Defending Douglas Horne and Oswald: "Where Did the "Magic Bullet" End Up, If It Didn't Hit Connally?" HERE'S THE ANSWER!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

(photo courtesy of Wim Dankbaar: http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com)
"WHERE DID THE MAGIC BULLET END UP, IF IT DID NOT HIT CONNALLY?"

answer:


FORGET ABOUT THE MAGIC BULLET -- THERE WAS ANOTHER BULLET "LODGED BEHIND THE PRESIDENT'S EAR"!


This was the argument used by attorney V. Bugliosi to convince a televised mock jury that "the Magic Bullet" made all the wounds in both President John F. Kennedy and Texas Gov. John Connally on November 22, 1963, though it retained a near-pristine condition and, furthermore, not enough material is missing from the specimen to account for the bullet fragments found in Connally's wrist. Look it up.

The date of the mock trial was 1986. That's a long time ago, folks.

Wikipedia cites it. Why? To help sway you to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald, the man accused of murdering Kennedy and seriously wounding Connally, did his dirty deed with just three bullets? The first shot attributed to Oswald missed so badly that it struck between the President's limo and the Secret Service's car following --though this was the closest of three shots that Oswald supposedly fired at JFK.

But not all the dancing around with numbers that has been done to date can give honest researchers a fourth bullet coming from any single rifle aimed at Kennedy within the time limits imposed.

One bullet having missed, only two bullets were left. They had to account for the many wounds in two men who had been almost simultaneously struck.

The original first draft of the Warren Commission Report stated that a bullet had entered Kennedy's "back at a point slightly above the shoulder and to the right of the spine." Ford realized that this provided a serious problem for the single bullet theory. As Dr. Michael L. Kurtz pointed out (JFK Assassination Debates): "If a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window of the Depository building nearly sixty feet higher than the limousine entered the president's back, with the president sitting in an upright position, it could hardly have exited from his throat at a point just above the Adam's apple, then abruptly change course and drive downward into Governor Connally's back."

Ford obligingly made sure the location was described in the region of the "neck."

The many government investigations mentioned in Wikipedia and elsewhere that determined Oswald was guilty were based on incomplete, missing and even falsified evidence. Even before Douglas Horne made new photos and information available, in his Inside the ARRB,, Gary Aguilar, M.D. and Kathy Cunningham told us in May, 2003 (HOW FIVE INVESTIGATIONS INTO JFK’S MEDICAL/AUTOPSY EVIDENCE GOT IT WRONG : http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_7.htm) that an incredible amount of evidence and information was destroyed or misrepresented concerning the important autopsy information we needed in order to prove how many bullets struck Kennedy was shot in the head, and where the bullets came from. read here what you'll not find in Wikipedia or on "Oswald-did-it" websites:

"Besides the President’s brain and tissue slides, the camera that took JFK’s “best evidence” autopsy photographs has vanished, as have the HSCA tests that revealed that the camera failed a test to match them with the official photographs. The skull fragments that ostensibly proved the bullet’s direction by their supposed beveling characteristics have disappeared. Original autopsy notes were vaporized by JFK’s chief pathologist, who followed that up by signing false affidavits about them, and then by giving the Warren Commission misleading testimony. Also, multiple lines of evidence suggest that crucial – what might fairly be described as “diagnostic” – autopsy photographs are also missing, if not falsified."

In 1997 the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) upon which Douglas Horne sat as a member obtained the release of a document showing Gerald Ford, an appointee to the Warren Commission who later became America's first President by appointment (through Nixon) had altered the first draft of an official description of the location of the entry of the Magic Bullet which had read: "A bullet had entered the base of the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine." That description, as we now know, was already describing the bullet's entry point rather too high, but Ford wasn't satisfied.

He raised the location of the wound still higher, to the lower back of the neck, to better support the single bullet theory. William C. Sullivan was J. Edgar Hoover's assistant in 1963. In his 1979 book (ignored by the films that put Oswald "on trial,") The Bureau: My Thirty Years in Hoover's FBI Sullivan describes what Hoover thought of Ford's appointment to the Warren Commission:

"Hoover was delighted when Gerald Ford was named to the Warren Commission. The director wrote in one of his internal memos that the bureau could expect Ford to "look after FBI interests," and he did, keeping us fully advised of what was going on behind closed doors. He was our man, our informant, on the Warren Commission."

Wikipedia cites Bugliosi's quote in Reclaiming History for this misleading statement:

"Several films[The Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald (1964); The Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald (1977, unrelated to the first film); On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald (1986)] have fictionalized a trial of Oswald. In 1986, a 21-hour unscripted mock trial was "held" on television, argued by actual lawyers before an actual judge,[144] with unscripted testimony from surviving witnesses to the events surrounding the assassination; the mock jury returned a verdict of guilty."

None of the films made mention of Gerald Ford's actions, nor did the juries have access to that information or so much more that we have today. But anything that Wikipedia and other big websites pushing the official version can drag out from the past -- even biased TV programs purporting to be "juried trails"-- to convince new and naive readers that Oswald was guilty is put out there for them to swallow, along with their pablum.

DOUGLAS HORNE, ARRB, DESERVES PRAISE

Most distressing is how badly Douglas Horne, a respected board member of the ARRB who has been instrumental in providing us with new, fresh evidence proving that Oswald was innocent, has been treated on the Internet. I am maligned, MYSELF, on a constant basis by the same yahoos, as well as by some good researchers whose books, theories or first impressions of me they feel they must yet cling to, but to attack Horne, after all he has done to set the record straight, is unconscionable.

It seems that "frontier law" exists on the Internet, where anything can be said, however cruel, indecent or false, without consequence.

I have heard that Douglas Horne, having provided us with five fine volumes of precious information straight from the records of the ARRB, is now withdrawing from such research and efforts. I sure know how he feels. I live in poverty and -- worse-- have been forced to live overseas for my safety. These are hard times, and the few donations that rarely come my way do not cover the expenses of having to live in countries where I, as an American, am forbidden to work. My family has sacrificed a great deal to help me live in saftey, but I can't see them. My grandchildren are growing up with no idea of who I really am. They have read what my Internet enemies have said about me -- we are supposed to forgive our enemies: I pray every day for a renewed ability to do so.

I know how Doug Horne feels, more than most.

One feels angry, frustrated, outraged at the lies, the misrepresentations, the grabbing-on of any details that can be found in our entire lives, inspected under a microscope, where we have been found at some time to have erred, with all our human frailties exposed as an indictment against us as decent, good, normal human beings.
But because the victors rewrite history, we should not give up. We should not despair.

Not I, that's for sure. Not while I still have breath. While I still have breath, then, listen to me.

Horne's Inside the ARRB, Vol. I, provides invaluable new information about the case that you'll never find in a slanted Wikipedia article, or on one of the "Oswald-was-guilty" fancy websites that pop up on the first page of a Google search. And remember --this November, the filthy-rich will trot out yet another TV "special" behind which to hide their crimes -- having inherited their power by being the buddies of those who killed Kennedy--or who cooperated in letting it happen. This November, new viewers will be told Oswald DID IT. This November, Oswald will again be accused of slaying the very man he gave his life trying to protect.

When I first spoke of Oswald's sacrifice in 1999, I was met with cries of amazement and disbelief, but evidence since then has kept emerging, until today, many people are beginning to realize why it was so important to kill Lee H. Oswald only 47 hours after his arrest, even if it had to be done right in front of the American people --just as Kennedy, too, was executed before the eyes of his own.

The "jury trial" cited by Bugliosi and Wikipedia was in 1986. A long time ago, people ---I repeat --a long time ago -- and much new has been learned since then that Wikipedia and the encyclopedias the government hopes you will blindly trust still fail to mention.

To their shame.


The official version pundits hope their obsolete and slanted "evidence" and "TV jury verdicts" will persuade you to believe Oswald was guilty. They want you to believe everything you're told. Freedom of speech itself in in jeopardy over the point.

In Jan. 2010, Cass Sunstein, an Obama regulatory czar, was revealed to have recommended in an academic paper that "conspiracy theorists" should be fined or otherwise hobbled for speaking out. (See WND's "Top Obama Czar: Infiltrate all 'conspiracy theorists': Presidential adviser wrote about crackdown on expressing opinions" viz: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=121884). Sunstein wrote:


"What can government do about conspiracy theories?...We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories."

He then suggested infiltrating groups, injecting falsehoods, and all the things that in fact already occur to bedevil those of us who have stepped forward as witnesses and honest researchers in the JFK,MLK, RFK and Nine Eleven investigations.

Free Speech is in jeopardy.

Sunstein's paper prompted me to create a little sketch about Freedom of Speech:




Tellingly, witnesses such as myself who disagree with the Official Version are thrust into the "Conspiracy Theory" category, even though we have evidence the official version factions ignore. It is a dead zone in Wikipedia, where the label "conspiracy buff" or "conspiracy theorist" is applied (as I've heard from others, and repeat here, would Wikipedia and "official version" spin city experts call someone investigating the Holocaust a "Holocaust Buff" or a "Holocaust Theorist"?).

A FOURTH BULLET

It is important to note that the 1986 film mentioned above showed Bugliosi scoring
a point with the mock jury by asking, where did the Magic Bullet that hit Kennedy bullet go, if it did not end up in Connally?

At the risk of more trouble to myself, I stubbornly present to you one of the important evidence exhibits that Douglas Horne brought to the attention of those who still care about who write our history books: a document that tells us about a "fourth" bullet (possibly the original (non) "Magic Bullet") that was described as "lodged" behind Kennedy's ear.

A bullet that HAD to disappear, or else a CONSPIRACY would be proven:



A. H. Belmont (FBI Special Assistant to Hoover) told Tolson what he advised Dallas FBI agents to do regarding the handling of the rifle, as well as advising SAC Shanklin the following:

"I told SAC Shanklin that Secret service had one of the bullets that struck President Kennedy and the other is lodged behind the President's ear and we are arranging to get both of these."

No bullet 'lodged behind the president's ear" has ever been introduced into the evidence. What happened to it?

Thanks to Doug Horne and the ARRB, we have a copy of this once-hidden document. I advise you to copy the document and send it to everybody this November when the TV specials try to ram the "Magic Bullet" theory down your throats, and your children's throats, again.

Note that the report went to Clyde Tolson, second-in-command in the FBI under John Edgar Hoover himself (and Hoover's best 'friend' as we are quite aware).

This report was made on Nov. 22 -- it was the unfiltered truth, before this record vanished -- until uncovered by the ARRB and published by Douglas Horne.

We have been told for decades that the bullet striking Kennedy exited through the throat and then entered Connally. Otherwise, a conspiracy had to be admitted. Why? A FOURTH BULLET WRECKS THE CASE.

We have Douglas Horne to thank for providing evidence for where the so-called Magic Bullet probably ended its path.

Buried behind Kennedy's ear.

A billet Wikipedia and "Oswald-did-it" websites will never tell your sons and daughters existed.

Consider visiting my website. Tell people that yes, my new book really IS going to be published later this summer, after a long delay. The book has been expanded.
Your pre-purchase at my website can help me keep fighting the good fight.

God bless my country. Now -- ask God to give you the guts to spread the truth.

JVB

"Lee's Lies" Re-Examined by Judyth Vary Baker

THIS HAPPY MARINE HAS BEEN DESCRIBED AS SULLEN, MOROSE, A LIAR, AND, OF COURSE, AS JOHN F. KENNEDY'S KILLER-WITHOUT-A-REASON. DON'T BELIEVE IT.

LEE'S LIES" RE-EXAMINED

AN ARTICLE, POSTED ON AN ATTACK WEBSITE AGAINST LEE OSWALD, TELLS THE UNINFORMED PERSON THAT LEE OSWALD WAS A CONSUMMATE LIAR. BUT WAS HE LYING BECAUSE HE WAS A BAD GUY, OR DID HE LIE BECAUSE HE WAS A DOUBLE AGENT, WORKING FOR THE CIA? THE ARTICLE, “LEE’S LIES” WAS WRITTEN BY A SOPHISTICATED PROFESSIONALWHO HAS BEEN A LOBBYIST. THIS WRITER KNEW A GREAT DEAL ABOUT LEE H. OSWALD, YET FAILED TO MENTION ANYWHERE IN HIS ARTICLE THAT LEE’S LIES MIGHT HAVE BEEN FOR A HIGHER CAUSE AS A DOUBLE AGENT. EXPLORE THIS ARTICLE WITH ME, AND DECIDE FOR YOURSELF IF THE ARTICLE WAS ‘FAIR.’ JVB
Reinvestigating the article
Lee's Lies
By Brian Dautch TWITTER NAME: DCProgressive
WITH CORRECTIONS AND COMMENTS BY JUDYTH VARY BAKER
• First, who is Brian Dautch? On the Internet, we learn that he has been based in Washington, D.C. He was a former member of the Council for Marketing and Opinion Research, Director of Government Affairs. He was reachable at bdautch@cmor.org. One Source says:
“Brian D. Dautch is CMOR's Director of Government Affairs. After arriving in Washington in 2001, Brian worked on the U.S. v. Microsoft settlement, then moved into the realm of advocacy, government affairs, and policy analysis with the International Reading Association. He holds a B.A. degree in politics from Ithaca College, a master's degree in political science from Marquette University (note from JVB: the biggest anti-Oswald websites are hosted by Marquette University’s server)., and a law degree from Case Western Reserve University. Brian has spent over 10 years analyzing legislation and lobbying tactics, and has put those skills to use throughout his professional career. A resident of the Capitol Hill neighborhood of Washington, DC, Brian originally hails from Buffalo, NY. “
• Dautch is a strong Democrat who appears to be progressive and well-informed. Who taught him, then, to despise Lee Oswald? Was it Marquette University?
“19 Jan 2010 ... Brian Dautch is a political analyst currently residing in
Washington, DC.” Dautch is intelligent, organized, and “a political analyst.” We are now ready to look at BD’s analysis of Lee Harvey Oswald as an inveterate liar.

Marquette University-supported attack sites against Lee Oswald have an impact nimpact on students and others interested in Lee Harvey Oswald’s life who read the article “Lee’s Lies,” and conclude that Oswald was a lying creep who deserved everything that happened to him. Those of us who knew Oswald personally would have to disagree. BD’s article, below, is presented first with my added comments.. The entire text of concern is then repeated in toto at the end of this discourse.
.
:
BEGINNING THE ANALYSIS: PART ONE

Statement #1:

“Lee Harvey Oswald was, throughout his life, a liar.”

==This calumnious statement is designed to immediatelyprejudice the reader. It is not factual. Was Lee Oswald a liar at age 1? 2? 8? 10? “a calumnious statement” means “a false and malicious statement designed to injure the reputation of someone.” ==

“He consistently deceived, manipulated, and hoodwinked, with varying degrees of success. The web of deception wove its way through not only strangers and acquaintances, but friends and loved ones as well. In the final analysis, it becomes apparent that Lee Harvey Oswald lied to nearly every person with whom he shared any meaningful encounter, and that the lies are perhaps as strong a testament as any to the path which led him to his ultimate demise.”

==DB essentially repeats his first statement, adding that “Lee’s lies” led ‘to his ultimate demise.” He is establishing a false correlation between lies (“bad person”) and demise (“bad person deserves to die”).==
“To understand that Oswald was a liar is not to necessarily say that he was a lone nut assassin.”
==When damning statements are made, a pretense of ‘balance’ is then offered to the reader, to convince the reader that the accuser is ‘fair’ and ‘honest.’===
“His frequent lies, many to government agencies like the State Department and the FBI, might have marked him as a plausible patsy.”

==DB uses repetition to convince the reader that LHO is a liar. He now links “bad person=liar” to “Patsy” to lead the reader into imagining that LHO’s lies “might have marked him” as a “plausible patsy.” There is no logical connection between “liar” and being a “plausible patsy” however. The argument is simply another opportunity to repeat the “Lee =liar” theme. He more often that is repeated, the more likely the reader is likely to believe the accusation.
In addition, DB is actually doing is saying that it was LHO’s FAULT that he become a patsy, due to his lies. DB has presented no evidence for this, but he influences naïve readers to consider the following links of logical assumptions:
“LIAR = BAD MAN” :: “BAD MAN = DESERVES TO DIE” :: “IT IS OK IF HE BECAME A PATSY BECAUSE HE WAS A BAD MAN.” -- this leads the unsuspecting reader to decide that “Oswald had it coming to him” without a smidgen of evidence yet to be presented.
But the clver writer has now laid the groundwork. Next, he will present a list of “Lee’s lies,” but not before he repeats the “lesson” again, to make sure the reader has “learned” it well: ===
“And his scheming and conniving might suggest that he was the sort who could be manipulated -- hoodwinked, turned into a patsy -- by people who were much more competent schemers and liars than Lee Oswald. “
===There is no logical correlation between a ‘schemer“ and a “conniver” and the ease with which such people can be manipulated. In actuality, most schemers and connivers are NOT easily manipulated. They manipulate others. That’s what their skill set is all about.
But then, LHO could not become a ‘patsy’ that easily, could he? So DB creates the idea that LHO was a ‘stupid’ schemer and conniver: therefore, the “bad” connotation is repeated twice with these two descriptors, and then it is suggested that such a person can be “manipulated.”
DB then launches into his propaganda I have underlined places where there are problems with his argument, with additional comments below:
“Oswald, born in 1939, had begun his term of enlistment in the Marine Corps on October 26, 1956, at the tender young age of 17.(1) A trivial fact on the surface, perhaps, butmeaningful in terms of the chain of events set off by his military stint; many, including his half brother John Pic and his full brother Robert Oswald, presumed that Lee was



attempting to get out from under the "yoke of oppression" of their mother.(2) Marguerite Oswald raised Lee alone, since his father had died suddenly, and did not provide for their food and clothing as well as she could have, and was exceedingly controlling.(3) It was not the first time Oswald would significantly alter his surroundings to escape persecution, real or imagined. In fact, it was this very same driving force which led Oswald to Russia, where he met his future wife, Marina Prusakova.
===We are asked to take DB’s word for it that to “escape persecution, real or imagined” LHO was “led…to Russia…” An examination of the facts show us LHO received an honorable discharge when he went into the Marine reserves, prior to leaving for Russia on a trip that showed he must have had insider’s information to accomplish as he did. There was no overt reason to believe LHO was trying to ‘escape persecution, real or imagined” when he entered Russia. Why did DB write such a thing? He is counting on the ignorance of the reader: Swallow what I tell you! We must remember that this is a very bright individual who knows he is setting up LHO to look as bad as possible, while trying to preserve a veneer of fairness.
He states, as if fact, that Marguerite “did not provide for their food and clothing as well as she could have” , The cruel statement avoids the fact that a single female parent with three sons to raise alone, who was also proud and independent, had few resources in the 1940’s-1950’s. Women were not paid the wages men were. Marguerite was employed, one way or another, her entire life. That she was a controlling and domineering woman is true, and there is no doubt that LHO was anxious to leave home and stop being a burden to her.
What DB fails to tell us is that both of LHO’s brothers left home as soon as they could, too. All three sons entered the military. But then DB would have three boys, not one, to accuse: did each of the three boys wish to “significantly alter his surroundings to escape persecution, real or imagined.”? Leaving out potent and important details such as this skews the reader against LHO. It’s clever, and a bit dishonest. LHO’s mother, Marguerite, stated Lee’s brother Robert inspired him to become a Marine. DB failed to tell us that LHO’s motives for becoming a Marine might have been wholly normal and natural, under the circumstances.
=====================continued:part two========================
Lee and Marina
“Oswald told Marina a series of lies well before they were married. Almost immediately, he told her he was 24 years old, the same age as another suitor of Marina's, so she wouldn't think he was young and immature.(4)”

===Neither the first, nor the last young man to lie about his age, when trying to impress the ladies, Lee was two years older than Marina, so the lie was not significant. DB never mentions that Marina was an experienced young woman concerning men, especially foreign men. She was aware of the fact that defectors were in a special category. DB does not mention that LHO is now considered to have been a fake defector by many honest researchers. By failing to bring up the fact that Lee Oswald might have been a fake defector, DB gives the naïve reader – such as an enquiring student --no opportunity to consider why Oswald might have lied about personal data.==
“Knowing Marina's family would not want her to leave Russia for America, Lee told Marina and her relatives that he couldn't get back into America even if he wanted to, having permanently defected. In reality, Lee had not fully renounced his citizenship from the United States because he failed to fill out all the official paperwork necessary for complete expatriation, so returning to the U.S. would hardly be problematic for either of them, especially since they were to be married before going to America.(5) To garner her sympathy, he also claimed to Marina that his mother was dead.(6) In fact, not only was Marguerite Oswald still quite alive at the time, she outlived Oswald himself by several (sic)years. “

===1) Returning alive to the US was problematic for any American former Marine entering the USSR, then wishing to leave again, with a Russian wife and a baby, no less, at the height of the Cold War—a Cold War never mentioned by DB.
Concerning what LHO told Marina and her family about returning to America, Lee had to assert this in order to get Marina’s uncle’s permission to marry; was Marina’s big dream to marry an American and have a chance to move to the USA, the land of the free? Is this why she married Oswald only six weeks after they met?
As for paperwork to fill out, there are two approaches to the matter:

1) Would a not-yet 20-year-old Oswald know he had ‘failed to fill out’ all the necessary paperwork, unless he had been told?

2) Here’s the argument that shows DB is inserting prejudice into his article:

a) If told to finish filling out the papers, and yet LHO ‘failed’ to do so, then he had no intention of renouncing his citizenship – meaning he was a fake defector. Then the James Bond mode kicks in: you say what you have to say, to everybody, to save your life and reduce suspicion. For example, LHO returned from the USSR fluent in Russian, yet in the USSR, the Ziger family and others said LHO did not speak Russian at all. A fake defector, trained to understand Russian, but never speaking it, could hear a lot and learn a lot without anyone getting suspicious.

b) If LHO failed to fill out the forms by accident, he would not know he could return to America. In every possible way, this accusation does not count as a lie.
Re the appellation “orphan”: technically the word ‘orphan’ applies (especially in older dictionaries) to one who has lost just one parent, or who has “been deprived of parental care and has not been adopted.”

DB failed to tell the reader that Lee was placed with his aunt and uncle for over a year, and was then put into an orphanage at the age of three, with his two brothers, where he remained almost three years. LHO supposedly told Marina that his mother was dead. It counts as a lie, but this, again, was early in their relationship and ranks with the “wrong age” lie. Later, he did not hide the letters that his mother sent to him; he also wrote numerous letters to his mother and brother Robert, as well as to other family members.

“This third falsehood held special significance, because later Lee lied again to his wife about the circumstances of his dislike for his mother. Rather than explain his past to the woman who loved him, he merely brushed her off by stating that the only reason behind his anger toward his mother was that he didn't like Marguerite's treatment of Robert's wife, mentioning nothing of the difficult childhood he endured under her harsh rule.(7) In sum, Lee was forced to tell a lie to cover up an earlier lie, and the initial components of Oswald's web of deception had been established.”


==== But did LHO “brush her off” ? We have since learned that Marina hid many aspects of her own former life from Lee. Is “brushed her off” the right phrase to use when describing the unwillingness of LHO to speak of his miserable past to his wife? We don’t know if he felt he could even trust her: they knew each other only six weeks before they married, and her uncle, with whom she had been living, was the equivalent of a police officer. In addition, LHO and marina both knew that their apartment was bugged. How much, under these circumstances, was LHO willing to confide? None of these problems are mentioned by DB.==
We next have a leap in logic from DB: LHO’s unwillingness to confide his past fully to his Russian wife is called a lie to cover up “an earlier lie.”
The “earlier lie” was that his mother, Marguerite, was dead. But now Lee admitted he didn’t like his mother, and gave a reason why. Now he is being criticized by DB for finally giving reasons why he dislikes his mother. Rather than dump his past on Marina, LHO gave her an example of why he didn’t like Marguerite. That was typical of LHO, known as a master of understatement. There is no logical connection between LHO saying Marguerite was dead and then later stating that he did not like his mother, as being a lie to cover up an earlier lie. Stating that he did not like his mother is merely a parallel statement, unrelated to the fact that he said she was dead.


Lee's "Historic Diary"






Among Oswald's possessions originating in Russia was something he called his "Historic Diary," an account of the time he spent in that country. The use of the phrase "diary" is a misnomer, however, since Oswald did not write up the accounts contained in its twelve pages until long after the dates he wrote on each page.(8) The Warren Commission noticed a number of anachronisms in the document, since some entries referred to events which had not yet occurred. Also, the exceedingly melodramatic tone (and title) of the diary indicated that Oswald was attempting to spice up the events to hold the interest of future readers. For instance, the diary asserts that Oswald was offered citizenship in the Soviet Union, but he refused; similarly, it states that he was asked to address a meeting of workers in Minsk, and that he humbly declined that proposal as well.(9)”

===LHO prepared two kinds of speeches in case reporters learned he was returning, and might come asking questions.
One speech was about how he ‘liked it’ in the Soviet Union; the other was about how he ‘did not like it’ in the Soviet Union. A number of honest researchers believe LHO did not know which one his handlers would want him to use at the time he wrote them. These two different versions, of themselves, go far to persuade an unprejudiced researcher that Lee’s activities were being directed by others.
The Historic Diary actually contains many interesting observations about daily life in the USSR. And diaries do not have to be written day-by-day to qualify as a diary. Definition of a diary: a record of events, transactions, or observations kept daily or at frequent intervals. LHO reconstructed the events as he recalled them from day to day while he was on a ship crossing the Atlantic ocean, with nothing else to do. It was a good way to spend his time.

The Diary was indeed written for outsiders, but many honest researchers believe it is not for the reason that DB presents, which seems to suggest narcissism. According to information I have personally received, Lee created the Diary to provide himself a fake timeline to cover certain activities in Russia, the USSR, and elsewhere that had to be kept secret. As a fake defector, it was necessary to ‘account’ for his time as being spent only in innocuous activities. LHO needed a reconstructed timeline to refer to because the real timeline might have actually been accidentally revealed later. By recreating a set of events and memories that did exist, and filling in the gaps, his “Un-Historic Diary” was Lee’s pocket guide for future reference, to the outside world. In fact, DB was smart enough to bring up that possibility. But he didn’t. As in every other instance so far, DB didn’t breathe a word about “fake defector.’==


=====================part three===========================

Lee and Marina in Dallas

"...arriving in Dallas with Marina, Oswald had a chance to begin anew, with an utterly clean slate. His wife, unable to speak English, apparently felt no need to hold Lee's lies against him, since she was forced to rely upon him for everything. Marina could not speak English, and Lee was in no rush to help her learn.(10) Rather than deal honestly with some of the new people he met in Texas, Lee chose to continue his untruthful ways”

Having brought up only a few examples over Lee Oswald’s entire lifetime, and now nearing the end of Lee’s life, DB repeats that LHO has “lying ways” that he “chose to continue.” We will look at the various examples DB brings forth:
.”This is the point in Lee's life when he began to tell a certain type of lie: the type which was absolutely needless and unnecessary.”
Absolutely needless and unnecessary? How does DB know that? Was he there?
I was.
I wish to insert here an example of what Patricia McMillan-Johnson, author of the ‘official version’ biography, Marina and Lee, wrote about Lee’s telling his wife that he worked at the Leon Israel Coffee Company, located some blocks down, actually, from the Reily Coffee Company, on the same street—Magazine Street. DB is picking up McMillan’s charge: she says Lee told “another of his…pointless lies” when naming Leon Israel instead of Reily as his place of work.
But it wasn’t “another of his…pointless lies.” Lee and I had commenced a love affair and sometimes could be seen together coming to or from Reily’s. Lee didn’t want Marina to see us together. For awhile he even told her he worked as a photographer. When he was fired, Lee did not tell Marina. She thought Lee was working when he left every day for the next four, five or six weeks (depending on her changing testimony and letters).
Marina herself was caught in many lies to the Warren Commission --I do not blame her one bit—she a new mother, alone, and threatened with deportation --so portions of her testimony, such as claiming Lee planned to shoot Nixon when Nixon wasn’t even in town, had to be discarded even by the Commission, who kept only those parts they could plausibly use against Oswald.

I am under no such duress as was Marina, though I have been forced by threats to live in exile.
I freely testify that Lee Oswald was working with both the CIA and the FBI in New Orleans. He had significant active contacts with Customs and with the Mafia as well. He was a courier and lab assistant in addition, and was a very busy man – nothing like the indolent creature described by the Warren Commission. LHO’s time-sheet records at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall show Lee’s strong work ethic for six long days a week, plus overtime, with only a half-hour off for lunch, sometimes taken an hour late due to his work. LHO kept those records meticulously, as if he’d been in a lab, and he was in one—a photo lab. I have records you can inspect in my book Me & Lee, available summer 2010.
Interestingly, Lee’s half brother, John Pic, ran a section of a military hospital’s pathology lab in Texas in 1963. A love of science seemed to be shared by these half-brothers. Lee is also on record as listing biology and astronomy as subjects of interest to him. But back to DB, who tells the naïve reader that Lee’s lies are “needless and unnecessary” – and the reader is expected to swallow it.

“After returning to the United States, Lee seemed to lie at least as much out of habit as of necessity, to the point where it struck people other than Marina that Lee appeared to simply enjoy lying for the opportunity to conceal.(11) “

===== Who were these people? DB does not name them. Instead, DB again repeats his accusations against LHO. Repetition, after all, convinces the naïve reader, though no evidence is offered. DB tells us that LHO is still telling lots of lies, though he has no really convincing sets of lies to paste in here. What do we have on the “lie list,” so far?

1) Lee added two years to his actual age when dating Marina

2) Lee told Marina his mother was dead, when he was actually an orphan via his father and had been placed in an orphanage by his mother at a critical developmental stage of his life. Later, he admits his mother is alive.

3) Lee did not tell Marina all the reasons he disliked his mother. Did he have to?

4) Lee wrote a diary that has disinformation in it, which the analyst believes was simply to be dramatic –though a return alive from the USSR with a Russian wife and baby at age 22 was in itself dramatic, and worthy of a written record.
====a total of three accusations of questionable worth, and a disinfo-filled diary====

“In Dallas, Oswald met a man named George Bouhe, who helped him get settled in the new town, and may even have tided him over with occasional monetary supplements.(12) Asking Lee to keep in touch, Bouhe assumed that Lee would provide him with occasional updates of his whereabouts and employment situation. Instead, Lee would only call Bouhefrom a pay phone every few days, mutter "I'm doing fine" into the phone, and hang up.”

====Note that LHO contacted Bouhe “every few days.” We do not know from where [this may be important]. The word “mutter”makes a difference. On top of this, Lee is reported calling Bouhe "every few days." That does not sound irresponsible.

Who was Bouhe?
Bruce C. Adamson tells us “Ruby's neighbor [was] George Bouhe; Bouhe took Oswald out for job interviews.” Bouhe: said Oswald "had a mind of his own, and I think it was a diseased one.” What a nice characer reference DB chose. But what about Bouhe's character?

Researcher Linda Minor tells us that Bouhe was employed as a personal accountant by Everette DeGolyer, a geologist linked to Michael Paine through “Michael’s uncle, Eric Schroeder, …a friend and investment associate of…DeGolyer and a cousin of Alexander "Sandy" Forbes, former director of United Fruit…” A. J. Weberman says he is a Russian in exile.

Bouhe is part of the Dallas gang of Magnolia Oil: they had close ties to the Power Elite, and now surrounded Lee and Marina through White Russian links. Minor’s research goes into much more detail, but let this suffice:
“Bouhe was closely tied to George DeMohrenschildt, who later became famous as the White Russian assigned to "handle" Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas. It was DeMohrenschildt who had taken the Oswalds to a party where they met Volkmar Schmidt, and then a later party at the same house where they met Michael Paine. DeMohrenschildt was also the one in charge of getting Marina a place to stay at Ruth Paine’s home, and it was Ruth Paine who found Oswald the job at the book depository office in the building owned by D.H. Byrd,”
(ref: http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=39&contentid=45&page=2)

DB never told us that Bouhe was well-connected to George DeMohrenschildt (CIA ties), that he was also well-connected to the Paines (CIA ties)– and that they were all friends. He just says “Oswald met a man named George Bouhe” –who acted as LHO’s and Marina’s babysitter (just as deMohrenschildt did, and just as the Paines
did). Lee and Marina were not getting along, and in fact, the marriage was already progressing to a separation. Marina’s mistreatment during this time by Oswald is described by DeMohrenschildt as a result of her behavior (but Oswald alone is responsible for controlling himself—he had a lot of growing up to do when it came to problems with Marina. However, he stopped mistreating her in May, 1963.).
END PART ONE

THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED AT FACEBOOK, FOR THE CAUSE VINDICATING AND EXONERATING LEE HARVEY OSWALD. I URGE YOU TO JOIN THIS CAUSE IF YOU'RE ON FACEBOOK! JVB

This is a long, personal message, because November is right around the corner. It is a message also of thanks, for all that you do to set the record straight about Lee Harvey Oswald
A rare interview of Jim Garrison (is brand new at YouTube, and shows you that former FBI agent Garrison wasn't a nut. Hope you note his statement about the build up of coincidences that are at least as important as eyewitness testimony.
Dr. John DeLane Williams wrote "Judyth and Lee in New Orleans" -- which was published in the Dealey Plaza Echo. There you can see the statistical analysis of those experiences, showing it's way beyond chance that we shared so many 'coincidences.' Better yet, read the details in my book, and see the many photos and documents, to be released before the end of the year by Trine Day (ME & LEE - HOW I CAME TO KNOW, LOVE AND LOSE LEE HARVEY OSWALD) which can be pre-purchased at http://www.judythvarybaker.com if you would like a personal thank-you letter written by me.
I don't like to 'advertise' but November is coming, and the media is refusing to respond to the piublisher regarding reviews, etc. on this book. It will appear in silence.
But Vince Bugliosi got publicity galore and a million dollars to write his Bible- sized set of legends posing as facts. He said a lot of bad things about me, several pages' worth, but never met me, never interviewed me, not one phone call -- and I wonder how many other pro-Oswald witnesses for whom he may have conducted similar 'non-interviews' did he report on negatively.
You may have heard that Jim Garrison was a nut, but I noticed a comment with this YouTube video: he was a former FBI agent. Of course, he was New Orleans' District Attorney by 1963. Though there were problems with ethics in some of his work in the investigation, such as avoiding bothering Godfather Carlos Marcello, who ran New Orleans with a batch of killers at his side, Garrison was bunches better at trying to get the record straight than the Dallas Police.
When I was deliberately struck by a vehicle in Dallas not long before being filmed by Wim Dankbaar and Jim Marrs, and Nigel Turner & Co, I had to pick up the police report after getting out of the hospital. My car had been totalled, so I now had a very inferior car. But its problems weren't due to its greater age. It tended toget slashed tires, funny stuff in the gas tank, and cut brakelines. The brake line on that car got cut twice, and I thus was in two minor accidents. but because of the cut brakeline that the garage found, I was cleared of all charges. But it meant another trip to pick up police reports. These were picked up in the same building where Lee Oswald was shot dead. The first-ever televised live murder. But desperate measures had to be taken.
I had avoided going near that place, or near Dealey Plaza,, though I'd lived in Dallas for over a year -- it just made me sick to think of Lee being shot there, and I was afraid I'd break down and cry. I had moved to The Lion's Mouth at the invitation of my family, and I had a wonderful job teaching until I was hurt.
It would not be the first time.
When I picked up the police report, the office window there was on the ground floor, right there in the basement. Where I knew lee had been shot.
The police officer I talked to volunteered: "Would you like to see where they gunned down that bastard?"
He used the word "they." I answered, "So you think he was guilty?" He was a younger man and couldn't have been present.
"Sure thing, Oswald, he was a communist, he did it, all right."
I thought to myself how Lee had posed as pro-Cuba, but even on the WDSU broadcast denied being a communist. Even when he posed as a defector in the USSR, he never joined the Communist Party in Minsk.
People don't know that Lee prepared two kinds of speeches (it's in some records) in case reporters met him when he returned to America. One was pro-USSR. the other was anti-USSR. Why both versions? Because he didn't know which one his CIA handlers would prefer him to use before the press. He actually didn't have any problem (and for him, it would have been a problem) with press showing up -- all was kept quiet, because anti-communist feelings ran so high, his handlers were afraid Lee might be harmed if he showed up on TV in a place like Dallas-Fort Worth. But they did have him hand out pro-Cuba pamphlets in Dallas (which most people don;t know--I did find two records supporting that which he had told me --that he was ordered to hand out pro-Cuban flyers, etc. only a couple of days after Gen. Walker was shot at. he knew the police were riled up and coukld beat him up. But he courageously handed out the pamphlets, etc. anyway. The undated note telling Marina what to do if he got arrested was used against him, later, to 'prove' he shot at Walker! That's how cruelly they betrayed Lee Oswald, our country's servant.
The Dallas officer had an older, fat policeman lead me out to the open place in the garage, where Lee was shot down. He offered it, I didn't ask for such a thing.
"We still have the same paint on the walls," he said. "That's the same elevator," he said, pointing, "that we used to get him down to this floor."
In a flashback, the horrible scene unfolded to my memory, as I had witnessed Lee wiped out suddenly by a man whose face I could not see, or surely I would have hated that kind of face forever. Little did I know at that time that I had met the man, and that he liked Lee, and had to have been forced to kill. I knew him only as Sparky Rubenstein, because I'd had a dog named :Sparky' and it had been a joke to introduce him that way to me. I had no idea the two men were one and the same.
Nor could I ever look again at anything on the TV about the assassination--nor could I bear to even see a single newspaper article. I wanted to kill myself at first. You can't imagine what it's like, and it was so sudden, so horrible, and I couldn't remember a thing after it happened, for hours. I was in a well of tears and agony. After about a week, though, I wanted to live, so I could someday tell the world what kind of man Lee really was. No, he wasn't perfect. But he was a very good man, smart, devoted to his country, a patriot, and he wanted a big, affectionate family, lots of children. He loved children. He loved America.
But now he was gone, just as he had warned me on the 20th. He had tried to save Kennedy. so he was sure he was going to die, and of course, he was slain. He had been lured into that ring of killers. He told on them, he passed information along. He was so betrayed.
So the fat policeman now led me to the gray curbing of this underground parking area not far beyond the box-like room to the right, that was behind me, and pointed down at a place near the curvbing, to a dark smudge on the cement. "That's his blood," he said. "That's where he was shot."
I pray none of you ever have to stand where your loved one was murdered before your eyes. I will never forget it, the pain in my heart, a physical stabbing.
In 2003, the History Channel showed the now-banned three documentaries, and I was living in Holland due to a death threat, far from home. Nigel Turner sat with me as we watched THE LOVE AFFAIR. He then flew to Dallas and showed it to Marina Oswald and also to my sister, and researcher debbee reynolds, whose home had been destroyed after she got evidence collectd for me, by having tons of animals feces thrown inside it!
I watched the documentary and couldnlt understand why there were no witnesses and almost no evidence in it, but that would have to be for later, due to 'problems.'
What problems? The History Channel showed--multiple times--: THE SMOKING GUNS (7), THE LOVE AFFAIR -BAKER (8) and THE GUILTY MEN (9). But then, all hell broke loose. Turner had wisely held back considerable material from all three documentaries. he intended to expand them.
But nobody has heard of Nigel Turner since 2003. It's as if he's dropped off the face of the earth.
What happened to the man that "brought shame to the History Channel" as how he is now blackened? the man whose calling card has emblazoned on it a Knight in Shining Armor? The man who dligently interviewed me and supporting witnesses, who spent 33 hours filming me as i spoke without notes or hesitations, and 38 additional hours recording my testimony a second time, weeks earlier, so he could compare both versions, along with my twelve books of evidence, to check my veracity? The man who deserves our accolades, and instead has vanished from film-making?
Why?
Oh, what an outcry occurred from LBJ's widow, Jack Valenti, Moyers, et al! LBJ involved? Madeleine Brown and Judyth Baker and all the others were just lying! Oh, sure we were. I was shaking in my boots. I'd already received so many threats. I would be forced into exile.
Do you know that I haven't seen a movie in two years? That I live in a place so remote there is no restraurant? That in Turkey, for example, I wear a long black burka and dress as a Muslim woman, and even have learned how to make Turkish Delight? That in Sweden, I have learned to live in an ice cube, and in Croatia, I get to eat lots of Hungarian goulash, of all things.
It is a lonely life. I miss teaching. I taught for fifteen years --English, science, math, poetry, drama, debate, and chemistry.
The History Channel went merrily on, Saying mea culpa, mea culpa, we were so stupid to put the truth on TV! Sorry, folks!
So the History Channel apologized and hastily gathered 3 historians to debunk the documentaries.
The Historians never contacted any of us. They just said it wasn't possible that there was a conspiracy.
Since then, The History Channel--or should I say--the Revised History Channel-- has shown only "Oswald did it" well-financed specials in November. They will do it again this year, drawing on traitors such as Gary Mack and others whose pockets are well-lined with green for their trouble. I continue to live in exile. I must move every 89 days because of the law, and I cannot work. I cannot see my family or grandchildren. My dad is getting old. I couldn;t go to my mother's funeral because I was also in the political asylum program. But hey, Americans can't stay too long in a political asylum system. It's politically incorrect. After 10.5 months, my children and friends helped put a roof over my head in different places.
Of course, they are not palaces, but one is a very nice house, and another is lavishly Turkish. Not that anybody would recognize me. I have lost fifty pounds and wear VERY loose clothes now! hand washing clothes and sometimes not being able to eat much helped a lot. Thank heaven for everyone who has helped me pay the electric and water and travel and food bills! God bless you all.
Though I love 'adventure' this has been a bit much and a bit long. It would be nice to hear English. It would be nice to be able to drink water out of the tap (you can, in Sweden, and when I and my doggie Suzi Q and I happen to be there,which is almost half the time, I drink a lot of that crystal clear water!). It would be nice to have new boots for three-foot-deep snow.
It is not the way I thought my 'golden years' would be spent.
I wonder how Jim Garrison felt, having been systematically demeaned, attacked, called crazy. He had no chance against Them.
But Oliver Stone then made a movie, based on Jim Marrs' Crossfire-the Plot That Killed Kennedy. And Garrison got to play Chief Justice Earl Warren in the movie. He would die soon afterwards of emphysema and complications. I am grateful to "The Giant" because he amassed important records that have helped me provide more evidence supporting Lee's exoneration.
Please fight for this: Lee Oswald was an innocent man.
despite the slick, well-financed 'specials' coming along again, send people to YouTube to see the truth. It is IMPORTANT to fight for this truth to reach everyone -- all Americans!-- because proving Lee's innocence then proves a cover-up occurred, and we KNOW who wanted this nasty matter covered up.Who had the power, the means, and the motive to eradicate our leader and turn our country into a cash cow for war-mongers, bankers and heartless employers who would sell their own grandma for the right price. Our country became prey to economic hitmen. And it's still being raped every day.
Please tell your friends to watch the three BANNED videos this November, and spread the word about the History Channel's perfidy and betrayal. Watch the video below,and ask friends to join this cause!
With my dying breath, with all it takes, I'll never stop defending that innocent man who asked me to pray for him, even though he was an agnostic and I at the time was an atheist, because he was certain he'd be shot dead and a rifle placed in his dead hands. "What will my children think of me?" he mourned.
I really can't write any more, because I'm in tears.
Thank you-- ALL OF YOU--for joining this Cause, and defending Lee Harvey Oswald. I may not live to see him exonerated and vindicated, but because of all of you, my children will, and then the two who don't speak to me because they are ashamed of my association with 'the killer' may go someday to Dallas and look a Dallas police officer in the face and say: "Oswald didn't do it. And you know it."
God bless you all. JVB