Homeland Security: The Unanswered Questions

by Jim Fetzer (with Paul Joseph Watson)

 

"It could never happen here.  We are the greatest democracy in the world.  Indeed, we are the greatest country in history! Politicians say it all the time.  Our enemies are foreign, not domestic.  So stop your hysteria and focus on the Brewers and the Packers."--Ed Garvey

Wednesday,  5 March 2013, I called the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in the expectation of speaking with a press representative about a dozen questions I have that are bothering me and a lot of other concerned citizens.  It was a snow day, however, and the duty officer who answered explained that they were closed "due to inclement weather" and I should call back the next day.  Thursday, 6 March 2013, I called again and informed the switchboard operator that I was a reporter and would like to speak to a press spokesman.  I was connected to a secretary, who told me that DHS does not answer inquiries by phone and that I should submit any questions to mediainquiry@dhs.gov.  


While I have now done that, I have no reason to believe I will receive honest answers, if, indeed, I receive any answers at all.  The situation is so disturbing that I cannot imagine how any replies to my questions could possibly add up.  So I am publishing them here with a few words of explanation and some links that explain how we know these are real issues and why they matter, if, indeed, that is not already obvious on their face.  I have also appended an article by Paul Joseph Watson, which greatly reinforces the questions that DHS needs to answer.  We appear to be confronted with our own Stasi, where the time appears to have come to deal with the threat that it poses to the American people.

For your information, my name is Jim Fetzer, I am a former Marine Corps officer and a journalist for Veterans Today.  Our readers have expressed interest in knowing more about recent activities by DHS, which is my reason for calling. Are you authorized to speak for DHS? 

May I have your name and the title of your position?  Just for my personal information, what was your profession before joining DHS?  Could you tell me where you are from and a little about your education for our readers’ information?  It adds a personal dimension to the story.

(1) Sen. Rand Paul has conducted a filibuster against the use of predator drones to kill American citizens on US soil without due process, which appears to be a blatant violation of the Bill of Rights.  How will DHS determine who will be killed using them and who will not?

Jon Stewart praises Rand Paul Filibuster: "He's using the filibuster the way it's meant to be used"

(2) There are new reports that DHS acquiring 2,700 light tanks which are especially designed to withstand IEDs of the kind that US forces have encountered in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Does DHS anticipate using these in American streets against US citizens--and if so, why?

The new DHS sanctioned ‘Street Sweeper’ (my own slang due to the gun ports) is built by Navistar Defense (NavistarDefense.com), a division within the Navistar organization. Under the Navistar umbrella are several other companies including International Trucks, IC Bus (they make school buses), Monaco RV (recreational vehicles), WorkHorse (they make chassis), MaxxForce (diesel engines), and Navistar Financial (the money arm of the company).

———————- From Navistar Defense: The International® MaxxPro® is Navistar Defense’s Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle and incorporates the latest design in armoring technology. Extensively tested by the military and used in theater today, the MaxxPro features a V-shaped hull and other design features that greatly improve survivability. MaxxPro® MRAP specifications:

• Length: 254″ (21.2 feet)
• Width: 102″ (8.5 feet)
• Height: 120″ (10 feet)
• Wheel base: 153″ (12.8 feet)
• Curb weight: 37,850 lbs. (18.9 tons)
• Engine: MaxxForce® 9.3

The MaxxPro MRAP is built to withstand ballistic arms fire, mine blasts, IEDs, and other emerging threats. Its V-shaped hull helps deflect blasts out and away from the crew and its armoring can be customized to meet any mission requirement.

(3) Earlier articles have reported that DHS has acquired more than 1.5 billion rounds of .40 hollow point ammunition, which is not even permissible for use in combat under the Hague Treaty of 1899.  For what conceivable purpose does DHS need this vast stockpile of munitions?

(4) These purchases and those of 7,000 fully automatic assault weapons are reported to have been made with no-bid contract was justified due to an “unusual and compelling urgency” alleging a shortage of bullets threatening “substantial safety issues for the government”.  What would that be?

(5) The public has long known of the existence of more than 300 FEMA camps distributed across the county and we have noticed that DHS is advertising for personnel to man them. Since there are no obvious natural disasters that might warrant them, what is their purpose?

(6) Special arrangements have been made for the use of funeral homes and other facilities to process large numbers of bodies of US citizens, should an emergency arise that would overwhelm hospitals and other care centers.  What is the purpose of making these arrangements?

(7) Since DHS has no foreign commitments, is there any reason to doubt DHS is acquiring these vast stocks of ammunition, these light tanks, and 30,000 drones, while making these special arrangements and manning FEMA camps for anticipated operations against US citizens?

You don’t have to have spent 35 years teaching logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning to put together the following premises and draw the obvious conclusion:

(1) The US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (3 October 2012) has established that there is no domestic terrorist threat; 

(2) There are 300 or more FEMA camps distributed around the country and we know that Congress has authorized 30,000 drones for domestic surveillance; 

(3) Since there is no domestic terrorist threat, the domestic surveillance and those FEMA camps are not intended to survey terrorists or to imprison terrorists; 

(4) Since those drones and FEMA camps are either intended to survey terrorists or US citizens, it follows that, since they are not for terrorists, they are for US citizens; 

(5) DHS has acquired more than 1.5 billion rounds of .40 caliber hollow-point ammunition, which is not even permissible in warfare under the Hague Treaty of 1899; 

(6) Since DHS does not conduct operations abroad, it has been acquired for domestic consumption and, since there are no terrorists, it must be for US citizens; 

(7) Congress is planning for funeral homes, cemeteries and mortuaries being “overwhelmed” from a mass terror attack, natural disaster or other crisis; but, 

(8) there is no domestic terrorist threat and no conceiveable natural disaster would justify this dramatic authorization for coping with staggering numbers of bodies.

Conclusion:  The United States is planning for massive civil war, involving massive casualities, with the citizens of the United States.  Consider the evidence.  There is no way around it.  That’s what’s happening.

(8) A subcommittee of the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Intelligence has issued a report based upon its review of 680 "fusion center" reports from 2009-10 that showed no indications at all--NONE--of  domestic terrorist activity.  So why is DHS targeting Americans?

(9) Groups that have been reported to be on the DHS "terrorist watch list" include militias, veterans, 9/11 Truth seekers, and critics of US foreign policy, who have been exercising their rights under the Constitution.  Why do groups like these belong on any "watch list" by a federal agency?
 

(10) The creation of DHS under the PATRIOT Act appears to be modeled upon the East German “Stasi” and to reflect the dissolution of the United States of America into a fascistic military-police state.  Wouldn't it be better for our civil liberties for DHS to be disbanded?

 

(11) The reported massacre at Sandy Hook appears to some to have been a staged event that even involved the use of actors, which was designed as a "psy op" to reduce access to the weapons Americans need to oppose an assault by DHS.  Was DHS involved in Sandy Hook? 

  The AR 15 Rifle was left in the car!   

 (12) The last question:  Is DHS planning to conduct a massive civil war against the American people?  What other conceivable purpose can there be for acquiring this vast stockpile of illegal .40 calibre ammunition, 2,700 light tanks, 300 FEMA camps and 30,000 drones when there is no domestic terrorist threat?

DHS Preparing for Civil War in the US?

Thank you for your cooperation in addresses these questions on behalf of Veterans Today.  If you can provide contact information, I will be glad to send you a copy of the article when it is published and to acknowledge you as my source on behalf of DHS.

Media Portrays DHS Ammo Purchases as Conspiracy Theory

Media circles the wagons, goes into desperate damage control

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com March 6, 2013

The establishment media, aided by a raft of leftist websites, is still portraying concern over the Department of Homeland Security’s purchase of some 2 billion rounds of ammunition as a conspiracy theory by regurgitating the glib statement of a single DHS official.

NRA CEO on the Gun Control Push

The latest examples include Media Matters and Raw Story, both of which attacked Fox Business host Lou Dobbs for daring to raise the issue on his March 4 broadcast during an interview with the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre.

Statement by Alex Jones: “Lou Dobbs hit the nail on the head, the reason we have the second amendment is to defend ourselves from a domestic government arms build-up which is always a prelude to state oppression. That’s why White House front groups like Media Matters and Politico are stonewalling this issue by saying it doesn’t exist. This is exactly the same thing former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs admitted to when he said he was ordered to deny the drone program – which was publicly admitted to exist – as a psychological warfare tactic to confuse the public.” 

“The globalists are building a domestic army under the cover of national security – and only now does the second amendment – laid down by our visionary founders – come alive to fulfil its true purpose as a counter balance and shield against usurpers and tyrants everywhere.”

Hijacking confusion about whether 2,717 armored vehicles were destined for the DHS or the United States Marine Corps, Media Matters, which has been documented to be little more than an Obama administration mouthpiece, reported that, “The claim that DHS bought a 1.6 billion bullet stockpile is also misleading,” while simultaneously admitting that “DHS did buy 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition.”

The source of the claim that concerns over the bullet buys are a conspiracy theory or “misleading,” cited by both Media Matters and Raw Story, is a February 14 Associated Press report which did not conduct any actual investigation into why the DHS was purchasing the ammo, instead regurgitating a statement from DHS official Peggy Dixon, who claimed the bullets were bought in bulk to save money and were for training purposes only.

Firstly, the notion that the DHS, which threatened to release 10,000 illegal aliens because it couldn’t afford to house them while simultaneously building numerous new detention centers for illegal aliens at a cost of tens of millions of dollars, is the least bit interested in “saving money” is asinine.

This is an agency that has become synonymous with wasting taxpayers’ money yet one which has also enjoyed a budget increase year upon year even as the economy flatlines.

Secondly, the claim that the bullets were for training purposes only was blithely accepted and regurgitated by the AP despite being inherently disingenuous.

The majority of the bullets purchased by the DHS as part of its 2 billion round ammo buying spree were hollow point bullets (one order alone amounted to 450 million of them). Hollow point bullets just happen to be completely unsuitable for training purposes because they cost significantly more money compared to standard firing range bullets. This debunks both the ‘saving money’ argument and the ‘for training purposes only’ claim in one fell swoop.

Thirdly, the fact that the Associated Press also treated a DHS statement as the gospel truth, when the agency has been caught lying innumerable times, particularly on TSA body scanner issues and most recently with Janet Napolitano’s erroneous claim that the sequester debate was causing delays in airports, also serves as another reminder as to why distrust in the mainstream media is at an all time high.

The media also acted in unison following former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin’s warning last week that the federal government is “stockpiling bullets” in preparation for “civil unrest,” savaging Palin as a tinfoil hat wearing lunatic who was spewing Alex Jones-style “conspiracy theories.”

Atlantic Wire responded by claiming Palin had obtained her rhetoric from a “debunked email” concerning the Social Security Administration’s purchase of 174,000 bullets last year, completely omitting the admitted DHS purchase of 2 billion bullets like it didn’t exist.

Politico also made reference to the Atlantic Wire “debunking” (despite the fact that it represented lying by omission and not a debunking at all), as well as reporting that concerns over the DHS ammo purchases had been rebutted by the “feds” and the “media”.

Apparently, the mainstream media has failed to grasp that concerns about government activity cannot be “debunked” by merely repeating glib statements issued by government officials.

Amidst all the so-called “debunkings” of the bullet buys, the media has also conveniently ignored the DHS’ purchase of 7,000 fully automatic assault rifles last September as well as the agency’s $2 million dollar relationship with a contractor that recently had to apologize for producing shooting targets of pregnant women, children and elderly gun owners depicted in residential settings.

The DHS has also been busy buying large supplies of body armor, leading to shortages. Last year, the agency put out an urgent order for “riot gear” in anticipation of civil unrest. The agency has also ordered bullet-proof checkpoint booths and hired hundreds of new security guards to protect government buildings over the course of the last 12 months. None of this has been addressed by the mainstream media.

While claiming to have “debunked” concerns about the DHS’ purchase of 2 billion bullets, the likes of the Associated Press, Politico, Media Matters, the Atlantic Wire and others have only debunked themselves – by relying on a single dubious statement from a DHS official as their source in addition to repeatedly lying by omission.

Is it any wonder that a recent Rasmussen poll found that just 6 per cent of Americans rate the mainstream media as “very trustworthy” when the corporate press now behaves as if merely repeating the glib statements of government officials is an acceptable way of ascertaining the truth about a story?

---

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth.

Read More

Why Buell Wesley Frazier was erased from Altgens6

By Larry Rivera (with Jim Fetzer)

"The world is a dangerous place, not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it."--Albert Einstein

 Guess what, we are not going to talk about curtain rods in this article. The curtain rod story is a red herring, so we will do away with it right from the top. 

The Oswald Innocence Campaign (OIC) has already shown that Oswald was Doorman and that Lovelady was "Black Hole Man", who is holding his arms up to shade his eyes, largely based upon the differences between their shirts. That much has been established by the OIC. Our next order of business, therefore, is to find out why Buell Wesley Frazier was erased from the famous Altgens photograph.

Buell Wesley Frazier was born June 4, 1944.(1) At 19, he arrived in Irving in early September 1963 from the town of Huntsville 200 miles away to find work and live with his sister Linnie Mae Randle, her husband Bill, and their three children.(2) With his mother also visiting with Linnie in November 1963 (3), he was left with no choice but to sleep on the couch of the Randle's living room.(4) 

There are two versions of how he obtained his employment at the Texas School Book Depository. His Warren Commission testimony states he went through the Massey Employment Agency.(5) They referred him there, and the same day he interviewed with Roy Truly, he was hired. (6) However, his sister stated she was the one who enabled him to land the job at the TSBD.(7) He was making the minimum wage of $1.25 per hour.(8) At any rate, he did end up working there on 9/13/63. He drove Lee Harvey Oswald to work on 11/22/63--and the rest is history.

Frazier got up at 6:30 AM, had breakfast with his mother and family at 7:15.(9) He picked up Lee, who had been waiting for him outside, after walking half a block from the Ruth Paine residence. He took Stemmons Freeway downtown and arrived at the TSBD parking lot in time for work. The image at left shows this was not just any parking lot. It was well removed from the work place. From there they walked the 3 blocks to work.(10)  It was cold and foggy and it had been raining that morning.(11) At this point, he supposedly was separated from Oswald, who advanced ahead of him and went into the building. Frazier's excuse for staying behind was that he wanted to "charge" the car's battery.(12) After at least a half hour ride, it should be unnecessary, however, because the alternator/generator would have charged the battery by virtue of the time it took to drive from Irving. Frazier worked alongside Lee Oswald on the first floor filling orders until 11:00AM.(13)

Frazier was standing on the TSBD front stairs(14) when the motorcade drove by, heard the shots, stayed for a few minutes at that position, then went back inside to eat his lunch in the basement. The assassination of the President of the United States was not going to spoil his appetite.(15) He left the depository building between 1:00PM and 2:00PM to head home.(16) Frazier, however, did not go home, but supposedly went back to Irving to see his step father David Williams at the Irving Professional Center, who had been convalescing there for a month.(17) The only problem with this is that Frazier left Huntsville to "stay away from an abusive, alcoholic stepfather"(18), so why would he be looking for solace from him on this most tragic day?

Between 4:00-5:00PM Linnie Mae approached the officers who were at the Paine's and advised Det. Adamcik that "her brother was visiting her father at Parkland Hospital, and we could reach him there."(19) Why was she buying time for Frazier? Would this coincide with the time the Altgens was being altered? Frazier could have been unaccounted for up to 6 hours. Since his car was not enclosed in any way, he could have left anytime and apparently he did. He was arrested around 6:45PM and taken to the Irving PD to wait for DPD agents Stovall, Rose and Adamcik. They searched his car on the spot with "negative results".(20) They went to the Randle residence and conducted a thorough search there. They found a .303 caliber British rifle with ammunition which was confiscated.(21) His sister arrived at the house and the urban legend of Lee Oswald carrying a "long package" was born when Linnie Mae supposedly told the police about the long "suspicious" package she "saw" Lee with that morning. She was here to defend her brother at all cost. She even arranged for a Baptist priest to accompany them to City Hall in Dallas.(22)

 

With all the commotion of the day, Frazier never had a chance to change his clothes. It appears he avoided going home because he knew they were waiting for him there. Then again, he could have gone home to tie up loose ends. Did his sister Linnie Mae tip him off? Was he in direct contact with the Paines? This photograph taken the night of 11/22/63, shows what he was wearing at 12:30PM that day. The official story is that at 9:00PM the DPD finished taking affidavits from both Buell and his sister. They started back to Irving when a radio call came in asking them to turn around and go back to Dallas.(23) Captain Fritz ordered that Frazier take a polygraph test, which he passed "conclusively".(24) The test lasted until 12:10AM 11/23/63. Many researchers believe the test was rigged. Much more on this will follow.

Frazier gets drafted

 What better way to keep tabs on Buell Wesley Frazier? He was drafted into the Army and inducted on August 2, 1965 at the age of 21.(25) He was shipped to Europe as soon as he finished his basic training in Oct 1965, 23 months after the assassination.(26) Seven months later he returned to the continental U.S. and was assigned to Ft. Lewis, Washington.(27) This happened to be close to Seattle, a major embarkation point for Vietnam.(28) They made sure he was exposed to other young men who were on their way to 'Nam, some never to return alive. Frazier spent more than a year in suspense and limbo at Fort Lewis from June 1966 to August 1967.(29) After two years of service as a cook, in August 1967, Frazier was "released from active duty" and transferred to U.S. Army Reserve.(30) According to Frazier in his HSCA interview, since he was not going to make a career out of the Army, he was given the choice of deferring his active duty service for later on. While the Vietnam War was raging and some of our major cities burning, he quietly went back to civilian life in Irving.(31)

 

At the age of 23, Buell Wesley Frazier completely missed the Vietnam War as if it never happened (another George W?). Most of his contemporaries were humping in the rice paddies of Vietnam, many coming back in body bags. The implication is pretty obvious. It is mid-1967: "Wesley, my boy, you have seen your buddies flown to 'Nam, Johnson is escalating big time, and they need another 50,000 troops. Are you going to behave and keep your mouth shut, ignore all of these investigators and researchers, or are we going to have to ship you overseas, hopefully you don't come back in a body bag yourself? We can have you in Saigon in 18 hours". (32)

In between Army stints, Frazier testified at the Shaw Trial on 2/13/69, but not without providing stiff resistance via his attorney Hollebeck. One of his conditions for testifying was that he would not be available to the press in New Orleans.(33) In his testimony under oath, he appears to have misstated (or lied about) his, Lovelady's and Shelley's positions, stating he was "at the top of the stairs", and Lovelady and Shelley were "Right down in front of me at the bottom of the steps."(34)

At 28, Frazier returned to active duty and re-enlisted towards the end of the Vietnam war on 3/26/73 at Ft. Polk LA. He went through Advanced Individual Training at Ft. Sill, OK, on 7/16/73. He returned to Texas 8/9/73 at Ft. Bliss and went through artillery training in September 1973. From there he was transferred to Ft. Hood, TX, on 9/20/73.(35) Frazier was promoted to Administrative Specialist on 10/01/76 with the Headquarters Headquarters Company, 2nd Armed Division, in Ft. Hood.(36) He finished his tour of duty doing security for officers at base headquarters.(37) He was discharged on 3/25/77 at the age of 32, at Ft. Hood with the rank of Sergeant.(38) He earned the following distinctions: National Defense Service Medal, Marksman Badge w/ Rifle Bar, Good Conduct Medal, Army Commendation Medal, and Expert Badge w/ Rifle Bar.(39)

The Assassination Tapes

In 1975 Penthouse Press published George O'Toole's The Assassination Tapes. Douglas Horne praised this volume as "a delightful gem of a book" and "the evidence he presented is just as relevant--and just as valid--today, as it was in 1975."(40) Harold Weisberg criticized the book for two reasons: (a) He felt O'Toole had borrowed way too much from Whitewash IV (bordering on plagiarism) without giving him credit, and (b) he thought some of his wild speculation was too much for him to handle. Weisberg did not impugn the actual technology and methodology O'Toole had used, however.(41) Mark Lane totally embraced the technology and wished he had it when he was seeing and recording witnesses in Dallas. It would have sent him in other directions of investigation.(42)

Despite the controversy, O'Toole's investigation, which is based upon voice stress analysis, is full of intrigue. The Psychological Stress Evaluator was invented in 1971 (43) and patented in 1976 by Bell, McQuiston and Ford.(44) Their model PSE 1000 was marketed by the Dektor Counterintelligence and Security Co.(45) According to O'Toole, this device opened up a whole new playing field for investigators. He was now able to use recorded exchanges to chart the degree of stress in voice recordings no matter how old or far away.(46) O'Toole went back and retroactively analyzed voice recordings of Oswald and determined he had been telling the truth about "not shooting anyone."(47)

 

Next, O'Toole also analyzed Frazier's CBS interview (YouTube video below) shortly after the assassination, however, and determined his degree of deception had gone through the roof during the entire 42 second exchange: (48)

"Judging from the PSE charts, when Buell Wesley Frazier made that statement, he was in a condition of sheer terror."(49)

Now O'Toole was ready to deal with Frazier by interviewing him himself. His first order of business was, of course, to find him. After failing to find him in Dallas he visited Linnie Mae who quickly brushed him off. The only thing he could get out of her was the fact that Frazier was in the Army and could not be contacted.(50) While in Dallas he called Paul Bentley, senior polygraph examiner at the time (of the assassination). Bentley claimed not to have been on duty that night because of a sprained ankle that was in a cast. (He detected hard stress in his voice.)(51)

Next, he decided to talk to R.D. Lewis, who, according to DPD documents, was the technician who administered the polygraph to Frazier. Lewis denied administering any polygraph "connected to Oswald" that night (hard stress).(52) Furthermore, O'Toole established that R.D. Lewis never signed the DPD report, which had Rose and Stovall's name on it, and "Lewis had not gone on record anywhere to the effect that Frazier had passed the test."(53) Lewis would not testify before the Warren Commission.

For his next interview, he spoke to Detective Gerald Hill at his home. Hill advised O'Toole that Fritz could not have ordered the polygraph: " 'cause Fritz didn't believe in polygraphs. He wouldn't use 'em " (near maximum stress).(54) He returned and spoke to Bentley again, who told him that was not true, he had run "many, many" examinations for Captain Fritz.(55)

He decided to see Detective Richard Stovall, who was with Frazier most of the early evening and night of 11/22 until he dropped him off after midnight.(56) The first thing he found out from Stovall was that he had not been present for Frazier's polygraph. (Hard stress appeared.)(57) This directly contradicted his WCVIIH192 testimony.(58) He also spoke to Guy F. Rose, the detective who was with Stovall and Adamcik that day. Rose now contradicted Hill regarding Fritz's confidence in the polygraph test.(59) 

O'Toole then contacted R.D. Lewis again, armed with information contained in Jim Bishop's 1967 book, The Day Kennedy was Shot, and Warren Commission references that mentioned the polygraph. He now started to vaguely remember maybe giving Frazier a polygraph test that night. Finally, O'Toole concluded that there was no credibility to Frazier having passed the polygraph test.(60)

Frazier informal interview

It was now time to get serious about finding Frazier. He checked with an Army contact and was told there had never been anyone by that name in the Army.(61) From there, he heard from another contact with "very good FBI connections" that Frazier was working at the Boeing Corporation, in Renton, who was not the only source. Then he went chasing him through most of the bases he had been in the south, sometimes just missing him.(62)

On a visit to Dektor, he happened to meet Tony Pellicano, an expert at finding people.(63) With the help of Pellicano, O'Toole at last located Frazier in December 1973 in Texas, stationed at Fort Hood, only 100 miles south of Dallas. Frazier was living on the base and commuting back and forth to Irving on weekends.(64) When he finally recorded his interview with Frazier, it was no less than stunning. Pellicano caught Frazier repeatedly lying about just about everything. The following questions produced maximum hard stress or good to hard stress:(65)

1. Did he (Oswald) take that package up with him into the building? 

2. Did he tell you he was going to go home with you that night? 

3. There was nobody else in the (polygraph) room with you? 

4. Did he (the examiner) tell you that you passed the test? 

5. Do you know Paul Bently 

6. You never knew he (Oswald) had this gun then?

In closing this chapter, O'Toole wrote: "The midnight polygraph examination of Buel Wesley Frazier lies at the very heart of the mystery of November 22, 1963. Why does it provoke hard stress, false statements, and curious lapses of memory among the Dallas police officers who should be the most familiar with it? ...the answer to these questions can only be the darkest speculation." (66)

Frazier and the HSCA

While he was being discharged from the Army in 1977, the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) was forming to reinvestigate the JFK and MLK assassinations. Again, Frazier offered stiff opposition to testifying. "Frazier continues to procrastinate. Definite resistance."(67) Frazier was finally interviewed by Investigators Moriarity and Day of the HSCA, but never testified under oath.

The reason is pretty obvious when one reads the transcripts. Four audio tapes were made of these interviews, which lingered in oblivion at the National Archives until Greg Parker decided to transcribe them. Tapes one and two were useless because of time deterioration.(68)

Tape number three described how he stayed put on the steps: "I continued to stay right on the steps where I was. I didn't move from there, I didn't talk with someone who was sitting there that, uh, was – was on the stairs, as I said earlier. With the same two people. And the shots came from – apparently now – they came from around in a group of people scrambling." Later on the same topic, "And I moved to the right. "Cause I was very interested in staying – there is no way to get caught. Standing there in the middle."(69)

Then Day asked him a very simple, important and relevant question: 

DAY: Are you in any pictures? 

FRAZIER: No – I don't remember. What, uh-what I was gonna say is that it sounded – sounded like they were taken in the fall. It was then that was, you know, perfect. But being there at that time I didn't know.(70)

This tape also contains what seem to be other incoherent statements from Frazier. However, they seem incoherent if you do not know about his induction into the Army. His references to "military" and "Seattle" are not a coincidence. Had this man been mentally tormented, with the spectre of being sent to Vietnam at the whim of the people who were running this operation? It was crucial that they keep a lid on Frazier. This was the star witness who helped to "convict" Lee Oswald in the public eye.

Consider the following exchange from page six:

"And anyways they terminated asking questions and when I answered back I tried to--I tried to tell them the truth. And that made them very angry."(71) The only thing we can think of that could elicit this type of reaction would have been that he told them that perhaps his friend Lee Oswald was right next to him at the front entrance. On tape four he talked about the advantage the TSBD employees had being on the steps at a higher level and in the sunlight to avoid the crowded curbs, and how he kept going from the doorway to the sunshine and again, confirming his position when the motorcade drove by, next to the "big heavy set lady".(72) 

These details are very important because they refute the argument that he was in the shadows of the doorway when the motorcade drove by:(73) "So we stepped back out then down on--out on to the steps. ...so we stepped back into the sunlight then where actually we could see better. Because that's you know its not every day that you can see the President of the United States come by in a motorcade a few feet away."

FRAZIER: OK, I know some of the girls that worked in the uh offices above and they stepped out into the sunlight with me there and I know the big heavy set woman she was right there.(74)

 

Take a look at the same area, but from the angle of Dave Weigman, who was traveling in a press cars, the 7th car in the motorcade, 1 or 2 seconds after the last shots. The three people shielding their eyes are still there, right? Now focus on the man sandwiched in between these three.

These images confirm this is a young, tall, slim, long-limbed man with long neck, black hair, triangular shaped combination of head and hair. He is wearing a long sleeved dark colored shirt rolled up right below the elbow. Why is this man not seen in Altgens6? The three people in Altgens6 who are shielding their eyes with their hands are accounted for. Doorman is also accounted for as well as the black man who is at his lower right.

When we flip the 11/22/63 photograph taken of Buell Frazier and compare it to the figure in Weigman, we get a perfect match. He happens to be standing exactly on the stairs where he said he was in his own hand written statement the night of 11/22/63.(75)

His Warren Commission testimony was taken 3/11/64 by Mr. Joseph ("I won't drop the ball") Ball. In his testimony, Frazier confirmed his position stating he was "one step down from the top there", and "Yes sir, standing by the rail." He was shown CE-362, which is a only a schematic drawing of the first floor as seen from above to establish his position at the time.(76)

 

Down the road of deception, lies and duress

Here is where things get dicey. We just proved Frazier was standing on the steps, which was documented as early as the night of the assassination. (77) In his Warren Commission testimony, he was asked if he would take a look at CE-369, a version of Altgens6 that is severely cropped. Quoting from page 242 of his testimony:

Mr. BALL. We have got a picture taken the day of the parade and it shows the President's car going by. Now, take a look at that picture. Can you see your picture any place there? 

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I don't, because I was back up in this more or less black area here. 

Mr. BALL: I see.

Mr. FRAZIER. Because Billy, like I say, is two or three steps down in front of me.

Mr. BALL. Do you recognize this fellow?

Mr. FRAZIER. That is Billy, that is Billy Lovelady.

Mr. BALL. Billy?

Mr. FRAZIER. Right

Mr. BALL. Let's take a marker and make an arrow down that way. That mark is Billy Lovelady?

Mr. FRAZIER. Right.

Mr. BALL. That is where you told us you were standing a moment ago.

Mr. FRAZIER. Right.

Mr. BALL. In front of you to the right over to the wall?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes.

Changes at the Entrance

These images are from the Warren Commission. Below left is a schematic drawing of the first floor of the building, the area where Lee Oswald and Wesley Frazier worked side by side filling orders. According to Frazier's testimony, the only reason for order fillers to have gone up to the sixth floor would have been to process book returns. This was a very simple procedure which required very little time. That morning it was Frazier who had been to the sixth floor at least once. When asked if he had seen Oswald on the sixth floor of the building at any time that morning, he answered, "No".(78)

The second image below is the Elm Street main entrance of the building as seen from inside. Notice how restricted the top landing of the entrance was in those days--it could not have been more than 3 feet of horizontal space towards Elm Street, which probably could only accommodate one row of people. Moreover, the radiator against the wall allows us to estimate the space on the other side of the door. The schematic drawing also confirms the door opened both ways and was right in the middle of the landing. This is where Frazier supposedly was, "in the shadows more or less".

 

 Years later the entire doorway was replaced with thick, ornate wooden frames, and the door itself pushed further inside the entrance, which greatly increased the area of the landing as we see today at right.   In 1986, Frazier testified at Lee Oswald's mock trial. At 9:57 into his testimony:

SPENCE: You recall these 23 years later that Mr. Lovelady was standing in front of you at that precise moment - about 4 steps in front of you, is that correct?

FRAZIER: Yes sir, that is.

SPENCE: Have you ever said that to anybody in the world prior to today? FRAZIER: I don't know whether anyone asked me that or not.

SPENCE: But my question is did you ever tell that to anyone in the world - prior to today?

FRAZIER: Not that I know of, sir.

SPENCE: But you did tell that to Mr. Bugliosi, with the 'g' silent, didn't you.

FRAZIER: Well I asked this question, awhile ago sir. (nervously chewing gum)

There are major problems with this. Again, Frazier was right in the middle of the group that was on the stairs, one or two steps from the top. The deception orchestrated by Joseph Ball in his Warren Commission testimony is pathetic. It is rife with contradictions. Every time Frazier testified about his position at the stairs of the entrance of the TSBD, no matter in which forum, he gave a different story. In his WC testimony, he gave two different positions (as seen above) within the same session! Doorman is obviously above him, not 2, 3 or 4 steps in front of him! Thanks to Gerry Spence, we have videotaped testimony which shows Frazier lying with impunity under oath. By 1986 he had apparently gotten used to the libretto and did not need any more coaching.

The image to the left above is from Ralph Cinque's Altgens6 re-enactment conducted on 11/7/12 and 11/13/12, the first time this was ever done. It is presented here to confirm the position of doorman at the top step of the stairway. Again, this is also confirmed by Altgens6 and Weigman 658. This image only shows the top 3 of the 7 steps that comprise the stairway itself.

Frazier during mock trial

Alterations of our own

Using 21st century technology, when we reverse engineer the alterations of the doorway of Altgens6 we come up with this. Once we match Frazier's head size, rotate him, blur him up a bit and transfer him back to where he used to be, it is a perfect fit! Even Special Agent Jack Ready returns to his original, correct size, as seen when compared to his partner right next to him and this inset.

After careful analysis of all of the evidence presented here, there is an extremely high probability that Buell Wesley Frazier and possibly Sarah Stanton were both removed from the Altgens6 photograph. Once we come to terms with this concept, we begin to understand the terrible life of duress Buell Wesley Frazier has lived. He may live well and comfortable today, but he will always know in the back of his mind what really happened and how he helped frame an innocent man

Discussion

Why was Frazier removed from Altgens6? That's a very good question. Until he and his sister Linnie Mae come clean, all we can do is speculate. When Altgens6 was viewed on 11/22 at 1:00PM, there was a group of TSBD employees spilling out from the top landing area down into the seven doorway steps as seen in Weigman 658, including Frazier and possibly Sarah Stanton. Both were in Altgens line of sight. Thanks to the Warren Commission we know the landing area of the doorway was much smaller then than it is today. Despite the difference in distance, and much like we see in this Skaggs image at right, Hughes right below, and very faintly in Weigman 658, part of the glass divider and silver metal frame should have been visible in the background of Altgens6. Today, this area is mostly obscured. Years later the entrance was retrofitted and remodeled to match Frazier's "back in the shadows" story.

Notice how faint the light fixture and the horizontal frame seem 
in Altgens6 when compared to this Hughes image.

The fact that Lee Oswald and Buell Wesley Frazier knew each other (albeit for only a couple of months), worked side by side filling orders, and car pooled on weekends was too clear and solid a connection. Once the legend of Oswald as a loner, communist and malcontent was established immediately after the assassination, Oswald being with Frazier at the doorway could not be permitted. 

Over the years Frazier has misstated his position on at least five or six different occasions, sometimes under oath. He was caught lying by O'Toole quite a few times and the results of his supposed "midnight polygraph test" have never surfaced.

If Frazier was complicit in setting up Oswald, even in a passive way, his role could have been to deliver the rifle from the Paine's garage. This could easily have been accomplished by putting the Carcano in the trunk of his car in the early hours of 11/22 or the night before. Being only half a block away either of the Paines could have facilitated this exchange and, with a spare copy of Frazier's car key, he would not even have had to get out of the couch he slept in. Perhaps the true reason for Frazier lagging behind was to make sure Oswald did not see him bringing a rifle into the TSBD. If he was passively involved, he may have left the rifle in the trunk of his car and allowed others to retrieve it.

They would have had all morning to plant it. Notice on page one how far and isolated from the TSBD his car was parked. Those three blocks seem to be close to half a mile distance to the building as shown in CE-361 below. The distance from his car to the TSBD, according to the scale shown was approximately 2,250 feet. 

While we are on this topic, another unmentioned possibility, if he was actively involved, could have been used as a chauffeur or a getaway driver for any one of the real participants. His five to six hour absence now starts to look pretty suspicious. By taking McKinney Avenue or Munger Street, he could have left the scene of the crime without being noticed.

When we consider Frazier's comment about remaining at the steps, "Cause I was very interested in staying – there is no way to get caught. Standing there in the middle", this scenario now takes on new meaning. It was imperative that Frazier be erased from his actual location to the shadows of the doorway, where--by insisting he say, "I was back up in this more or less black area here" and the power of suggestion--he could become Black Hole Man. Instead of Tinkers to Evers to Chance, we have Frazier to Lovelady to Oswald.

We now present the entire Altgens6, rendered with the person we believe was removed from the photo the day of the assassination, Buell Wesley Frazier.

 

---

Larry Rivera, the son of a career military man who served as CID officer in the Army and a Certified Network Engineer, has made a lifelong study of the JFK assassination.  He has given interviews on the assassination to Spanish media and has the most complete dossier on Billy Nolan Lovelady ever done.

References: 1. CE 1381, NPRC report 2. WC2H211 3. Ibid 4. Dallas Morning News 11/16/08 Aynesworth, "Oswald co-worker no longer silent about JFK assassination role" 5. WC2H212 6. Ibid 7. WC2H246 "When you live in a place you know some places that someone with, you know, not much of an education can find work" 8. DMN 11/16/08 Aynesworth, "Oswald co-worker no longer silent about JFK assassination role" 9. DPD handwritten statement pg 1 and affidavit 11/22/63 10. WC2H214 11. WC2H227 12. WC2H228 13. DPD Affidavit 11/22/63 p2 by Mary Rattan 14. DPD handwritten statement and affidavit 11/22/63 15. WC2H235 16. CE 1381 1:00-2:00PM was quite a generous time frame 17. Greg Parker article,9/22/09 "Whose line is it anyhow?" Buell Wesley Frazier, Linnie Mae and Bill Randle 18. DMN 11/16/08 Aynesworth, "Oswald co-worker no longer silent about JFK assassination role" 19. DPD Rose/Stovall/Adamcik 20. Ibid 21. DPD 148-001 22. DPD Rose/Stovall/Adamcik 23. DPD Rose/Stovall/Adamcik Report and Cover-Up, Shaw 90-91 24. DPD Rose/Stovall/Adamcik pg 4 25. HSCA Tape 4 pg, 2 NPRC report 26. NPRC FOIA report pg 2 27. Ibid 28. GI's Diary http://www.174ahc.org/diary01.htm by SP4 Horace Cassels 29. NPRC report pg 2 30. NPRC, HSCA Tape 4 pg 2 31. HSCA tape 4 pg 2 32. GI's Diary http://www.174ahc.org/diary01.htm by SP4 Horace Cassels 33. Armstrong Box 16 Notebook 3, Tab 28 pg 7 34. Shaw trial 1969 BWF pg 26 35. NPRC pg 3 36. NPRC pg 4 37. Ibid 38. Ibid pg 1 39. Ibid 40.Horne, Inside the ARRB Vol V, pg 1654 41. Weisberg letter 7/28/75 (Example: Oswald to buy car and meet FBI in Texas Theater to collect the $200.00) 42. Weisberg photocopy "forward" of The Assassination Tapes paperback edition 43. Horne, Inside the ARRB Vol V, pg 1655 44. Copy of patent available. 45. http://vsa-avsa.blogspot.com/ The first supplier of VSA technology was Dektor. Dektor manufactured the PSE 1000, an analogue machine, that was later replaced by the PSE 2000 46. The Assassination Tapes (TAT) pg 83-84 47. Ibid pg 125 48. Ibid 171 49. Ibid 172 50. Ibid 51. Ibid 173 52. Ibid 174 53. Ibid 181 54. Ibid 175 55. Ibid 177 56. Ibid 177-179, DPD Report, and WCVIIH192 57. Ibid 178 58. WCVIIH192 59. TAT pg 183-184 60. Ibid 187 61. Ibid 190 62. Ibid 196 63. Ibid 64. Ibid 197 65. Ibid 201-203 66. Ibid 206 67. Armstrong HSCA RG233 hand written notes 68. Greg Parker's web site. www.ReopenKennedyCase.com 69. Tape III-2 70. Ibid 71. Tape III-6 72 Ibid 73. Ibid 74. Tape IV-14 75. DPD handwritten statement and affidavit 11/22/63 76. WC2H233 77. Op Cit 78. WC2H232 79. WC2H244, despite Ball trying his best to confuse him. 80. DMN 11/16/08 Aynesworth, “Oswald co-worker no longer silent about JFK assassination role” pg 4 81. "The Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald" Posted by MinM Fri Nov 21st 2008, http://journals.democraticunderground.com/MinM/109 "Mark Lane would have been a better choice" Spence allowed Bugliosi to lead witnesses at will.

Read More

James H. Fetzer: Anti-Iran Sanctions Violate International Law

Iran Review > Interviews Anti-Iran Sanctions (No. 5)

"I don’t understand how the [Obama] administration can disregard the findings of its own intelligence agencies in dealing with a foreign power."--James H. Fetzer  

Iran Review Exclusive Interview with James H. Fetzer

 

By Kourosh Ziabari

Many independent and conscientious thinkers and scholars in the world agree with this assumption that the sanctions which the United States and the European Union have imposed on Iran over its nuclear program are inhumane, unjust, contrary to the principles of human rights and constitute an act of war and collective punishment. The United States says that the sanctions are put in effect in order to prevent Iran from producing a nuclear bomb but ironically, the United States is the largest possessor of nuclear weapons in the world itself. Even the intelligence agencies of the United States have published official reports which indicate that Iran does not have the intention to build nuclear weapons.   

In order to investigate the different aspects of the anti-Iranian sanctions, Iran Review has embarked on a project to do interviews with renowned progressive, anti-war academicians, authors, activists and thinkers and ask them questions about the impact the sanctions have on the life of Iranian people and the prospect of Iran’s nuclear program.   Our today’s guest is Prof. James H. Fetzer, a former U.S. Marine Corps officer and retired professor of philosophy at the University of Minnesota Duluth. Prof. Fetzer has written extensively on the assassination of the U.S. President John F. Kennedy, the 9/11 attacks and the philosophy of science. His 2007 book published by Open Court is titled “Render Unto Darwin: Philosophical Aspects of the Christian Right’s Crusade Against Science.” 

What follows is the text of Iran Review’s interview with Prof. James H. Fetzer about the anti-Iranian sanctions of the United States and its European partners. This interview was conducted in Tehran while Prof. Fetzer was attending the 3rd Conference on Hollywoodism and Cinema.

Q: The United States has claimed that it wants to obstruct Iran’s nuclear program and prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons, but it has imposed sanctions on Iran’s oil, banking, financial, medical and insurance sectors. Why have the sanctions targeted the daily life of the Iranian people and diverted from the purported objective of nuclear disarmament?

A: This is the most unfortunate consequence of warmongering influences in the United States including senators like Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Dianne Feinstein, who have blinders on when it comes to any issue involving a conflict between Israel and any other nation, even the United States.  

The latest report is that the administration is planning to intensify its economic sanctions on Iran is precisely the opposite direction which they have to go. The sanctions, after all, are allegedly because Iran is attempting to develop nuclear weapons, but the fact is that in 2007, 16 American intelligence agencies concluded that Iran was not pursuing a nuclear weapons program. The findings were reaffirmed in 2011 and I don’t understand how the [Obama] administration can disregard the findings of its own intelligence agencies in dealing with a foreign power. Not only that but the sanctions that are being imposed are a form of collective punishment that was ruled to be a violation of international law by the Nuremberg Tribunals after World War II. So to me it’s utterly disgraceful that the United States, which is supposed to be a leader among the nations, should be imposing collective punishment on a country for an alleged offence its own intelligence agencies claim is not taking place.

Q: Are the sanctions compliant to the standards and norms of the globalized economy in the modern world?

A: Well, it appears that the sanctions are fairly encompassing and even extend to medicine, for example, which in my opinion is simply inexcusable. I cannot see any rationale for imposing the sanctions on the Iranian people and I consider it as a disgrace that the United States is doing so.

Q: So, do you think that concentrating the sanctions on goods such as food staples and medicine is some kind of violation of human rights by the United States and its allies while they claim that they care for the rights of the Iranian people?

A: Absolutely; there’s no doubt about it. It’s a form of collective punishment; it’s irresponsible and a violation of international law. My opinion is that we need a complete transformation of our policy toward Iran, just as during the Nixon administration it brought about a complete transformation of its policy toward China by Nixon going to China. I believe that Obama should come to Iran.

Q: Right. As a number of political analysts have said and some Russian officials have admitted, the ultimate objective of the sanctions is not to simply curb Iran’s nuclear program, but to bring about a regime change in Tehran by turning the people against their own government. What’s your viewpoint regarding this analysis?

A: I think that’s quite a brilliant observation and may very well be the underlying motivation of the sanctions. However, it reflects [adversely] on the judgment of the Iranian people who are not going to disavow their government but rather stand steadfastly with the government, just as I hope it will come true. Iran and Russia will stand by the people of Syria, and I’m very confident that the people of Iran are not going to hold their government responsible for the sanctions imposed and the violation of international law by the United States.

Q: What do you think about the impact of EU’s oil embargo against Iran on the European economy in the wake of the current economic crisis? Some analysts say that around 15 to 20 percent of the current price of the oil is a result of the EU’s oil embargo. What’s your take on that?

A: Well it’s one of those reasonably predictable consequences of doing an action that you undertake for reasons you may regard as just, which I happened to believe is not the case here remotely but which are going to have effects on other nations in many other ways, so I believe that these are the additional reasons why the sanctions are wrong; they ought to be lifted. We need more communication between the nations, more cooperation and more diplomacy. If not of a warlike stance, indeed historically sanctions of this kind have been regarded as acts of war, just as blockades have been regarded as acts of war perhaps of a less direct form, but nevertheless of that character. It’s despicable that the United States should be imposing sanctions on Iran.

RT Interview of Brian Becker of Anti-War Coalition:  "Economic Blockage of Iran is an Act of War"

Q: It can be asserted that along with the expansion of the sanctions, the resistance of the Iranian nation has also increased. Can the United States and its allies succeed in bringing the Iranian people to their knees by imposing the hard-hitting sanctions?

A: I think it’s a very unfortunate development in relations between the nations that the United States is committing a tremendous blunder by pursuing this path which I hope it will abandon in short run and treat the Iranian people with respect it deserves and to which it’s entitled.

Q: One of the theories which some political scientists propose is that by issuing repeated war threats against Iran, Israel is trying to persuade the United States and European Union to impose harder sanctions against Iran. Do you agree?

A: I think the real problem in the Middle East is not Iran. Iran has not attacked any other nation for three hundred years. Iran has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran allows inspectors. There’s another country in the Middle East that has 200-600 or more nuclear weapons, has not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and does not allow inspectors. In my judgment, the cause of unrest and most of the problems in the Middle East do not derive from Iran and any action it has taken, but rather from Israel and the actions it has taken to promote its self-interest and domination of the Middle East.

Q: Complementing the sanctions with threats of military strike and intelligence operations are among the most important advices given by Israel to the United States and Europe. How much successful have they been in these goals such as infiltrating into Iran, sabotaging Iran’s security, assassinating the civilian scientists, etc.?

A: These are the kind of actions which one has to expect from Israel; a rogue nation that violates the international law on a regular basis. Assassinating Iranian scientists is a premier example. In my judgment, Israel is the cause of the major problems in the Middle East, even extending into the United States, intervening in the Middle East in the wake of 9/11 which is a fabricated event intended to promote the interests of Israel and not those of the United States. Estimates are that if there were an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, a million Iranians will be killed outright. And the cloud of contamination will encompass Afghanistan, Pakistan and India and that will bring about another 35 million premature deaths. The United States should not be associated with anything, any action and any effort that can bring about such a devastating consequence. And a confrontation with that magnitude will be one of the greatest crimes of the human history and it must be avoided.

Q: Iran says that the sanctions have practically led to some economic reforms and self-sufficiency in economic and industrial areas which couldn’t be realized under normal situation. From what aspects is Iran capable of turning the sanctions into new opportunities?

A: Well, my personal opinion is that Iran might want to consider some options in relation to constraining the traffic of oil in the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormouz. This is a very delicate situation. But insofar as the sanctions qualify as acts of war, Iran may need to consider its alternatives which might very well include restricting the flow of oil through the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormouz.

Q: And the final question; how much of Iran’s economic problems emanate from the economic sanctions and how much are related to the other internal factors?

A: That’s a very difficult issue for me to assess given that I’m not an economist intimately familiar with the economic infrastructure of Iran, but I would have to surmise that the sanctions are making a difference and the Iranian people will be far better-off if they were relieved and the sanctions were completely removed and the United States were to undertake normal diplomatic relations with Iran to bring about the solution to any genuine problems that exists between them as opposed to the fabricated, non-existent problems that are being promoted by the warmongers in the American Congress and the Israeli provocateurs.

Key Words: Anti-Iran Sanctions, International Law, Iran’s Nuclear Program, Nuclear Disarmament, Globalized Economy, Medicine, Human Rights, Military Strike, Fetzer

*Anti-Iran sanctions (No. 4) Thierry Meyssan: Western Nations Suffer from the Anti-Iran Sanctions

*Anti-Iran Sanctions (No. 3) E. Michael Jones: Sanctions Show US Foreign Policy Hypocrisy

*Anti-Iran Sanctions (No. 2) Mike Gravel: Sanctions Are Illegal and Ineffective

*Anti-Iran Sanctions (No. 1) Kenneth O’Keefe: US Sanctions on Iran Tantamount to Collective Punishment

Read More

Newseum displays "Oswald's shirt": Proof that he was Doorman!

by Ralph Cinque, Richard Hooke and Jim Fetzer

The Newseum in Washington, D.C., has announced a new JFK exhibition in honor of the 50th anniversary, "Three Shots were Fired". That is already grossly misleading (since eight, nine or ten shots appear to have been fired; see "What happened to JFK--and why it matters today" on YouTube). The exhibit is going to include Oswald’s shirt, allegedly the one in which he was arrested. That makes it of special interest to those of us who have done extensive research on Oswald as "the man in the doorway". Here is how it was reported in USA Today:

The Newseum in Washington, D.C., will allow visitors a rare opportunity to view never-before-displayed artifacts tied to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy as part of an exhibit, "Three Shots Were Fired," marking the 50th anniversary of the tragic event. From April 12 through Jan. 5, 2014, the public will be able to see for the first time four items belonging to Lee Harvey Oswald, the presumed gunman who shot JFK in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963 and was later killed himself two days later. More than 100 other pieces will also be on display. USA TODAY offers an exclusive look at the exhibit, including the four Oswald items.

In light of all the lies that have been told and all the claims that have been fabricated in the JFK case, we can’t accept the authenticity of this shirt without reservations.  The distinctive features of the shirt as they appear in the Altgens6 have been among the most  important of our proofs that the man in the doorway was Lee Harvey Oswald.  (See "JFK believe it or not: Oswald wasn't even a shooter!" and "JFK Special: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!")  But what matters most is that the Newseum shirt is inconsistent with arguments against Oswald as Doorman and--in what could be considered to be a monumental blunder--confirms that he was Doorman.  Consider this close-up of the crucial area of the most famous photo taken in Dealey Plaza at the time, which focuses on the area of the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository, where the man who is extending himself to see what's going on is known as "Doorman":
Taken by James "Ike" Altgens and technically known as "Altgens6" as the sixth of a series of seven photographs purportedly taken by him on that occasion, this close-up shows the man in the doorway at the center left, where his left shoulder is mysteriously missing.  The man beside him, wearing a black tie, is simultaneously both in front of him and behind him, which is physically impossible.  His torso and shirt are partially obscured by the extremely strange image of the right profile of a black man's head. And the face of a man to his left/front (right/front as we view the image) has been crudely obscured.  There would have been no reason to have altered the photograph unless someone had been there who should not have been there, where the only candidate is Lee Oswald.  These oddities are so blatant that, once they have been remarked, it is rather difficult to imagine why anyone would persist in denying that Altgens6 was altered. But one could still deny that Lee Oswald was in the doorway by insisting it was someone else, where the shirt that Oswald was wearing is crucial evidence. By altering the shirt in subtle ways, they could set up arguments to claim it was not the shirt on Doorman.

The Arguments Against

In some respects, the Newseum shirt does seem to fit with Oswald’s shirt: the fine grainy pattern, the light brown color, the presence of a button loop,  and of course the missing buttons. However, there is one important way in which the exhibit shirt does NOT match Oswald’s:  it is completely lacking in the sharp, defined fold-over below the collar that we see on the left side of Oswald’s shirt.  Compare:

On the left, you can see that Oswald’s shirt had the form of a jacket. In fact, many people took it for a jacket. The first person who saw it was Officer Marion Baker who observed it on Oswald less than 90 seconds after the last shot, and he called it a “light brown jacket” Notice that the “lapel” looks very much like what you would see on a jacket.  And notice that it is completely absent from the exhibition shirt. There are two questions that need to be answered: First, if that is Oswald’s shirt, what happened to the fold-over? It wouldn’t go away by itself. So, if that is Oswald’s shirt, then somebody did something to remove it, to make it go away. When? Where? Why? But, the second question is: Does the shirt on the right even have the capacity to lie like Oswald’s, with such a wide, flat, sharp, highly folded fold?  It is a fair question to ask because most shirts do not behave like that under any conditions. And if you don’t believe me, then please, go to your closet, take out your shirts, try them on, one after the next, and see if any of them look like Oswald’s. Ordinary shirts don’t do that, and that exhibition shirt looks like an ordinary shirt.

(1) The Pressed Lapel

 
Let’s look at some more comparisons, starting with this one: Look how sharp and defined that lapel is on Oswald.  But, you don’t see It on the exhibition shirt. And note that the exhibition shirt is being worn by a manikin. So, what would happen if you tried to fold the material over on purpose? Of course, it’s not really fair to do that because there is no reason to think Oswald did it. But, even if you did it on the exhibition shirt, you know it’s not going to look like Oswald’s shirt. It is not the nature of shirts to behave like that. Oswald was wearing a very unusual shirt. Below is another example. Again, we’re seeing that wide, flat lapel on Oswald, like a continuation of the collar down the shirt.
Below you can see how jacket-like Oswald’s “shirt” really was. But, there is nothing jacket-like about the exhibition shirt. This next one provides perhaps the most startling contrast of all. Look at the length of that lapel!

(2) It's in too good condition

So, the absence of that lapel on the exhibition shirt is a huge problem. But it is not the only problem. Why is the exhibition shirt in such good condition? Oswald’s shirt was torn and tattered.  It was so worn that there was a big hole in the  area of the right elbow.  And it was very disheveled, as you can see below. And what about the color? We have seen Oswald’s shirt exhibited at least twice before, and here is a collage of all three. On the left is the latest exhibition shirt, but in the middle is how it looked during a previous exhibition when the National Archives went on tour. And on the right, is the way it was presented in THE WARREN REPORT (1964). Notice how stiff and pressed the collar is in the shirt on the left and how disheveled and twisted it looks in the collar in the middle. Notice the different shades, where the one on the right even borders on purple. Also, notice that two of them are completely cinched up, closed at the top, even though Oswald never wore it that way. The only way he could have worn it that way is if he had secured the very top button that was tucked underneath the right collar using the button loop. Well, he never did that, but for some reason, they did in those earlier showings, no doubt to obfuscate the similarities with the shirt worn by Doorman.

(3) The extra button

Two of them are completely cinched up, closed to the top, even though Oswald never wore it that way. He couldn’t have even if he had wanted to since the buttons were missing--which means that the exhibition shirt has too many buttons. You see two at the bottom, right? How many did Oswald’s shirt  have? There appears to only be one.
 
The exhibition shirt has two missing buttons. We can see two dark remnants of where the buttons were on the left side of the shirt above the buttons that are there. But on Oswald, we can see no buttons, and there are three missing buttons counting down from the top.  In other words, the highest button on the exhibition shirt should be visible on Oswald, but it’s not. Here’s another example:
On the left, Oswald seemingly has just one button, and it’s at the bottom of the shirt. The exhibition shirt has two buttons.  The exhibition shirt also looks to be in much better condition, less tattered and torn. So did they alter it to make it look less like the shirt on the man in the doorway?

The Arguments For

There are counterbalancing arguments that suggest these three apparent difference may not be decisive. The argument about the missing button, for example, overlooks that the button may have been present on Doorman's shirt but have been hidden by the fold. Consider the following collage
prepared by Richard Hooke:  
Moreover, the general features of the shirt clearly appear to correspond to those we have identified on Doorman and on Oswald.  Here is another comparison that suggests this may very well be the that shirt that Oswald was wearing:  

What does it mean?

So, did they sew another button on the exhibition shirt? They had no right to do that. That shirt is considered forensic evidence. That’s why they kept it, right? Wouldn’t they have returned it to Marina otherwise? You are not allowed to alter forensic evidence in any way. That would be considered a crime.

So, is that exhibition shirt really Oswald’s shirt? There are only two possibilities: Either it is, but they altered it tremendously, OR it isn’t, and they replaced it with another one. Ralph thinks it's more likely that they replaced it, while Richard and I believe that it REALLY IS Oswald's shirt. Why?

(1) It is not Billy's shirt

The only alternative that has been advanced to defeat the argument that Oswald was the man in the doorway has been to claim that it actually was his co-worker, Billy Lovelady. In earlier studies, we have advanced many arguments in support of the identification of the man in the doorway as Oswald and against the identification of the man in the doorway as Lovelady. But no one did more to support the conclusion that the man in the doorway was not Billy Lovelady than Billy Lovelady, who went to the FBI on 29 February 1964 and showed them the shirt he had been wearing, which they photographed and sent to FBI Headquarters with a formal letter certifying that this is the shirt that Billy said he had been wearing:

While we believe that Lovelady's facial features have been altered to resemble those of Oswald (in the photo on the left), the officially designated "Oswald shirt", which resembles the shirt that was worn by the man in the doorway, bears no resemblance at all to the red-and-white short-sleeved shirt that Billy reported wearing when he stood in the area of the doorway on 22 November 1963.

(2) It is not a checkered shirt

The additional argument that has been made is that Billy doesn't remember what shirt he was wearing, even though he showed it to the FBI, because he was instead wearing a red-and-black checkered long-sleeved shirt, which has long been the contention of those who are attempting to salvage the "lone gunman" hypothesis. Here is one of the photographs that has been advanced to support the claim that Billy was actually wearing a completely different shirt, a red-and-black checkered (with white lines) shirt with a very delineated horizontal and vertical pattern.  Their contention was reinforced by the claim that Billy had inadvertently been captured in footage taken as Oswald was escorted through the offices of the Dallas Police Department and that he had likewise been filmed in front of the depository: Approaching the HSCA investigation of 1977-78, film clips began to surface providing additional evidence Lovelady was wearing a long sleeve red-and-black (with white lines) checkered shirt on the day of the assassination.  Images of Lovelady appear to have been superimposed into the Martin, Hughs, Dallas PD and Dave Wiegman films to provide bogus, after-the-fact, evidence that Billy Lovelady had been in the TSBD doorway wearing a long sleeve, red-black-and-white check shirt.

(3) They are not the same man

A frame of the Martin film shows a phony Lovelady (in this bogus checkered shirt) in the doorway with his shirt buttoned clear up to his neck, yet a frame of the Hugh’s film (supposedly depicting Lovelady at the same moment in time) shows Lovelady with his shirt sprawled wide--clearly a blunder in attempting to imitate the man in the doorway.  The difference are virtually those of a Dr. Jekyll and a Mr. Hyde, where Jekyll looked normal but Hyde looked like a gorilla:
  But if the shirt that Billy Lovelady showed the FBI does not even remotely resemble the Doorman shirt and if the checkered shirt not only does not resemble the Doorman shirt but the man who was filmed wearing it was not Billy Lovelady, then the proof that Oswald was the man in the doorway has been dramatically reinforced by the official "Oswald shirt", which we have shown bears one feature after another that corresponds with Doorman's.

What is really going on?

The Newseum shirt appears to be Oswald's shirt, but one that has been reworked for this exhibition. Why would they want to eliminate that lapel-like fold-over on Oswald’s shirt?  Probably because it was the most distinctive thing about Oswald’s shirt.  It wasn’t really a shirt. It was really a hybrid between a shirt and a jacket. It really had the lay of a jacket, but it was lightweight like a shirt. Below you can see Oswald’s shirt exhibited accurately--by himself. Look at these two guys. It isn’t two guys. It’s one guy. But if Lee was in the doorway watching the motorcade pass by, then he cannot have been on the 6th floor shooting at JFK. Which means that, believe it or not, Oswald wasn't even a shooter and the entire "lone assassin" theory is a gigantic hoax and a fraud! Those who continue to manage the cover-up don’t want us to recognize how distinctive and unusual Oswald's shirt really was. And that’s why they are showing us this very regular and standard looking shirt. And, it is the unusualness of Oswald’s shirt, which when examined closely, makes us realize that it is the same shirt seen on the Doorway Man of the Altgens photo, where we have enough evidence--even based upon the Newseum shirt--to prove that Oswald was the man in the doorway, after all!

Ralph Cinque, a chiropractor, health spa operator, and entrenpreneur, has published a series of articles on JFK at lewrockwell.com. His video series, “Visible Proof That Oswald Was Innocent”, is archived on YouTube.

 Richard M. Hooke, a student of anthropology at UC Santa Barbara and former computer systems analyst for Bank of America, is also a writer and researcher regarding the death of President John F. Kennedy.  

Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth and a columnist for Veterans Today, where his most recent studies of the assassination of JFK can be found.

Read More