Dr. J. P. Hubert Speaks Up About the Kennedy Assassination

announcement: ME & LEE is now available from Trine Day,Amazon.com, etc. If you purchase ME & LEE at my official website run by Edward T. Haslam, at http://www.judyth vary baker.com you will receive (eventually!) a personal letter of thanks from me. Because I live in exile, I rely on donations and your good will to continue on. And it is for this man--Lee Harvey Oswald--that I fight. When you realize he did not kill John F. Kennedy, then you must accept the hard truth:
our government cooperated to kill Kennedy.

"Before being given the opportunity to disclose his role as an intelligence operative and what he might have known about the conspiracy to kill JFK[9], Lee Harvey Oswald was murdered on national TV in a room full of police and FBI agents whose only responsibility was to protect him." Dr. J.P. Hubert, MD

Dr. J. P. Hubert's blog on the Moral Philosophy of Current Events is well-written and informative.

His comments about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, Lee Harvey Oswald's innocence, and the catastrophe that has engulfed America ever since controlling powers moved in to take over the reins of government in a truly corrupt new reign of usurped power, are appropriate and well-referenced. Dr. James Fetzer first brought this blog to my attention a few months ago, and I reproduce most of it here, with references to various books available on the subject by the courageous Trine Day publishing house that fit well with this topic:

moralphilosophyofcurrentevents.blogspot.com
3 August 2010

It is now beyond reasonable doubt (BRD) that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by his own National Security State in what was a violent coup d'état that is, an overthrowing of the legitimate elected government of the United States by force through the use of the clandestine black-ops services of the CIA, elements of the Secret Service, the US military, the FBI and organized crime.[1]



Probability and Statistics:

Various scientific calculations have been done which indicate that there is less than 1 chance in a trillion that JFK's death was the result of one man acting alone. There were at least 15 separate violations made by the US Secret Service in their handling of Presidential Security in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963.[2] These were unprecedented breaches in protocol. It would have been unusual if even one of these breaks in procedure had occurred let alone 15 during one Presidential visit. It defies credulity to think that such a scenario could have occurred on the basis of chance alone. Obviously the Secret Service “stood-down” so as to facilitate the conspirator’s killing teams in accomplishing the dastardly deed.[3] This means there was an extremely well orchestrated conspiracy to kill the President.

Perhaps even more astoundingly, during the 3 year period following the assassination of JFK and the murders of Lee Harvey Oswald and Officer J. D. Tippit, some 17 witnesses who were involved either directly or peripherally died, 72% of which were unnatural deaths, 52% being murders. The probability that even 15 of the 17 witnesses would be dead by 1967 is 100 quadrillion to 1 or 10(-17).[4]

The 35th President of the United States was murdered at essentially high noon on a bright autumn day in the middle of an American city while his security detail looked on and did nothing. The conspirators’ message was simple; “we’re in charge and there is nothing you can do about it.” Within the first hour after the Assassination, a pre-arranged “patsy” who had been placed in position at the Texas School Book Depository[5] was hunted down and apprehended long before any agency should have even suspected that he might have been involved. Lee Harvey Oswald--who as a result of the FIA[6] and the JFK Records Act[7] is now known to have been an American intelligence operative[8]--whether wittingly or by some last minute ruse played the part of the “fall-guy." During the entire time Oswald was in custody he denied killing President Kennedy and Officer J. D. Tippit. There exists more and more evidence that Oswald was not involved in the killing of either JFK or Officer Tippit.



Before being given the opportunity to disclose his role as an intelligence operative and what he might have known about the conspiracy to kill JFK[9], Lee Harvey Oswald was murdered on national TV in a room full of police and FBI agents whose only responsibility was to protect him. The night before his killing, the Dallas Police Department received 2 separate calls from unknown person(s) who reported that Oswald was to be murdered. Despite the warning, the Dallas Police made no attempt to prevent the killing of ostensibly the most important prisoner in US custody at the time. It defies all logic to believe that both JFK and Lee Harvey Oswald were killed by lone “deranged” gunmen.

Metaphysical Certainty:

In light of all of the cumulative JFK Assassination evidence now available, there exists metaphysical certainty that JFK was killed by a massive conspiracy with the power not only to murder the President but to successfully perpetrate a cover-up of monumental proportions which included securing massive medical fraud in the forensic evidence.[10] David Lifton, Douglas P. Horne and Dr. David W. Mantik and others have amply documented the details of how the medical fraud was accomplished.[11] The absolutely critical concept to understand is that no foreign or domestic entity would have had the access, power and requisite technological expertise to direct and accomplish the cover-up other than the American National Security State including US military physicians, 3 of which conducted the sham autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital.

Shadow Government in Control:

Unless and until the United States publicly discloses to the citizenry that its duly elected government was overthrown in 1963 and that since then the replacement/imposter government has been at least technically/legally speaking illegitimate[12] it will likely be impossible to reverse the increasingly rapid disintegration of America. The reality is that since the murder of President John F. Kennedy, there has been an extra-constitutional imposter “government” in place which prior to that time existed only in the shadows. It has been given many different names including the “war party” the MIMIC (media, intelligence, military, industrial complex) the secret government, the shadow government etc. That entity or “Regime” as a result of the JFK assassination appears to have profoundly altered the trajectory of the United States by placing the country on a constant war footing and building and sustaining an enormous foreign military base presence throughout the world which serves to project American power and enlarge the “empire.”



Beginning with the Lyndon B. Johnson administration and his reversal of John F. Kennedy’s NSAM # 263 (within 4 days of the JFK Assassination) calling for an end to all US presence in Vietnam by 1965[13], the course which the US took was that of increasing militarization and empire-building rather than the move toward peace, nuclear disarmament and ending of the cold war begun by JFK in the wake of the Cuban Missile Crisis.[14] As should be readily apparent, the result has been catastrophic for the United States and much of the world. Since the death of President Kennedy, the confidence of the American people in their government has been drastically reduced suggesting that at a subliminal level at least, Americans are aware that something extremely troubling has transpired. Moreover, the polarization of the major political parties which now exists can be traced to the Johnson administration’s prosecution of the Vietnam War and its terrible sequelae.

Hegelian Dialectic and the Manipulation of US Population:

A form of Hegelian dialectic[15] is currently being utilized successfully by the oligarchical “Regime” to control the masses through an artificial binary division of reality[16] into a politics of left vs.: right in combination with the unrelenting “bread and circus” entertainment extravaganza being foisted upon the people the latest incarnation of which is the absurd reality TV phenomenon. Most Americans are too busy attempting to survive to be able to sort through the maze of distractions. They seek refuge in meaningless electronic games, TV shows and sporting events as a way to escape from the dismal realities of their increasingly hopeless lives. For those with more time and the requisite interest in politics and current events, the shadow government provides a steady diet of right vs.: left diatribes carried out by various “experts”, talking heads and partisan political hacks many of whom function as US intelligence assets and "cut-outs" of various kinds.[17] Few Americans realize that this left/right dichotomy is totally artificial and contrived so as to limit the universe of acceptable public discourse.

Effect of Dumbing-Down of America:

Americans have been “dumbed-down” for over 50 years such that as an aggregate entity we are no longer capable of reason or for that matter intellectually sound individual thought. The completely artificial bi-polar division between right and left, liberal and conservative so dominates the public discourse that one would think that it totally exhausts the entire panoply of possibilities. This of course is the sine que non of the Hegelian dialectic which is served up on a nightly basis in the form of cable “news” TV shows which attempt to promote an endless debate over which political worldview is best while demonizing its opponent. The idea that on many topics the position of neither left nor right is credible--seems to have been totally missed by most Americans.


The Left/Right Divide and the Hiding of the Truth:

For example, we have become accustomed to there being only 2 possibilities in any given dispute over issues of public policy; the position of the liberal (progressive) left and that of the neoconservative right.[18] How many Americans understand that the neoliberal left and the neoconservative right are but artificial constructs in the Hegelian tradition, designed to allow for the appearance of debate all the while serving to disguise the truth that the resolution/synthesis has already been predetermined by the oligarchical Regime currently in charge? The Regime has as its greatest weapon the fact that no one wishes to believe the truth. For most of us it is simply too painful, unnerving and overwhelming. As many propagandists have indicated, “the bigger the lie the more readily it will be believed.” It is viscerally more comfortable to believe the lie that our government exists of, by and for the people rather than for an elite few who wield all the power and influence and for whom everyone else exists only to be utilized, abused and discarded. The mercenary (all volunteer) US military is a perfect example of the latter being made up almost exclusively of the offspring of impoverished Americans. This has been the case since the draft was ended in the 1970’s.

Theater of the Absurd:

Every four years the Regime treats us to another “theater of the absurd” in which US citizens are allowed to vote for one of 2 Presidential candidates, each of whom has been vetted by the oligarchy such that from its standpoint it matters little which one is elected. Irrespective of what campaign promises are made, once in power, the new Presidential administration hues to the wishes of the not so hidden “shadow government.” It should be intuitively obvious that no serious candidate for high office could rise to that level without demonstrating a willingness to regurgitate the “party line” of their respective political affiliation. As a result so-called third-party candidates are virtually never successful when running for the highest office in the land. The only real opportunity for rank and file US citizens to effect change in their government is to elect a Representative to the US House who is committed to representing their views. Unfortunately, the mega corporations now appear to enjoy monopoly control[19] due to the campaign finance laws which allow for virtually unlimited contributions to candidates.[20] The practical effect is to nullify the political power of the average citizen.

The Political Process is Broken:

The current political process then is broken. So what can we do? It is obvious that under the current set of circumstances, it makes no difference who is elected President and what major political party has the White House or Congress for that matter. To say this of course is considered heresy among the pundit/ruling class who earn their livings by pretending the system is legitimate. Unfortunately however,...they are wrong. There are simply too many powerful individuals and multinational corporations who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Examples include the banking, health care, munitions and energy industries and their lobbies and individual pundits who make up the afternoon and evening chattering class on cable TV such as Chris Matthews, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, Ed Schultz, Keith Oberman and others.[21]

All of the above individuals to one degree or another represent special interest groups across the political spectrum. None are truly independent thinkers. They owe their jobs to their willingness to hue a particular political line as representatives of the media entity to which they belong. For example, O’Reilly, Hannity and Beck regurgitate the Neoconservative party line for Fox News with...differences in style but not substance.

Matthews (frequently repeats the claim that JFK and RFK were both killed by a lone deranged individual and he accepts/advertizes the poor work of scholarship that is Pozner's "Case Closed" which is easily debunked), Oberman (who also accepts Pozner's conclusions in "Case Closed") and Schultz largely follow the left or liberal party line with minor differences in substance and major differences in style. All advance the liberal political views of MSNBC.

CNN on the other hand touts itself as simply reporting the facts without an obvious political orientation. However...(i)t never criticizes the genocidal policies of the Jewish state so in that sense at least it is completely biased in favor of the Israeli Jews and against the Palestinian Arabs. It has failed to report the Apartheid nature of modern Israel where the human rights granted to Jews are denied to Arabs.

The Power of the Israel Lobby:

Not one of the above cable entities or individual pundits dares to criticize the Israeli government or its immoral policies however. In fact no major network or cable entity is willing to risk doing so due to the power of the Zionist (Israel) Lobby. Only in foreign venues or on the internet among bloggers does one find a willingness to question Israel’s Apartheid/genocidal policies or the actions of the Zionist Lobby. There is a(n)...extensive Zionist Lobby which has infiltrated virtually every branch of the US government, most major ‘think-tanks” and much of US academia.
There exists only a very small Jewish minority in the United States who admit that the actions of the modern state of Israel are not only immoral but counterproductive to the ultimate survival of the Jewish state. Fortunately, in Israel, Jewish intellectuals and academics such as Ilan Pappe have begun to break the strangle hold that radical Zionist’s such as Benyamin Netanyahu, Igor Lieberman and others have held over successive Israeli governments.

Is there a Solution?



While the internet is still relatively unregulated, it behooves every US citizen to peacefully but actively spread the truth that in the wake of World War II/the creation of the CIA and the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the constitutional representative democratic republic which was brought into being in 1789 was replaced[22] with a not so secret shadow government which does the bidding of the elites and is antithetical to the needs, desires and goals of everyone else.

This effort should include organizing at the state and local levels. It should include electing to the US House of Representatives individuals who cannot be purchased by the multinational corporations and special interest groups. Finding such highly morally committed individuals will not be easy.


Finally, interested and committed individuals of like-mind should band together for the purpose of pooling their various resources in order to better oppose the corporate media and their relentless attempts to “brain-wash” the public. Time is short for the survival of the American experiment. Please help Spread the word!

Notes:

[1] The evidence is simply overwhelming. For those who are not yet familiar with some of the seminal works, they include but are not limited to those in the selected reference section appended to this essay.
[2] Philosopher of Science Professor James H. Fetzer performed a calculation assuming that the probability that any one of them would be breached was only 10% which is more than likely too high. For even 12 to be breached at the same time yields a probability of 10(-12).
[3] Evidence now strongly suggests that there were likely at least 3 teams, one in the TSBD, one behind the fence at the grassy knoll, and one at the southwest end of the overpass in the storm drain. It is also possible that a 4th team was positioned at the southeast end of the overpass and another in the Dal-Tex building fairly close to ground level. The exact identity and number of the assassins is of course irrelevant to the issue of whether a conspiracy existed.
[4] Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After the Fact. The Warren Commission, the Authorities and the Report. (New York: Random House, 1975) chapter 16, p. 302.
[5] Only someone in the US Secret Service would have been privy to the last minute change in the Dallas parade route which took the motorcade directly past the TSBD on Elm Street rather than down Main Street which had been the published route up until that point. The “last-minute” change was no doubt arranged to lessen the number of witnesses who would see the shooting and to be certain that Oswald was placed in the correct strategic position to be framed.
[6] Abbreviation for Freedom of Information Act.
[7] Passed in 1992 in response to the Motion Picture by Oliver Stone about the JFK Assassination. The law is known as the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992. The Act ordered all assassination-related material to be placed in a single collection in the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
[8] See for example, James Di Eugenio and Lisa Pease, Editors. The Assassinations: Probe Magazine on JFK, MLK, RFK and Malcolm X. (Los Angeles: Feral House, 2003) and John Newman. Oswald and the CIA: The Documented Truth about the Unknown Relationship between the U.S. Government and the Alleged Killer of JFK. (New York: Carroll and Graf, 1995).
[9] Judyth Vary Baker who alleges a romantic affair with Lee Harvey Oswald in the summer of 1963 while the two worked under-cover at the Reilly Coffee Co. of New Orleans also claims that Oswald discovered the plot to kill Kennedy and had hoped to derail it but was unable to do so. Oswald apparently suspected that the result might be his own death as well as President Kennedy’s. Please see the extensive set of interviews on this site in which Judyth Baker is questioned in detail about Oswald.
[10] This included altering the wounds on the body of JFK prior to the “official” autopsy, substituting a different brain, falsifying the location of the alleged back wound in order to make the magic bullet hypothesis plausible, altering the skull X-rays and photographs of the head etc. See Douglas P. Horne, Inside the Assassination Records Review Board: The U.S. Government’s Final Attempt to Reconcile the Conflicting Medical Evidence in the Assassination of JFK, Volumes I-V. (2009). Also see David Lifton. Best Evidence: Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy. (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. 1980).
[11] See for example Douglas P. Horne, Inside the Assassination Records Review Board: The U.S. Government’s Final Attempt to Reconcile the Conflicting Medical Evidence in the Assassination of JFK, Volumes I-V. (2009), especially volume IV.
[12] We have lost the legitimate succession of power from one Presidential Administration to the next by direct “propagation” due to the violent removal of President John F. Kennedy from office and the resultant complete turnabout in policy that Lyndon B. Johnson ordered and presided over.
[13] Johnson signed NSAM # 273 which began the increasing build-up of land forces in Vietnam 4 days after JKF’s Assassination.
[14] For an excellent detailed discussion of President Kennedy’s move toward peace in the wake of the Cuban Missile Crisis see James W. Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died & Why It Matters. (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2008).
[15] Problem, reaction, solution or (thesis, antithesis, synthesis).
[16] This metaphysical construct is extremely dangerous since it results in a complete polarization of the population into left vs.: right.
[17] See for example Carl Bernstein. “The CIA and the Media.” Rolling Stone, October 20, 1977 for a discussion of the many media personages who are under the control of the national security state.
[18] The traditional or Paleoconservative “right” no longer exists for all practical purposes in that the neoconservatives have taken over the right wing of the US political spectrum. Neoconservatism has its roots in Trotsky and its branches in Nazism/Fascism. Newt Gingrich and former Vice President Dick Cheney are illustrative of the more radicalized Neoconservative right.
[19] The Health Insurance Lobby was the major beneficiary of the recently passed Health Reform Bill, the Banking Lobby virtually wrote the Banking Reform legislation.
[20] "Bundling" of funds by large corporate donors is a favorite tactic.
[21] One possible exception is the courageous Dylan Ratigan who has been willing to speak truthfully about the reality of the present circumstances at least with respect to the various lobbies which control the Congress. He has not to date challenged the Zionist Lobby which presumably would result forthwith in his dismissal from MSNBC.
[22] A true violent Coup d'etat. I specifically use this term recognizing that Peter Dale Scott disagrees with the use of that term when applied to the JFK Assassination.

References:

1. Bernstein, Carl. “The CIA and the Media.” Rolling Stone, October 20, 1977
2. Boyle, Francis A. Biowarfare and Terrorism. (Atlanta Georgia: Clarity Press Inc., 2005).
3. Boyle, Francis A. Tackling America’s Toughest Questions. (Atlanta Georgia: Clarity Press Inc., 2009).
4. Crenshaw, Charles A. et.al. Trauma Room One: The JFK Medical Coverup Exposed. (New York: Paraview Press, 2001).
5. Di Eugenio, James and Lisa Pease, Editors. The Assassinations: Probe Magazine on JFK, MLK, RFK and Malcolm X. (Los Angeles: Feral House, 2003).
6. Douglas, James W. JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died & Why It Matters. (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2008).
7. Fetzer, James H., Editor. Assassination Science: Experts Speak Out on the Death of JFK. (Chicago: Catfeet Press, 1998).
8. Fetzer, James H., Editor. Murder in Dealey Plaza: What We Know Now that We Didn’t Know Then about the Death of JFK. (Chicago: Catfeet Press, 2000).
9. Fetzer, James H., Editor. The Great Zapruder Film Hoax: Deceit and Deception in the Death of JFK, (Chicago: Catfeet Press, 2003).
10. Fonzi, Gaeton. The Last Investigation. (Ipswich, Mass.: Mary Ferrell Foundation Press, 1993).
11. Hersh, Burton. The Old Boys: The American Elite and the Origins of the CIA. (New York: Scribner’s, 1992).
12. Horne, Douglas P. Inside the Assassination Records Review Board: The U.S. Government’s Final Attempt to Reconcile the Conflicting Medical Evidence in the Assassination of JFK, Volumes I-V, 2009).
13. Hurt, Henry. Reasonable Doubt. (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1985).
14. Lane, Mark. Plausible Denial: Was the CIA Involved in the Assassination of JFK? (New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press, 1991).
15. Lifton, David. Best Evidence: Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy. (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. 1980).
16. Livingstone, Harrison E. High Treason 2. (New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers Inc., 1992).
17. Livingstone, Harrison E. Killing Kennedy: And the Hoax of the Century. (New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers Inc., 1995).
18. Livingstone, Harrison E. Killing the Truth. Deceit and Deception in the JFK Case. New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers Inc., 1994).
19. Mangold, Tom. Cold Warrior: James Jesus Angleton: The CIA’ Master Spy Hunter. (New York: Simon and Shuster, 1992).
20. Meagher, Sylvia. Accessories After the Fact. (New York: Random House, 1975).
21. Melanson, Philip H. Spy Saga: Lee Harvey Oswald and U.S. Intelligence. (New York: Praeger, 1990).
22. Newman, John. Oswald and the CIA: The Documented Truth about the Unknown Relationship between the U.S. Government and the Alleged Killer of JFK. (New York: Carroll and Graf, 1995).
23. Prouty, L. Fletcher. JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy. (New York: Carroll Publishing Group, 1996).
24. Russell, Dick. The Man Who Knew Too Much. (New York: Carroll and Graf, 1992).
25. Scott, Peter Dale. Deep Politics and the Death of JFK. (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1993).
26. Scott, Peter Dale. Deep Politics II: The New Revelations in U.S. Government Files 1994-1995. (Ipswich, Mass: Mary Ferrell Foundation Press, 2003).
27. Talbot, David. Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years. (London: Simon and Schuster UK Ltd, 2007).
28. Thompson, Josiah. Six Seconds in Dallas: A Micro-study of the Kennedy Assassination Proving that Three Gunmen Murdered the President. (New York: Bernard Geis Associates, 1967).

"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

Oswald Innocent: The Four Books You MUST READ!

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.