the JFK in many years. Oswald was standing outside during the shooting. There is no doubt about it.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Rising Against
 


You are content to make general disparagements and condemnations, but what you don't want to do is get into a discussion about specific points of contention- yours or mine. You don't want to talk about anything concrete. You don't want to address the evidence. You just want to come on here and strut your stuff or, like the others, change the subject. Well, the subject is the clothes on Doorman's back and his identity. That's what I started this thread about. And I don't think it's too much to ask that if you want to talk about something else, about other aspects of the assassination, or other things, then start your own thread. And if you have nothing to contribute but general denouncement and negativity, I think it goes against the whole spirit of this forum to keep posting in that manner. Either say something about the nuts and bolts of the issue or be gone.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Firsk
 


You initially was being very insulting in this thread and recently you tell me to go away when I share an alternative opinion.. I then quote it and laugh as it is laughable behavior.. so you then decide to tell me to stop being negative and once again go away as well as a bunch of other nonsense.

Perhaps you should stop being rude in the first place as that would solve all these problems?

And we already had a genuine discussion on this and I explained how we're seeing Billy Lovelady in the Altgens photo, not Lee Harvey Oswald. You rejected it which is of course your choice.. but there's no need to try and lie and say we've not discussed this at all. That's rather silly to be honest. You know as well as I do we had a discussion on this issue and in my opinion you failed to provide any proof of your claims.. all you could provide was, at best, blurry images which showed very little as well as wild claims about impossible figures and faked images etc. I'm quite clearly not the only one who has this opinion here as well.

Sure, play innocent all you want, it says a lot really. But you know as well as I do that this was discussed in-depth and you failed in proving anything to anyone and that obviously bugs you. Your problem Ralph, not mine..

Once again though, I'll be going back to working on my own thread now. But hey, thanks for the fun thread here.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
reply to post by Rising Against
 


The witness testimony and the spent shells from Oswald's weapon, the weapon he owned. Even though the slugs were never identified as being fired from that weapon. The weapon in question had it's barrel altered. I understand that the ballistics is questionable but you can't say that it proves he didn't do it just as you can't say it proves that he did.



DPD Officer O.E. Poe was handed 2 spent cartridges at the Tippit murder scene. They were originally identified as .38 automatic hulls, which he believes he marked with his initials. When the Warren Commission presented him with said hulls, he could not ID them as they were missing the markings he had place on them. And of course, the slugs could not be matched, by the F.B.I. to the weapon LHO had in his possession when captured.

Also LHO was carrying a ,38 revolver which had a damaged firing pin and in no way could have been used to kill Officer Tippit. He had at least 1 misfire in the theater.

It not as black and white as you have presented it, especially when the Texas Theater manager says LHO entered the building a little after 1:05 PM, which is prior to the time Tippit was killed.

RA has this correct!!!!



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Firsk
reply to post by Rising Against
 


A new article by me and Dr. James Fetzer was published today by Veterans Today: Military and Foreign Affairs Journal. The title of it is: JFK Special: Oswald was in the Doorway, after all! Here is the link:

www.veteranstoday.com...

Dr. Fetzer and I feel that history was made today, that is, real history was uncovered. This may be the biggest breakthrough in the JFK case to come along in years, perhaps in decades. And hopefully, it's just the beginning.

Lee Harvey Oswald was the Man in the Doorway. It's his shirt, his clothes, and that means that it had to be him. I thank Dr. Fetzer, and I thank Veterans Today.


The LHO standing in the doorway, was he the one that took the cab, or the one Roger Craig saw walking down the hill near the grassy knoll and the get in Ruth's Paine's Rambler, driven by a dark skinned man?

Just wondering.
edit on 26-1-2012 by Oldnslo because: Added a ?



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Oldnslo
 


It was the one who actually worked at the Book Depository and was later arrested in the main auditorium of the Texas Theater and who two days later was shot to death by Jack Ruby. That is the LHO I am talking about. He was standing outside the building during the shooting, and he was the Doorway Man in the Altgens photo.





top topics
 
27
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join