Evidence of Revision: MLK

[82_28]

Just finished RFK. Did anybody else sob through that? That is singlehandedly the most powerful collection of film I have ever seen.

[AlicetheKurious]

Just bumping it so I don't have to keep looking for it each time. And to save others the trouble as well, of course! I'm on Part 3.

[chump]

I'm relieved to see these comments. I've seen this video mentioned before, and although I only began posted here fairly recently, I have mentioned it myself numerous times. I thought people had seen it and it failed to make an impression. It certainly was stunning to me. I'm surprized that so many people here are just now getting around to seeing this. How did you like Roger Craig? What a story! One of many!

I knew a lot about JFK, didn't know much at all about RFK, and really nothing about Jonestown until I saw this video. The sixth part about MLK is great too: William Pepper's story about the cabbie and his passenger who saw the real shooter; and an actual picture of MLK's assassin getting into a police car! Even if you are aware of all this stuff, Evidence of Revision masterfully illustrates the dark and devious nature of our "leadership".

[streeb]

... the Raul-Jack Ruby connection is a mindblower. Interesting that (Ray's lawyer) Pepper seemed reluctant to go there at first. (on edit) which isn't to imply he wanted to frame the story in a particular way, just that he realized it would look so implausible to the outside world (I think). Pepper appears to be an incredibly brave individual.

[Nordic]

OK, my turn to bump it so I can more easily find it later. Must find time to watch this!

[StarmanSkye]

There's so much information in these vids that rewards periodic reviewing with an expanded perspective and additional insights on how extensive the conspiracy of organized crime involving some of the same key players has been in the major events of the 60s, 70s and even 80s. It's impossible to really understand the mechanism of special interest domination and corporate subversion of American government, control of its economy and domestic/foreign policy without an overview which this series provides. An important addition to this series is information linking the Bush dynasty to both JFK assassination and 911.

But let me throw this out there for anyone to tackle: I've developed my own possible theories but am interested in seeing if they are credible to the extent that someone else would also hit on the same explanation independantly, without being led. Or maybe provide a more compelling answer.

One of the things I've been puzzled by is how the JFK planners could have insured Oswald wouldn't inadvertantly sabotage his role as a patsy. This required he be on the 6th floor of the TSBD, unobserved and alone so no one could provide him with an alibi, during the crucial minutes before, during and after Kennedy was shot at 12:30 pm. Apparently, TSBD employee Bonnie Ray Williams left the sixth floor after his lunch break, leaving a paper sack of chicken bones, about 12:15-12:20 to join other workers on the fifth floor watching the motorcade. About the same time, employee Carolyn Arnold saw LHO in the 2nd floor lunchroom eating his lunch at 12:15.

Any thoughts on how the plotters could have insured LHO would be alone and unseen at the time of the shooting so no one could contradict his being framed, or conclusively saying he wasn't on the 6th floor during the shooting?

Thanks.

[MacCruiskeen]

Any thoughts on how the plotters could have insured LHO would be alone and unseen at the time of the shooting so no one could contradict his being framed, or conclusively saying he wasn't on the 6th floor during the shooting?

Thanks.

Maybe he was expecting someone to meet him there? Maybe he was simply given a one-man job to do on his own while the other workers were reliably assigned elsewhere? (Just brainstorming here. Were his colleagues and bosses ever interviewed about the actual work-schedule in the TSBD on that day?)

Apparently, TSBD employee Bonnie Ray Williams left the sixth floor after his lunch break, leaving a paper sack of chicken bones, about 12:15-12:20 to join other workers on the fifth floor watching the motorcade. About the same time, employee Carolyn Arnold saw LHO in the 2nd floor lunchroom eating his lunch at 12:15.

This in itself is strange. Oswald is allegedly preparing to kill a President, and yet he has the time & leisure & peace of mind (and strength of stomach!) to sit in a canteen four floors below, placidly eating lunch, only 15 minutes before the motorcade passes? What nonchalance! And how could he be sure the motorcade wouldn't arrive a little earlier? (Also, and not to put too fine a point on it: what if he'd needed to take a shit immediately after lunch?)

It reminds me of Atta and Omari calmly driving to Portland and then taking the plane back to Boston the next morning, thereby making the connecting "suicide" flight to LA with only minutes to spare.

ON EDIT: If it's not already obvious, I have no detailed knowledge of the JFK assassination. For years, I avoided it like the plague. I have never read a whole book about it, for instance.

[brainpanhandler]

Maybe he was simply given a one-man job to do on his own while the other workers were reliably assigned elsewhere?

Perhaps ironically he was given a task on the floor which had the worst view of the passing motorcade so as to insure that when the tsbd employees predictably gathered somewhere in the building to watch the motorcade they would go somewhere other than the 6th floor.

[streeb]

In general, as I understand it, Oswald would be following a schedule determined by his simultaneous Intelligence or whatever-it-was role. That is, he was where he was told to be at any given moment on that day. His behaviour at the Texas Theatre, fruitlessly going from seat to seat, indicates that he was supposed to meet somebody there. Whereupon the Dallas police flood through the door, and the other Oswald - who shot Tippit - leaves through the back.

Naturally, the controllers can't control everything, and witnesses emerged to defy the official rundown of events. But that's what the cover-up is for.

[sunny]

In general, as I understand it, Oswald would be following a schedule determined by his simultaneous Intelligence or whatever-it-was role. That is, he was where he was told to be at any given moment on that day. His behaviour at the Texas Theatre, fruitlessly going from seat to seat, indicates that he was supposed to meet somebody there. Whereupon the Dallas police flood through the door, and the other Oswald - who shot Tippit - leaves through the back.

Naturally, the controllers can't control everything, and witnesses emerged to defy the official rundown of events. But that's what the cover-up is for.

I've often wondered if he realized he was a patsy while still at the Book Depository. He had to know the movements he had been directed to take for several years would make him a suspect in the assassination, and then we have the possible warning note to Hosty about a plot. If he did know immediately he had been set up his having an assignation in the theatre with one a handler would be exactly the wrong thing to do if he was trying to evade being captured and quietly "dealt with". Was he hanging on to the last vestiges of trust in his handlers or was he trying to be caught in a populated theatre and at least minimally protected from the forces seeking to frame him?

[streeb]

I've often wondered if he realized he was a patsy while still at the Book Depository. He had to know the movements he had been directed to take for several years would make him a suspect in the assassination, and then we have the possible warning note to Hosty about a plot. If he did know immediately he had been set up his having an assignation in the theatre with one a handler would be exactly the wrong thing to do if he was trying to evade being captured and quietly "dealt with". Was he hanging on to the last vestiges of trust in his handlers or was he trying to be caught in a populated theatre and at least minimally protected from the forces seeking to frame him?

Of course, or at least most probably, we'll never know. He pulled a gun in the theatre (but it jammed). Why?? I suppose you could speculate that this was to guarantee his arrest and the minimal protection of the DP. But why the reportedly furtive search for his handler?

The earlier Chicago plot was foiled by an informant known only as 'Lee'. I think it was Secret Serviceman Abe Bolden who first suggested that 'Lee' was Oswald. If so, then Oswald must have known he was in deep in Dallas.

And then there's Richard Case Nagell, who claimed that the KGB ordered him to tell Oswald he was being set-up.

[Joe Hillshoist]

bump

[StarmanSkye]

Thanks for bumping this Joe. I REALLY meant to get-back before now and respond to those who graciously responded with suggestions to my question about how the JFK-hit/Johnson-coup perps could have insured Oswald wouldn't have inadvertantly sabotaged his usefulness as a patsy. They had to somehow make sure he was alone and unobserved in the moments just before and during the shots fired at JFK at 12:30.

Mac wrote: "Maybe he was expecting someone to meet him there? Maybe he was simply given a one-man job to do on his own while the other workers were reliably assigned elsewhere? (Just brainstorming here. Were his colleagues and bosses ever interviewed about the actual work-schedule in the TSBD on that day?)"

I've never rigorously studied the JFK assassination -- I managed to be pretty informed by watching every video documentary I could find and many dozens of articles and even some JFK conspiracy blogs (plus just about everything on JFK on RI, of course!) and I don't recall anyone ever making an issue of Oswald's job that day. He was reliably seen in the lunchroom until about 12:15, and next about 90 seconds after the shots, apparently non-plussed despite the extreme effort and stress it would have taken to have stashed the gun and run down 4 floor of stairs (apparently having to pass a couple secretaries on the way, if that evidence is true).

At first I merely thought as you suggested, Oswald had been given a particular task to keep him occupied on the sixth floor, like perhaps told to watch the motorcade closely and photograph it because his CIA or FBI or ONI et al. handlers were expecting a possible assassination attempt, perhaps by disgruntled, out-of-control anti-Castro fighters from the gang of freedom fighters the CIA had been training for another attack on Castro's forces, left-over from the Bay of Pigs and/or being used to foment civil strife in South America. But then, there would be the loose-end smoking-gun of a camera for the follow-on Dallas police, Secret Service, FBI or CIA investigators to cover-up or hide or accidently find. Maybe he was just told to watch and wait for instructions? But then there'd still be the risk of his being interrupted and a worker being able to say, 'No, he didn't shoot nothing.' Unless the plan was to eliminate any contradictory witnesses. Or maybe Oswald was just told to stay out of sight in the bathroom during the magic-minutes. But in which case he would have had to be in close communication with a handler, to advise him when to 'disappear' as the motorcade approached -- the schedule being impossible to know to precision. Unless the driver of the Presidential limo, Greer, was in on the plot and arranged to be on-spot on-time. He was probably a confederate as witnesses spoke of the car braking until the fatal headshot -- and he never publicly testified about multiple shots, such as hitting the windshield and horizontal roof-post.

And then, HOW could the perps have insured the fellow workers wouldn't hang-out on the 6th floor watching the motorcade? Was it Oswald's task to make sure the floor was deserted? It's very odd the only worker to eat his lunch on the 6th floor finished and then went to the 5th floor to watch the motorcade with the other guys. He never testified that Oswald told or suggested him to go below.

WHY didn't the perps set-up a fake sniper's nest on the roof, or the 7th floor, and then have Oswald go there on a pretext of photographing or watching, eliminating ALL risk of exposure?

Could the perps just have banked on human nature, that no one would be wandering around or out-of-place just-before and during the fatal shooting, who would have stumbled on something to disprove Oswald's patsy role? Seems like a pretty shaky what-if risk-aversion strategy to me, esp. for the kind of expert planners-and-killers the perps were.

The only constant point here leads back to a cover-up with numerous hooks that discredit inconvenient witnesses. Like I doubt Oswald killed Officer Tippets -- that was probably staged to provide the incentive for Oswald being gunned-down in the theatre where he was conveniently found.


If nobody has seen it yet, I recommend the vid 'The many faces of Lee Henry Oswald' http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 7322768943

which raises a lot of interesting points and speculation about numerous substitute Oswalds and secret intelligence roles (Hoover's FBI files reveal that Oswald was trained & sent to the USSR -- he was NOT a defector), and speculates that Officer Roscoe White may have been used to fabricate the notorious backyard photos and to shoot Officer Tippets -- as well as sharing Oswald's Navy Intelligence ties.
Apparently after his death White's son found a diary of his dad's pointing to this, causing him to reveal his dad's hidden role -- tho on further investigation the 'proof' was discreditted, ie. the diary was found to be a 'fake'.

Or was that 'another' cover-up?

Thanks all for the suggestions.

[whipstitch]

Was away camping last week. Nice to see that people are appreciating this video series.

I'll have to watch that Faces of Oswald video you linked, Mac.

Regarding Oswald, I've always thought the whole capture in the theater episode was bizarre. Why would he carry a gun in there? And with a bunch of policemen converging on him why would he pull it out? And why throw a punch at one of them? That he tried to fire the gun seems almost surely inaccurate - that would be suicide. That whole scene as described just doesn't make much sense. I have a feeling we're not getting an accurate story about what happened - although there were quite a few witnesses - not just the cops.

[Nordic]

I just have to say I just finished part II and can only say .... WOW.

I was a bit underwhelmed by the first, but the second was quite compelling and revelatory.

As far as Oswald, well he was living a completely different plot, wasn't he? A fictional plot, as it turned out, one where he believed he had a completely different role than he really did. He followed whatever orders he was given, so I don't see how it's an issue.

The only question is when did he realize he was a patsy. At one point he yells it to journalists in the hallway, not long before he was murdered.