All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 18, 2017 - Jim Fetzer
01:07:54
The New JFK Show #170 Larry Rivera/Gary King/Jim Fetzer

The Lee Oswald Mock Trial Sham!

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to the new JFK Show number 170.
We're incredibly happy that Larry Rivera is back on the show.
Of course, everyone's been commenting that they're worried about Larry, and we've been worried about Larry ourselves.
However, I want everyone to know that Larry Rivera is the number one JFK researcher in the world, and it also poses problems for other people that are posing as JFK researchers.
And we're going to let Jim Betser, explain more, starting right now!
Well, we got a very peculiar situation where they're conducting a mock trial in Houston, and Larry was going to be the key witness to give Oswald the alibi, which of course is rooted in the fact that he was standing in the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository when the motorcade passed by, which not only means that he cannot have been the lone demented gunman, but that he cannot have been one of the multiple shooters.
Let's see how this has shaped up.
We have the State of Texas versus Lee Harvey Oswald, November 16th and 17th.
The courtroom drama that never had a chance to occur will now be held live, featuring world-renowned JFK assassination experts.
We'll take a look at some of these purported experts and what role they may be playing or may not.
They include the judge, the Honorable J.T.
Carahan, A Harris County criminal court judge.
I presume he's an okay guy.
The prosecutor is Gus E. Pappas, partner of Dubny and Pappas.
I don't know him.
From Adam, Amanda Webb, a criminal defense attorney.
She's a defense attorney, but in this case, she's on the prosecution.
When we come to the defense counsel, I find the situation a bit more troubling.
Robert K. Tannenbaum was Deputy Chief Counsel for the House Select Committee on Assassinations.
The more I dig into the House Select Committee, the more it's obvious that it was an elaborate cover-up.
They went by to try to redo it even better than the Warren Commission, for example.
Their medical panel concluded there was no blowout to the back of the head at all, but a small entry wound at the top of the head, which is not only consistent with the Parkland physicians, but is inconsistent with the Bethesda autopsy report, which shows a complete missing back of the head.
The whole back of the head is missing.
So someone who had a role to do with the HSCA bothers me.
Then we got this Lawrence Schnapp.
Who's an adjunct professor at NYU Law School.
Let me tell you, adjuncts are the lowest hanging fruit, okay?
That means he doesn't have a tenure-track position.
That means they hire the guy to do one or two courses for minimal pay.
The guy is not a significant member of the faculty there.
This is a posture.
Then we have Bill Simpich, who's a San Francisco-based civil rights attorney, who's into wiretapping, framing Oswald.
So far as I know, he's probably an okay guy, but I'm very suspicious of the other two.
Now let's go forward to the key witnesses.
Robert McClellan, of course, drew a diagram at the time of the massive fist size blowout at the back of the head.
He is peerless.
He's wonderful.
Cyril Weck, I'll tell you.
When I discovered that the HSCA had contracted the wound to the small entry wound at the top of the head, I called up Cyril.
And I said, Cyril, I said, you know, because he was a member of the medical panel, I said, how did the HSCA contract the massive, messy back of the head seen in the Bethesda autopsy report to a small wound at the top of the head?
And Cyril said to me, I'll have to check my notes.
That was a very disillusioning experience.
Gary Aguilar.
Gary Aguilar is an associate with Josiah Thompson.
When Assassination Science was published, it blew apart the cover-up because David Mannick demonstrated that the x-rays had been altered to conceal a fist-sized blowout at the back of the head.
Bob Livingston, World Authority on the Human Brain, concluded that the brain shown in diagrams and photographs was not the brain of JFK.
David discovered evidence of a second shot to the head.
Josiah Thompson sought to trivialize the book by calling it assassinated science, which was simply absurd.
And get this, Gary Aguilar's True Colors came out when it turned out that I did a four and a half hour study video at my own expense.
JFK, the assassination of the cover up and beyond in 1994.
When I found a major distributor out of Chicago, we started marketing the book.
It was selling like 60 copies a month, okay?
But Gary Aguilar and Kathy Cunningham intervened to threaten to sue if they didn't stop distributing the video.
Kathy Cunningham wrote to Gary and copied me, probably inadvertently, and said, we've got a problem.
I had generously acknowledged them, along with David Mannick and Bob Livingston.
I mentioned the name of Gary Aguilar and Kathy Cunningham.
And because I knew she was a nurse, I put R in.
She turns out to be a P in.
She used that as a grounds that I was attempting to embarrass her by promoting her to a registered nurse.
The whole thing stank to high heaven.
Gary Aguilar was a part of the suppression of that four and a half hour documentary, and I tell you as I sit here today, nothing I reported in that documentary has been shown to be false by any subsequent development.
We'd be light years ahead if that had only been allowed to come out.
Then we have Michael Chesser, M.D., board certified in neurology and clinical neuropsychology, physiology.
I do not know him.
I cannot comment.
Lucien C. Haig, former criminalist and technical director of the Phoenix Crime Lab.
I do not know him.
I cannot comment on him.
David W. Manick, MD, PhD, is the world's leading expert on the medical evidence of the JFK assassination.
He's completely peerless.
I don't know why it says Palm Desert-based radiation oncologist.
He resides in Rancho Mirage.
Larry Rivera obviously would have been the most important of all the witnesses.
We have Larry with us here now.
Clifford Spiegelman, PhD, Distinguished Professor of Statistics, author of over 100 scientific publications.
He's talking about the bullet lots.
Is a second shooter possible?
Well, that's absurd.
There were at least six.
I've identified six shooters.
Eight to ten shots fired.
I can tell you where they were fired from, what happened to the bullets, where they went, which hit JFK, which did not, and he's still diddling over whether there's a second shooter.
Donald Thomas, PhD, prolific author of the Acoustical Evidence and the Kennedy Assassination, revisited.
He did The sound study, based upon the microphone recorded audio tape, which has many different spikes, I consider that to reveal a minimum of eight to ten shots, where they set up the microphones under the direction of the HSCA to test from the grassy knoll, but also only from the vicinity of the sixth floor of the Book Depository and the Daltex.
And I asked Donald Thomas specifically, because I was the co-chair of this meeting, where he spoke, whether it was sufficiently discriminating to distinguish between shots fired from the Dow Techs and shots fired from the sixth floor of the Book Depository, and he gave me the answer I expected, which is, no, it was not.
So I'm very troubled, because now Larry has been taken out, and he's been taken out as a witness on the ground that he was our participant in a show, not new JFK show number 85 about the Mossad in Dallas, where Don Fox was presenting evidence that the Mossad had control of buildings there, including the Dow tax, including the uranium mining company,
From whose broom closet window three shots were fired by an anti-Castro Cuban named Nestor Tony Escadro using a Mamluk or Carcano, the only shots that were fired with an unsilenced weapon, where his performance was supervised by none other than George H.W.
Bush, who was arrested coming out of the Dow tax, where a deputy sheriff kept track of the record.
where he was taken downtown and questioned, but not booked, released, wound up back in Dealey Plaza, where he had photographs of him standing in front of the book depository.
That's one of several we have done about the role of Israel in the assassination, such as the new JFK show, number 79, Perm Index, the new show, number 88, the Full Israeli Connection, discussing the work of Michael Collins Piper.
This is a crucial, underexplored aspect of the assassination that deserved more attention, not less.
The idea of taking Larry out because of participation in that meeting is simply shocking.
Included among the latest releases, for example, was the following from Homer Acoveira, who is identified here as the subject.
This is an FBI informant advising the Chicago office that subject, Homer Echeverria, was a member of an anti-Castro Cuban group.
Subject allegedly approached informant to provide machine guns for the Cuban revolution.
On the 21st, a day before the assassination, the subject, Homer Echeverria, allegedly told the informant, We now have plenty of money, our new backers are Jews, as soon as we or they take care of Kennedy.
Subject to express favorable attitude toward LBJ, whom we have independently identified as a pivotal player in the assassination.
In addition, we know this.
A letter I wrote to Ralph copying to Lawrence and Bill with copies to you guys.
Dropping Larry as a witness on the ground that he participated in a show about the role of Israel in the assassination of JFK strikes me as a complete and utter obscenity.
This has to be an effort to sabotage the case by finding an obscure ground to take him out.
In a legal trial, the objection, relevance, would end any cross-examination about those issues because they have no relevance.
Was Lawrence a responsible party?
I intend to make an issue of this because it has no legitimate foundation.
Not only is this not a case of anti-Semitism, but the program in question demonstrated Israeli involvement.
Not to be intrusive, but is Lawrence or Bill Jewish?
Are they Mossad?
Are they related to US intel CIA?
That may be accusatory, but to remove this witness in this case on these grounds is completely absurd.
We appear to have reached the point where truth does not matter.
I suspect whoever took him off the witness list is working for the other side.
What can be more blatant proof of subverting truth?
Well, we have two more confirming lines of proof, but Larry, yes, go ahead.
Yeah, Jim, I just wanted to, because I've been going through the new releases of files, and I found a document that clearly establishes Homer Echeverria as a CIA asset with a 201 file.
Not only Homer, but his father.
Okay, so this was all in the family and these are new documents that, you know, they have to go over these documents, you know, very meticulously and, and, you know, it's pretty obvious, you know, so this sort of like changes the whole dynamic of Echeverria's, both Echeverria's, you know, involvement in this, you know, because, you know, like I said, you know, 201 files, you know, are pretty obvious that you're a CIA asset.
Very, very good.
We'll have to devote a whole show to this, Larry, possibly even on the 22nd.
Now, Ralph Sinque sought to find a replacement for you that wouldn't be vulnerable to the fabricated charge that led to your dismissal.
Namely, Chana Gayle Willis, who has said yes, listen to this, to Larry Bill Chana.
She'll book a flight immediately to Houston.
She asked for $1,050 to cover airfare, hotel, and other expenses.
And if you don't have room for it in your budget, I will gladly pay it to her.
Regarding images, she can present the images that I sent you if you brought them.
I hope you did.
She can bring Larry Rivera's overlays on a PC thumb drive if there will be a PC in the courtroom.
Before I go any further, are you interested in this or not?
Oswald needs an alibi, and Channing Gale will present his real one.
That other guy who works with Casey Quinlan won't.
He will claim something else, and presenting a false alibi, which he will, will be ruinous.
Larry Rivera is not an anti-Semite.
But regardless, you can't decide on Oswald's alibi based on that.
Don't you get it?
The images rule.
And the images say Oswald was standing in that doorway during the shooting.
Mark Link, Jim Mars, Vince Solandria, Jim Douglas, David Roan, Gerald McKnight, and many more have said it.
If you go with anything else, you will be blowing it.
Shaina Gail Willis is poised and ready to go.
But she has to know no later than 5 p.m., which is an hour from now.
Round.
Well, they said no to this substitute for Larry who would have presented his arguments.
Now, I asked Ralph about who they're bringing in instead.
This, in my opinion, is a third strike.
You'll see below he refers to Brian Edwards, a guy who works with Casey Quinlan.
I put this up today about Quinlan.
This is in the blog, Oswald in the Doorway, the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign.
And look at this, the treachery of Casey Quinlan.
Quinlan is making up a quote he's attributed to Lee Oswald.
I stood at the top of these steps on the first floor, behind the glass doorway.
Caught a glimpse of the presidential parade and saw Mr. Shelley and Billy, love lady, on the front steps.
That's completely outrageous.
That is Quinlan's poster, but the quotation attributed to Oswald is totally false.
Oswald never said that.
It is not in the evidence record.
It is an outrage that Casey Quinlan made up that statement and attributed it to Oswald.
What we have is the Fritz Note with out with Bill Shelley in front.
And there's a vague statement by Hostey and Bookout that Oswald said he was on the first floor during the shooting.
Then Fritz went on to tell the WC, the Warren Commission, that Oswald claimed, and here I can't read the rest of it.
Can you read the rest of it?
To be eating lunch with other employees during the shooting, which was also a lie.
Right, because he was on the front steps and we've been able to prove it.
Larry, I'm very embarrassed.
This tells me, this tells me that they are loading the dice.
They have not only taken out the best candidate to give him an alibi, you, they have turned down a substitute against whom they couldn't bring the same allegation, the purported anti-Semitism, because she's not been a participant of that program demonstrating Israel-controlled buildings in Dealey Plaza.
And then, they imply bringing in a guy who's gonna testify exactly opposite the truth.
Larry, I'm profoundly disturbed by all of this.
Well, when I look at that image that you just showed, Jim, I remember last year, we presented, not only did we identify Lee Oswald as Doorman, but we identified Black Hole Man as Billy Love Lady.
And those, I think that those overlays were even more compelling And identifying Billy Lovelady because we were able to overlay, you know, the nose, the mouth, the ear, you know, and the general confirmation of his anatomy in those areas, you know.
And we did it with not just one, but two different photographs of Billy Lovelady.
So it's pretty clear to me that the man on the right visoring his eyes, So Larry, I have to ask a question.
So you're telling me that all of your overlays are not going to make it in the courtroom?
I don't think so, but that's okay.
I'm okay with it.
We're not okay with it, Larry.
We're not okay with it.
This has been over 50 years we've been denied the truth about the assassination.
This is the deepest, darkest secret that the Foreign Commission wanted to keep from the American people.
Here was a perfect opportunity to reveal it and that they are scuttling your brilliant work vindicating Lee Oswald from the role of a shooter is outrageous.
I had made uh you know travel arrangements to Houston you know and when I said look you know I already you know and I was told well you know get a refund.
Yeah and the one thing I want to point out is that this Lawrence Schnapps, however you pronounce his name, actually said that on the program in question that we realized that the anti-Semitic remark was not made by you.
That's right.
However.
I never said a word.
That's right.
That's right.
Not one word during that show and you're going to be removed as the most important witness in the entire courtroom.
And you're walking in with a satchel full of evidence.
And because someone on a show that we made two years ago Yeah, yeah.
Very confused.
They went out of their way.
Don't forget that that was Don Fox's show that night, you know.
Yeah.
Okay, Larry, we want you to present what you would have presented had you had the opportunity to do it.
I'm going to pause so we can pull up your slide set and then we'll continue with your presentation had you had the opportunity to appear in this mock trial of Lee Oswald.
Okay.
Well, basically, I was asked to provide, you know, computer imaging technology for two aspects here, the backyard photos and the man in the doorway.
The first portion, obviously, because it shows, you know, that he was, they actively tried to frame him.
Well, they did frame him.
And the other, The Man in the Door, which we have already presented many times, you know, not just at conferences, but here on the internet, you know, with our videos, you know, on YouTube.
So, but the part about the backyard images, I think, is very interesting because we have new overlays and new studies that, you know, I've shown these to people who don't know anything about the case, you know, and they've just, you know, flat out told me, you know, What's going on here?
That's obviously, you know, a frame here.
You know, that's not being superimposed.
Probably mad inserts, you know, to fit his face in there.
But we're gonna go and go through these slides here and our audience will be able to appreciate what I'm talking about.
What we're gonna do here is act like this is an actual trial, okay?
Go for it, Larry.
Yeah.
Go ahead, Jim.
Do the honors here.
Well, no, Larry, you have the control of the slides.
No, no, but, uh... Yeah, read it.
Oh, oh!
The famous backyard images of Lee Oswald holding two weapons in two left-wing publications.
Those were the communist newspapers, The Worker and The Militant, were used to paint Lee Oswald as a violent malcontent capable of assassinating the President of the U.S.
Life Magazine did its very best to disseminate and propagate one of these images by prominently publishing it on the cover of its 21 February 1964 issue of Notice.
As an aside, to call these images photographs or photos is to give them too much credence.
They were manufactured images.
Continue, Larry.
Yeah.
So this is what we're talking about, and this is known as Commission Exhibit 133A.
We're going to see that there were three different photographs, and the first two were shown to Lee, you know, the night of November 23rd.
And as I think this through, you know, Jim, I'm thinking that when Lee, and we're going to see how he reacted when he was shown these, And his reaction, as far as I'm concerned, sealed his fate.
Because that same night they decided that they had to take him out.
When he said, look, those are fakes and I can prove it.
Okay, and we'll just continue here.
These are the images.
These are the images which we now enter as exhibits using the same names that were established by the Warren Commission.
Commission exhibits from left to right CE-133A, CE-133B, and CE-133C.
CE-133A, CE-133B, and CE-133C.
The first two were shown to leave the evening of 23 November 1963.
Curiously, CE-133C did not service until the 1970s among the possessions of former Marine and Dallas Police Department Officer Roscoe White.
At that time, the HSCA took possession of it and returned it later to the White family.
- These are the three images that we're talking about.
A, B, and C. And, you know, I think C is the most significant because as we go through this presentation, it's a pose that's very particular.
And as they found, you know, later on some photographs or some images at the Dallas Police Department, we're going to see that that's exactly the same pose.
And I'm going to show you some very, very interesting images that I put together.
Okay, now right here, on the evening.
On the evening of 23 November 1963, Lee was being interrogated by Captain Will Flitt, FBI agent James Bookout, and agent Thomas Kelly, FBI agent Thomas Kelly, about these images.
They were presented to Oswald.
He sneered at them, saying they were fake photographs.
He said he'd been photographed a number of times the day before by the police and apparently after they photographed him they superimposed on the photographs a rifle, put a gun in his pocket.
They got into a long argument with Captain Fritz about his knowledge of photography and asked Fritz a number of times whether the smaller photograph was made from the larger or the larger was made from the smaller.
He said at the proper time he would show the photographs were fake.
Fritz told him the smaller photograph was taken from his effects at the garage.
Oswald became arrogant and refused to answer any further questions concerning the photographs and not identify the photographs as even being a photograph of himself.
Captain Fritz displayed great patience and tenacity in attempting to secure from Oswald the location of what apparently is the backyard of an address at which Oswald formerly lived.
But it was apparent that Oswald, although slightly shaken by the evidence, had no intention of furnishing any information.
Which is, of course, highly interpretive, because Oswald really said that that was his face posted on somebody else's body, and he knew something about photography, and with time he'd be able to prove it.
And I believe that this is the point in time that sealed his fate, Jim, because when he told them, look, I can prove it, you know, they said, you know, we're in trouble, we gotta take this guy out.
It's that simple, you know, as far as I'm concerned.
Go ahead.
Secret Service, Thomas Kelly.
From the very notes of Secret Service agent Thomas Kelly, I'd like to quote what Lee said the evening of November 23rd, 1963, if I may.
He said at the proper time he would show that the photographs were faked.
As Lee's legal counsel of record in these proceedings, shall we finish what Lee intended to do?
Had he not been cut down in the basement of City Hall the following day?
Why not?
Let's begin with some very basic observations.
The figure in CE-133A is not wearing a ring on either ring finger.
Here, right here.
Okay?
And I'll go back.
Yeah.
CE-133B is wearing a ring on his right ring finger.
Wow.
That's very good.
The figure in CE-133 is wearing a ring on his left ring finger.
The figure is also wearing a watch on his left wrist.
When we go back... Okay.
See the, uh...
This is 133C right here, down here.
When we go back to CE-133B, we note the figure is not wearing a watch, while in CE-133A, the wrist is blocked by the hand holding the rifle.
Yeah, see this here, right here, and this is like very basic stuff here, and I have to say that Amy Joyce was the one who brought this up, you know, and we did, and we studied it, you know, and I want to congratulate her, you know, because this was something that we totally overlooked, you know.
We had her on the show last week.
That's right, that's right, so I'm giving her all the credit.
I just took it one step further, that's all.
Well, we want to have her back.
Photogrammetry suggests the same face was inserted into all three photographs with simple airbrushing used to slightly alter the mouth, head, and hair, where photogrammetry, of course, is the application of mathematics to the analysis of photographs.
Yeah.
And when you do this and you establish, you know, the size, the scale, everything, and you start to do these photogrammetric lines across, which is what we usually do.
And as you know, photogrammetry in this sense also works in parallel with the overlays.
Okay, so right here, and then we color code, you know, the A, B, and C, and as you can see, you know, everything, you know, lines up perfectly, and there's no indication of any type of movement, which, you know, as far as I'm concerned, is impossible.
You know, when you have three different photographs, you know, there should be some kind of change in the features, you know, and we do not have that at all here.
When we superimpose all three of these, this is the result.
All features line up perfectly.
Play color animation.
Right, and right here.
This is, as you can see, this is the overlay animated GIF.
And of course, as Jack White observed long ago, when you have the three photographs, and I think there's even a fourth, taken in different positions at different times, you're not going to have identical expressions on each of the photographs.
That's an optical impossibility.
So the fact they're all the same indicates that when Lee protested, it was his face pasted on someone else's body.
He had it exactly right.
Right.
So we're going to focus now... Go ahead, Gary.
Go ahead.
Has Lee ever said anything that wasn't true?
Not of which we are aware, right.
Now we're going to focus on the chin.
That's why, you know, I've blown this up, these images up, so that people can make the comparison.
And we're going to talk a little bit about this.
This is obviously CE-133A.
And this is Lee's chin, okay?
As you can see, it's a very particular chin, the anatomy and everything, and it's got a cleft, you know, it's got, you know, a certain physiology, you know, and it's just, you know, inescapable, you know?
And when you go here to the Dallas Police Department photograph, you know, it's the same, you know?
And when you, you know, if you go back, You know, and you compare, and I'm going to show you now, I prepared this GIF, and this is going to go back and forth between one and the other.
And all I want you to do is just focus on the chin, okay?
Yeah, it's obviously not Lee Oswald's chin.
It's a blocked chin.
Right.
Because Oswald had a more tapered, narrow chin.
That's right, that's right.
So, you know, this is like just basic stuff.
We already know it's not Lee Oswald's chin.
Right, right.
But this is, you know, this is physiologically speaking.
And don't forget this is in front of a jury by the way.
Yeah, anybody who sees this, you know, obviously.
So then here we have a side-by-side comparison, and this is even more compelling because you can see them, you know.
And the middle one is the New Orleans Police Department, you know, when he was arrested, you know, with Brenguier and his friends in downtown New Orleans.
And the one on the right is the Dallas Police.
And, you know, just look at these, you know, and obviously it's not the same two.
Look, a little kid could tell the difference.
This doesn't require a sophisticated level of analysis.
I really want to say something real quick.
I want everyone to be in the jury box tonight.
And I want you to be as angry as we are that this stuff is going to be denied.
At the Lee Oswald trial.
It just, it just fries my rear end.
I can't, I can't hardly handle it.
Vertical photogrammetry.
Setting interpupillary distance allows the alignment and scaling of all other features.
This is done by overlaying a grid onto our test images.
This exercise will validate the accuracy of our overlays.
The result is perfect geometry in the areas of mouth, eyes, nose, left ear.
Now, I want you to look at the, on the right, which is his left, you know, and you can see how the ears, you know, line up perfectly.
As you move to the center, you know, we're setting the interpupillary distance and that one lines up perfectly with the left eye.
Okay?
Right, if you're looking at the photo from the front.
And then we bisect, you know, the face from the nose all the way down.
And as you can see, we've got a perfect match.
You know, it's interesting to me, Larry, because that photograph at the bottom has always struck me as the odd man out.
It always struck me, this looked like a much more handsome guy than we see in all the other photographs.
And yet, they're all of the same, one and the same Lee Harvey Oswald.
That's right.
We've done overlays between this photograph and the DPD mugshot, and they line up perfectly.
The only thing that doesn't line up, obviously, is that Lee got beat up, so he had that bruise, you know, and swelling over his eyebrow.
Right.
Okay.
So here, basically, what we're doing is establishing, you know, the geometry of the two images.
And as we move to the left, okay, you're going to see, if you look at the line, I didn't draw a line because It's pretty obvious.
The ear on Backyard Man is completely out of line with the ear of Lee Oswald, okay?
And we're going to see how this works here.
Okay, what I've done here, the middle, you can see a square in the middle, okay?
We established, you know, that geometry there.
The eye, the nose, the lips, you know, the mouth, and the chin.
And when we compare it here, we see that it's exactly the same.
You know, there is Not very much difference here.
And so, so this is, these are like blow-ups, you know, of what we saw previously.
And this is just, to me, this is just basic overlay, you know, computer imaging technology, you know, that we're able to use, you know, to study these images.
And admissible in court, isn't it, Larry?
Oh, of course, of course.
Now, this is a, you can continue here if we, If we conduct overlay studies of the same New Orleans Police Department photograph onto the figure in CE-133A, this is the result.
Notice how the features do not move at all, which gives us a positive identification that, yes, those are the features of Lee Oswald.
And so it should be proportional.
The width of the head, once you have the eyes and everything, the nose and the mouth and everything lined up, you know, everything should fall into place, yet it does not, okay?
So, and we're going to see why that happens pretty soon here.
When we examine the overlay results, the size of the head does not match the size of Lee Oswald's head.
The right side of the neck bulges noticeably, a clear indication of artificial composition.
Now, I noticed this because, as you can see, on the left side, you know, where the neck sort of like joins the jaw, you know, up here, on the right, you know, it's completely different from the other side, you know.
It's a clear indication that this was filled in, in some manner, you know, like I said, a matte insert, you know, or, you know, some kind of, you know, operation like that, that they had, that was the only technology that they had at the time.
Okay, so this is, you know, a pretty good indication that this has been fabricated.
So this is what should have been said in court right here.
To summarize... To summarize these points, we wish to point out the inconsistent rings, the wristwatches, the trims, and the bulging right side of the head and neck of this figure when known photos of Lee are superimposed onto CE-133A.
Author's note, we could go into how the shadows of the face do not fall in the same lines as the body by presenting 3D models.
However, due to time constraints, plus the inability of a jury to remain focused on a certain presentation for a certain amount of time, we should stick with the obvious.
For example, all three photographs show a straight symmetrical shadow under the nose, which is tilted, even though it's tilted, in CE 133B and CE 133C.
That's right, that's right.
Roscoe.
Roscoe White.
The fact that CE-133C was found among the possessions of Roscoe White raises all kinds of questions about his possible involvement in the production of these composites.
At this time, I would like to present a very possible scenario based once again on computer imaging technology.
Larry, it's far beyond merely possible.
Well, you know, you can't say that in court.
You have to, you know, These images were found in possession of the Dallas Police Department.
They show the same pose as CE-133C, the one found among Roscoe White's possessions in 1976.
I think this is key in understanding what was going on here, Jim, because this is pretty good evidence.
When you find this in possession of the DPD, it doesn't matter when they did it.
And these are images that I obtained from the actual website.
They donated, you know, all their material to this historical website, you know, and they have tons of stuff in there.
And in fact, original documents, you know, in color, you know.
For example, affidavits, you know, and stuff.
I found the Billy Love Lady affidavits, original ones, you know, in color, you know, with the blue ink and everything there.
And that's where I obtained these.
And of course, the man on the right is what you'd need if you wanted to fake one of these photographs, but the fact is the detective said he was just trying to see how it could be done, which is an obviously clumsy explanation for proof that the Dallas Police Department was faking these photographs.
That's right, and see, okay, this is CE133C, and when you insert, and this next slide I'm going to show you, I just did a little experiment to see if it would fit, okay?
And this is the result, okay?
It's almost, you know, a perfect fit there into that space, the white space.
You know, I've outlined it here, you know, in dotted lines here, but, you know, It's an almost perfect fit, you know.
I think this is very strong evidence that they might have used that same image.
They may have used the very same map to create the photograph.
It's known as the ghost image.
Right, right.
The beach photo showing Roscoe White and Vix Roscoe in a pose standing with his weight on his right hip, which is exactly the pose seen in Backyard Man.
Now this is, I think, because I just noticed this the other day.
Look at how Roscoe is standing on his right hip, okay, in the beach photo.
Now look at the backyard man.
It's exactly the same pose, you know?
Of course, there's a width difference just because, you know, the right-hand photograph needs to be expanded slightly to show what you're going to demonstrate.
Right, scaled, yeah.
And that's what we do here on the next slide.
Series, yeah.
I figured, you know, let's do this experiment and overlay, since we have a very good frontal shot of Roscoe White, Okay, and see how it plays out, you know, onto Backyard Man.
And, you know, I was just completely flabbergasted when I saw that the head, the shoulders, the torso, you know, the trap, the trapezius muscle and everything, you know, everything lined up perfectly.
And then, you know, obviously the chin of Roscoe White there that you see at the bottom, you know, in this Marine photo.
It's the blocked chin we find in the Backyard photographs.
Right, right.
And don't forget that the Marine photo of Roscoe is at a slight angle, you know, so it's not going to show exactly the same.
But, you know, you sort of get the idea that that's Roscoe.
And here's an overlay GIF, you know, showing that.
Okay.
Impressive.
Jim Mars and I co-authored an article entitled Framing the Patsy, the Case of Lee Harvey Oswald, where we concluded that indeed the person who stood in for Lee was Roscoe White because he had this funny bump on his right wrist.
I mean, he was following the right height, weight, build, and so forth to stand in with a blocked chin.
He has this funny bump on his right arm, and Jim and I concluded on that basis, you know, all of those factors combined, that it indeed had been Roscoe White, which you are further confirming here.
Yeah, and it was apparently some kind of fracture or something that it didn't heal properly, you know, and yeah, yeah, and that was one of the very first indications, you know, but now these overlays completely confirm it.
And this is like a close-up of that same figure before, and I just, you know, it's a perfect fit, you know, what can you say, you know, there's just no doubt.
I think this is 100% accurate here.
Now, what I want to show you is what happens if we overlay Lee onto Backyard Man.
Oops, I think I lost that one.
Okay, I don't have that one right here.
It's his slideshow again.
Yeah, let me see if I can fish it out of here.
Go for it.
Okay, now this is an overlay of Lee Oswald onto Backyard Man.
And obviously, you can see that the neck is shorter, which brings the shoulders higher, okay?
And you compare this with the other one, and it's pretty obvious, you know, that that's not Lee Oswald in the backyard photos, okay?
Wonderful!
That's wonderful!
I love it!
Yeah, see the chin?
We line up the chin, okay?
So everything should fall into place, right?
But it doesn't, okay?
So I think this one pretty much clinches it, as far as I'm concerned.
And we can go move on to the... Well, you gotta double proof.
You gotta proof that the man in the backyard was, in fact, being played by Roscoe Hoy, and that the backyard man cannot be Lee Oswald.
I mean, that's as powerful as it gets, Larry.
Yeah, because you have to give the other option, okay?
You can't just present one.
You have to say, okay, what happens if we do a Lee onto the backyard, you know, with this type of technology?
And it's pretty obvious that it's not him.
He was right.
He said these are fakes and I can prove it.
As far as I'm concerned, that's what sealed his fate.
Larry, this is like my book, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook, which was banned by Amazon.com less than a month after it went on sale.
Too much truth that blew apart the official account.
13 contributors, including six current or retired PhD professors, they banned the book just as you have been banned as a witness from the Lee Harvey Oswald mock trial because you bring too much truth.
You settled the issue just as our book settled the question that the school wasn't even open after 2008 and there were no kids there.
Okay, so we're ready to do the next one if you guys are up to it.
I'm going to stop the share for a minute right here.
Larry, now you turn to the question of where was Lee Oswald at the time of the assassination?
Both FBI agent James W. Bookout and Dallas Police Department homicide captain Will Fritz reported Oswald claims to have been on the first floor with his supervisor Bill Shelley.
Carolyn Arnold saw Lee on the first floor at 1225, five minutes before the assassination.
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 the building, having just purchased a Coca-Cola from the soft drink machine.
By the way, he didn't say it was lowercase Coca-Cola, meaning generic.
He actually liked Dr. Peppers.
I doubt very much it was a Coca-Cola.
At which time the police officer came into the room with a pistol drawn and asked him if he worked there.
Mr. Cooley 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 coat And that should have been with a little case C. Down to the first floor and stood around and had lunch in the employee's lunchroom.
He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelley and thereafter went home.
He stayed and left work because, in his opinion, based on remarks of Bill Shelley, he did not believe there was going to be any more work that day due to the confusion in the building.
He stated after arriving at his residence that he went to a movie where he was subsequently apprehended by the Dallas Police Department.
This is a statement from FBI agent James W. Bookout on the 22nd of November 1963.
That's right, and we know all about that guy.
We know a lot about Bookout.
Yeah, I just wanted to mention that so that people understand, you know, you had the, I would say the grunts, you know, for lack of a better word, you know, those who work, you know, the menial jobs, you know, and who were not office workers, you know, their you know, and who were not office workers, you know, their lunchroom was on the first
And the other, the girls and the secretaries, you know, and the upper echelon employees, you know, they ate lunch on the second floor.
Yeah, they weren't supposed to mix with the secretaries and all that.
That's right, that's right.
So, that's important to keep in mind.
And, of course, this whole statement was interpretive, because what Lee actually said is what we find here in Wilfrid's notes, when he questioned him about where he was during the shooting, not with Bill Shelley in front, which is the truth of the matter, not what was, you know, offered by Bookout as his interpretation of what he said.
So here we have two different documents that establish that he was on the first floor, okay?
Well, this is a typescript of the handwritten note, so it's, yeah.
Yeah, and then I found this other document where he says, I asked him, you know, right there, After some questions about this man's full name, I asked him if he worked for the Texas School Book Depository.
He told me he did.
I asked him which floor he worked on.
He said usually on the second floor.
Sometimes his work took him to all the different floors.
I asked him what part of the building he was in at the time the president was shot.
He said he was having his lunch about that time on the first floor.
Mr. Trulia told me that one of the police officers stopped this man immediately after the shooting somewhere near the back stairway.
So I asked Oswald where he was when the police officer stopped him.
He said he was on the second floor drinking a Coke when the officer came in.
I asked him why.
No, this is Carolyn Arnold, okay, and we need to spend a little time, you know, in what happened with her testimony because this is the first document that where, you know, she establishes, this is on 11-26, okay, and I want to interject here real quickly, you know, this
This document actually contained a handwritten, not an affidavit, but a statement by her to this effect, and it was signed by her.
Harold Weisberg tried to get his hands on this document for many, many years.
When he finally did, he had it filed away.
file cabinets in his basement, just many.
And he used to allow researchers to come and look at his files.
And he had that handwritten statement signed by Carolyn Arnold in his files.
And after he let somebody in there, he doesn't even remember who it was.
It disappeared, okay?
And then obviously when they tried to get another copy, they couldn't because, you know, it had been deep-sixed, you know.
So, here it establishes 12-15, okay, as a time.
And obviously... Well, she actually gave multiple reports.
She saw him at 12.23 but she saw him again at 12.25 according to her report.
Carolyn Arnold seems to be a very honest person.
But it also appears when she last saw him he was heading, you know, he followed the crowd outside to see what was going on.
Now, if you look at C-1381, which encompasses all the testimonies, these were all testimonies that were unsigned, you know, and supposedly they interviewed, you know, the FBI interviewed all these people, you know, and all the employees that worked at the TSBD.
And now here, they're saying, I did not see Lee Harvey Oswald at the time the president was shot, okay?
So here already you've got two completely conflicting versions, you know, of what's going on.
Well, there's five minute difference between 1225 and 1230.
So, yeah, yeah.
And now, this was a very important article that Earl Goltz, you know, wrote in 1978.
Because he went down and tracked her down.
By that time, she was married.
Her name was Carolyn Johnston.
Okay, living in Stephenville.
And here's where she really laid out, you know, exactly what happened.
And this is very interesting.
We need to read, you know, this right up here.
I'll read both.
Mrs. Carolyn Johnston of Stephenville, Texas, told the news last week she saw Oswald in the second floor lunchroom as she was on her way out of the depository to watch the presidential motorcade, November 22, 1963.
She left the building at 12.25 p.m., she said, five minutes before the assassination.
This was at the approximate time Bronson was filming two images on the sixth floor.
Continuing, Mrs. Johnston, then Mrs. Carolyn Arnold, was secretary to the Depository Vice President O.V.
Campbell.
She said she never had read the FEI reports of two interviews with her.
She was surprised to learn they made no mention of her sighting of Oswald in the launch room.
That's extremely, that's extremely important, Jim.
Okay.
She never read the FBI.
She was, what, 20-21 at the time, all right?
So, can you imagine, you know, she being completely overwhelmed, you know, by the FBI and this and that, you know, and she's, you know, what can she do?
And they never provided her with copies of her two interviews.
What is she going to do?
She's going to track them down and, hey, I want to see, you know.
Of course not.
You can go ahead.
Mrs. Johnston.
Misspelled name, Mrs. Johnstone should have been.
Johnston said she would have thought, she told the FBI during both interviews of her encounter with Oswald in the lunchroom, because that's the only time I remember having seen him on the day of the assassination.
I do not recall that he, Oswald, was doing anything, Mrs. Johnstone said.
I just recall he was sitting there in one of the booth seats on the right-hand side of the room as you go in.
He was alone as usual, And appeared to be having lunch.
I did not speak to him, but I recognized him clearly.
And this is the key passage.
She knew Oswald because he'd come to her desk on the second floor and asked for change, never accepting pennies but only nickels and dimes.
The FBI report of her first interview four days after the assassination stated that after she left the depository and stood about 30 feet in front of the building to watch the motorcade, she thought she caught a fleeting glimpse of Lee Harvey Oswald standing in the hallway on the first floor.
This was his alibi, Jim, you know, this was the one person and, you know, who knows how many other people said, yeah, I saw him in the doorway, you know, and they just deep-sixed all that, you know.
But Carol Arnold, you know, it goes on record here and she completely destroys, you know, the lone nut theory, you know, that he was up on the 6'4", you know, shooting at the president, you know.
And because this is his actual alibi, you know, obviously next to the men in the doorway.
Well, the photographic is more powerful evidence, of course, but this testimonial evidence is clearly at odds with the official account, and the Warren Commission contradicts it in a rather blatant fashion.
That's right, that's right.
Now, the Elton Six and the TSB Doorway.
We've presented this many times already before, but there's some new stuff that I want to show you guys.
You know, this is a doorman, you know, and this is our probe.
You know, this is the man in the doorway.
Obviously, this is the man that the government said is really a doorman, which we have completely, you know, destroyed that concept.
And you know, Lee, you know, with a very distinct shirt, you know, and the texture and the color and everything. - And it's tattered condition at the bottom. - Yeah, and we have also shown how Judy Baker has done the epixelation studies, which we have confirmed to be correct. and we have also shown how Judy Baker has done Okay?
And those studies, we've already talked about that.
And obviously, you know, we have the grid images, you know, that show the width of Lovelady's head versus the width of Lee Oswald's head.
Okay, here.
And obviously, you know, they have different proportions.
Billy had a wider cranium, a broader cranium than Lee.
That's right.
That's right.
And the structure here on the temples and everything, you know, was more like swept back.
You know, Lee's was more vertical, you know.
Well, he said, you know, he thought it was very odd.
They'd be confused because he was two to three inches shorter, 15 to 20 pounds heavier.
And, you know, he just thought it was odd they'd ever be confused.
I think it's more than 15-20 because Leo was weighing, what, 131-135 at the time.
Billy Lovelady was weighing at least 175.
You know, we're talking about that.
Oh, I think you're right, Larry.
That would have just been a, you know, a casual Yeah, yeah.
And this is our probe image, which we have, this is the one that we've worked with, you know, on the overlays.
Our gallery images, we've talked about this, you know, many times, you know.
Remember, Larry, your audience doesn't necessarily, you know, they aren't familiar with all your past work, so.
Yeah.
Lay it out carefully here.
Yeah.
In order to use flipped images, we have to establish the symmetry of the faces of both men.
And we have done that, you know, and since this had to be abbreviated, you know, I'm not including that here.
Right.
You know, because I only had, I think... But you can find it in previous new JFK shows you've done here with Gary and me.
That's right.
That's right.
There's a lot more detail there.
And this is the photograph from the Bob Jackson photo shoot where, you know, this is so ridiculous.
You know, it's obvious that they're posing him, okay?
And this one is not flipped, okay?
This is important.
And he's pursing his lips, you know, and they're obviously trying to make him look like doorway man or doorman.
And, you know, and when we use this in the overlays, obviously you can see that the face, the head is wider, okay?
So when you try... Wider than Doorman's head, yes.
Of course!
And when you try to scale it with the interpupillary distance, you know, and when you scale everything else, that brings that right ear inwards, you know, and we're gonna see How this works, obviously we would have had a live demonstration and with the overlay results, you know, and when we look at the, when we look at the GIFs and the animations, I want our audience to focus on either on the movement or non-movement of the features as we get the overlay, the opacity.
As the opacity goes Yes.
from zero all the way to 100 on these overlays, you want to look at either the movement or the non-movement.
If you see a lot of movement, obviously, it's not the same person.
But if you do not detect movement, then all the features are lining up perfectly.
Yes.
And you get a positive-- Confirmation, right?
And this is the result of the Billy Lovelady, the collage, left to right, top to bottom, with the different levels of opacity.
And this is the animated GIF of that.
As you can see, the nose is completely displaced from the shadow, you know.
You can see that this nose... Well, the nose, the ears, the jaw, the general outline of the skull, they're not the same.
Yeah, the brow ridge, you know, you can see the head, you know, the forehead is swept back, you know, and curiously in this case, you know, the ear at least, you know, reaches, you know, that position that we're looking for.
Not so when we use the frontal, the non-flipped image.
And this is our grid image, you know, in order if you want to go ahead and measure, you know, the little squares, you know, you can draw empirical data and that's the purpose of that.
Now this is the other one, the knot flip.
And this is even more compelling because now we have, you know, we can't claim that we're using a flipped image, you know, that's not valid.
You know, here this is a non-flipped image and it's not even close.
It's not even close here, you know.
And as you can see, the ear does not reach the required... Does not align properly, yeah.
No, not at all, not at all.
And bear in mind that the first task here is to get the interpupillary distance, okay.
Once you got that down, You know and then you get the try to align the chin and everything you know then you know you should be able to if it's the same man you should be able to align everything yet you cannot do that and this is our grid with the ruler you know overlay okay and obviously again you know this shadow here It's not in conjunction with the nose, okay?
The lips, you know, are higher, you know, so you got a lot of different features here that do not line up at all.
It's rather obvious that Doorman is not Billy Lovelady.
And when you do, when you look at the GIF, the animation, again, you know, look at the features and you can see all the movement here, you know, that means that this is not, this is not the same man, okay?
Now going on to the next, this is our summary here, interpupillary distance, you know, and we've done this, but you know, we tried, we tried our best, you know, this is a scientific investigation, you know, and we want to give him, you know, the benefit of the doubt, you know, as much as possible, but it just doesn't add up at all.
The nose is rounder, larger, more bulbous.
The bridge is different.
The nose here shifts to the right.
Yeah, the nose shifts to the right, displacing it from the shadow cast by the nose of the doorman.
There's slightly more length between the lower lip and the tip of the chin, which brings the mouth slightly higher.
Eyebrows are more rounded and arched, and there's more space between the eyes and brow ridge.
Shape of the chin is different.
Face is wider.
Forehead is swept back at a different lower angle.
And now when we do the same exercise with Lee, Despite the, you know, the flipped image, everything, since we've already proven that his face is extremely symmetrical, so we are able to validate the use of a flipped image as long as it's showing the same perspective, okay?
And here you can go, you know, left to right, top to bottom, you can see that everything lines up perfectly.
You know, I just, you know, And this is, again, our grid and ruler image, you know.
And, you know, our key identifiers here.
Again, the interpupillar distance, you know, makes everything line up perfectly.
The nose matches, including the bridge in general confirmation.
More importantly, that the nose is in perfect position to cast a shadow seen below Dorman's nose, which was caused by the noon sun, which is 12:30, and it's slightly in front, you know?
So that's why you get that type of shadow.
The lips, which are pursed, you know, in a particular, specific manner, they're a match.
Eyebrows, brow rays, more horizontal, they're a match.
The high forehead, chin matches in size and shape, face matches in both width and height.
And when you do photogrammetrics on both, you know, so you can do a comparison side by side, you can see, you know, the vast difference here between one and the other.
And then we do the same thing with the other image, you know, the non-flipped.
And, you know, all you got to do is follow these lines here, you know.
And just project them, you know, and you can draw a lot of really good data.
And when you do side-by-sides, you know, just look at these and draw your own conclusions.
You know, I'm not trying to sway the audience one way or another, you know, I'm just providing, you know, the information, the animations, you know, and the work that's been done.
And this is all, you know, in forensic science, this is perfectly acceptable, you know, and I'm pretty sure that in a court of law, you know, this would be perfectly admissible, okay?
And, you know, This is the other side-by-side, you know, this is with the non-flipped image, you know, and it's even more compelling as far as I'm concerned.
It doesn't leave a lot of room for doubt.
Right, right, right.
Yeah, boy, seems like this would be really good evidence for Lee's sake if he could get it in the courtroom, but... Yeah, and then, obviously, you know, you get a better, a much larger image here of the overlay, and, you know, just look at this, you know, and everything just fits perfectly, you know, I just, I cannot see how anybody can reject this, you know, as being a fabrication, you know, it's just, I think it's very sound.
And, you know, we know that Lee is innocent, and Do you go on to show about Billy being, you know, having his hands raised there?
Larry, do you have those?
No, because we weren't really trying to, you know, show what Billy Lovelady, where he really was, you know.
This is something that I was told was going to be very brief.
I had, I think, 35 or 40 minutes to present it, so I had to be as concise and to the point and, you know, assertive.
Well, I'll just add that you've elsewhere shown that the man with his hands raised, standing beside Lee, is in fact Billy Lovelady.
Oh yeah, oh yeah, there's no doubt about that.
Just as he testified to the FBI when he came in on the 29th of February, 1964.
Wearing the shirt they'd asked him to wear that he'd worn on the day of the assassination, which was the red and white vertically striped short-sleeved shirt.
That's right, and let's not forget that Ralph found that image, the CE-369, where it shows the little tail of the arrow when they told him, you know, draw an arrow to show where you were, you know?
And the only thing, you know, the pointed part of the arrow is in the dark area.
In the black.
It was a very clever subterfuge.
Yeah, yeah, but the tail of the arrow is clearly visible, you know, and when they told him, but you know, obviously, you know, Joseph Ball didn't want this to be the ball.
He did not want this to be presented.
He did not want to go into specifics, you know, and because I believe, and I'm pretty sure, you know, and it's pretty obvious that Joseph Ball was the architect Well, Larry, I'm very proud to say that we have your book being processed for publication.
We have the tentative cover for the book, and we're very proud to have it with Moonrock Books.
And you might comment ever so briefly on the images on the front and back cover by way of conclusion.
You know, now with all this work that we've done with Blender, that we've been able to replicate Dealey Plaza, and that's going to be part of my presentation in Dallas on Saturday, where now we can actually create a three-dimensional rendering of of Daily Plaza and go in there in a virtual world and see, you know, what these people could see.
And we've talked about before what the how important the importance of the reference images.
For example, we use the Alton 6, Zapruder Frame 255, you know, and since those are different perspectives, we're able and the Robert Cutler map, I think that's so incredibly important because Robert Cutler was an architect and he came up with that He came up with that map, that schematic map, representing Dealey Plaza in a very accurate manner.
And we've seen in previous shows how using that map we can use and superimpose our objects and create a three-dimensional rendering of Dealey Plaza.
And then we can go anywhere.
We can go to the top of the Dow, Dow Texas second floor, you know, sixth floor of the TSBD and look at the perspectives, you know.
And, and then go in and look at what each and every photographer would have seen, okay.
And I think this is a, an incredibly useful tool.
Obviously, we know that a lot of landmarks have changed.
For example, the lampposts.
You were moved from the edge of the curb onto the grass, correct?
You've got the doorway.
The doorway used to measure three feet, the landing, and they took it in nine feet, okay?
You've got, there's, you know, the area right before the triple underpass, there was a concrete area there.
They've taken that out, and I believe there was a bullet scar, you know, in that area.
Let me just read the text from the back cover.
Thanks to Larry Rivera, we finally know how and why Alton 6 was altered.
After recovering misplaced interviews of the four JFK horsemen by Fred Newcomb, a first-generation student of JFK, Larry discovered not only that all four confirmed the limo stop, but that Officer Hargis had parked his bike and had run between the Presidential Lincoln and the Secret Service Cadillac Up toward the grassy knoll for which he believed shots had been fired.
Officer Jackson motored his bike up the grassy knoll until it fell over and then proceeded on foot in search of the shooters.
At the same time, Clint Hill rushed forward and pushed Jackie back into the car from the trunk where she had Climbed after a chunk of JFK's skull and brains.
Five secret service agents surrounded the Lincoln.
One taking a piece of skull from a little boy and tossing it into the back seat.
These discoveries have thereby revolutionized our understanding of the extent to which the films of the assassination, especially the Zapruder and the Knicks, have been edited to remove the limo stop.
No serious student of JFK will want to miss this book.
Larry Revere has proven his genius at research on the death of our 35th president, Jim Fetzer, Ph.D.
And I just want to add, Larry, you're doing brilliant work.
And I find it ironic that you would be taken off, or look at the building in the background here of your rendering of what the Altschulz 6 ought to have looked like had it not been altered in the doorway area where you see the edifice of the Dow tax.
Which Don Fox was explaining in the program for which you were removed, was controlled by the Mossad, and from which three shots were fired with the only unsilenced weapon used in Dili Plaza.
In my opinion, this is a complete obscenity.
It's a moral and legal atrocity that you are taking out as the key witness in the mock trial of Lee Oswald, which demonstrates conclusively That the government is not willing the truth to come out even more than 50 years later.
Larry, congratulations to you.
I want to add something, Jim, really important before we go.
As you know, the Alton Six photograph, everybody assumes that it was taken from the infield, okay?
Beyond the curb.
But if you place a camera there in Blender, it does not line up with the figures in the doorway or anybody there.
The only way that you can get this perspective, this line of sight, is by placing alges on the street in the middle of the left lane of Elm Street, which is a clear indication that what the JFK horsemen, Shaney, Jackson, Martin, and Hard just said, that the limo came to a complete stop.
Because otherwise, you know, how could Alton, you know, stand in his room.
He would have been run over by the motorcyclists.
Exactly.
Exactly.
They've been in motion because it was taken from in the street.
That's right!
They tried to make him out to be on the grass just as they did with Gene Hill and Mary Moorman, who'd also stepped into the street for Mary to take her famous photograph.
Larry, you're doing commendable work.
Gary, take us out.
All I want to say is that tomorrow, Lee Oswald would certainly like to have Larry Rivera in his corner.
However, due to Reasons beyond our control.
Larry's been removed from The Witness List.
You be the judge if it was the right thing to do.
This is New JFK Show number 170, and we're so glad to have Larry Rivera back in the saddle again.
▲
Export Selection