Podcast & Book for "JFK INSIDE JOB"

[Richard Gilbride]

Alan Ford-

To finish up my response to your initial post, you allege:

- continued (i.e. willfully uncorrected) photo misidentification of Mr. Jack Dougherty

I don't know where you get this idea. Maybe because my only copy of that black & white news photo of Arce, Dougherty and Shelley on the Elm St. sidewalk (headed for police cars which are headed to DPD HQ) has a red ellipse around Shelley. I've drawn in a red arrow pointing to the blond-haired Dougherty.

His ID only started coming to light around 2012-13. Gary Mack agreed he was a blond guy, about 6'2", standing on the Depository sidewalk (with numerous other people) in a blowup of one of the Skaggs color crops. That black & white news photo made the rounds on the EdForum about that time. And Sean Murphy had located a photo of Dougherty from his Army Air Corps days- a closeup in uniform with the same facial bone structure as the black & white news photo. I came across that late one night while I was treasure-hunting the depths of this same jfkassassinationforum. I was struck enough at the time that I actually mailed a copy to Jim DiEugenio at his CTKA p.o. box.

I have never contended or implied that Dougherty is anyone but the blond-haired guy. It is your  attack-dog rabidness that invents motives for me that never existed, i.e. that I "willfully uncorrected" Dougherty's IDing.

- Misleading statement by Mr. Buell Wesley Frazier puts a paper gun sack in Mr. Oswald's hands the morning of 11/22/63

Again, I don't know where you get this idea, that I misled (or misconstrued) any aspect of Frazier's incriminating WC testimony that Oswald carried a long package (i.e. paper gunsack) while walking ahead of Frazier across the railyard and into the Depository. This account is completely cast in doubt on 3 successive occasions in Eddie Shields' HSCA interview, and that is what I draw attention to in my podcast.

-Pushing a kooky LHO doppelganger theory (Mr. Oswald's cousin, wouldn't ya know!)

Yes. I am firmly in the John Armstrong Harvey & Lee camp, and I brought up the identity of Leon Voitier- the cousin-  in reference to an Armstrong-derivative book Mistaken Identity the author Robert Doran sent me when he'd finished it in 2017. My essay-in-progress for this winter 2022 is an examination of that book- looking into the biological basis for that doppelganger. And Doran went especially deep into the military records and found indications that the cousins enlisted a few months apart, that there are dual dental records, and that there are two different Lee Harvey Oswald signatures (right in the military records in the Warren volumes!!). If you recall your Harvey & Lee material, which I assume you've read thoroughly, there was hard military-record evidence that LHO was being treated at Atsugi Hospital in Japan at the same time that he was stationed in Taiwan. And so I should have lots of fun with this 2022 essay, and I'm sure you'll read it through and through when it comes out.

-Misidentification of Mr. Danny Arce as Mr. Bill Shelley in the Couch film

Again, I have no idea where you come up with this. Arce, as publicized by James Richards back around 2006-07 in his essay Familiar Faces in Dealey Plaza is at the corner of the Dal-Tex in an enlargement of Altgens 6, the much-publicized throat-reaction photo.

Gerda Dunckel's film extraction shows two men walking rather quickly down the Elm St. Extension toward the grassy knoll. One of them unmistakeably is Lovelady-  the pattern of his plaid shirt matches what is seen in the Martin film, and you can even make out his bald spot (the relevant photos are on p. 6 at https://jfkinsidejob.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/TWO-BIG-PROBLEMS-WITH-THE-PASSENGER-ELEVATOR.pdf). The figure beside him sure resembles Shelley.

Shelley & Lovelady stood together on the front landing, and each would later describe walking together  down to the first railroad track. How in the blazes does Danny Arce get across Houston Street, quick enough to hook up with Lovelady? And for what purpose? That quick action wasn't inj a single one of his statements.

Shelley & Lovelady obfuscated their post-assassination reactions in their WC testimony, so as to deflect attention from the fact that they double-timed it down to that first railroad track. Arce also obfuscated his post-assassination reactions, so as to deflect attention from that corner of the Dal-Tex (https://jfkinsidejob.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/INSIDE-JOB.pdf at pp. 68-69)

The Dal-Tex Altgens blowup shows the same hair (with curlicue) eye cavities, pudgy cheeks and dark trenchcoat, i.e. that is Danny Arce at the corner of the Dal-Tex, and you don't have evidentiary justification for placing him beside Lovelady circa 15 seconds later. And also, Arce had a stout build, but that is a lean-built man next to Lovelady in the Couch film. Lean-built, like Shelley.

Next post: Welcome Barnett

[Alan Ford]

Alan Ford-

To finish up my response to your initial post, you allege:

- continued (i.e. willfully uncorrected) photo misidentification of Mr. Jack Dougherty

I don't know where you get this idea. Maybe because my only copy of that black & white news photo of Arce, Dougherty and Shelley on the Elm St. sidewalk (headed for police cars which are headed to DPD HQ)

The man you have identified as Mr Dougherty is a detective lol. Your 'research' is literally years out of date

- Misleading statement by Mr. Buell Wesley Frazier puts a paper gun sack in Mr. Oswald's hands the morning of 11/22/63

Again, I don't know where you get this idea, that I misled (or misconstrued) any aspect of Frazier's incriminating WC testimony that Oswald carried a long package (i.e. paper gunsack)

 

As you well know, Mr Frazier has consistently and steadfastly denied that the paper bag carried by Mr Oswald was anywhere near long enough to contain a rifle

-Pushing a kooky LHO doppelganger theory (Mr. Oswald's cousin, wouldn't ya know!)

Yes. I am firmly in the John Armstrong Harvey & Lee camp

Enough said!

-Misidentification of Mr. Danny Arce as Mr. Bill Shelley in the Couch film

Again, I have no idea where you come up with this. Arce, as publicized by James Richards back around 2006-07 in his essay Familiar Faces in Dealey Plaza is at the corner of the Dal-Tex in an enlargement of Altgens 6, the much-publicized throat-reaction photo.

Altgens and Couch are showing different times, duh. Mr Arce walked west immediately after the assassination, and he's the tall man in the black coat we see in Couch. Mr Lovelady can be seen in the Darnell film still standing in the doorway. Darnell was taken at the same time as Couch. Another issue you're years behind on

[Richard Gilbride]

John Iacolettit-

I don't recall Baker using the word "flinch" either. But it is accurate language to convey what happened- Oswald's face was seen inside the vestibule window, but then he walked away quickly enough for Baker to interpret that motion as suspicious, which justified giving chase to this man he'd seen.

Had Oswald stayed put, Baker had no cause to chase after him- whatever shock or schlock expression Oswald may have made at the first sight of this officer.

Only a few months ago did it dawn on me- while I was pondering this vestibule-window sighting again (after posting on Deep Politics about Wesley Frazier's recollection of a half-eaten cheese sandwich and apple on a table in the lunchroom) it finally dawned on me that Oswald flinched away intentionally, so as to draw Baker into the lunchroom, to divert the first police responder's attention away from the west freight elevator, which was just starting its descent.

Truly led the way upstairs (as planned) and Oswald knew there would be a policeman right behind him. His assignment, in the 2nd-floor lunchroom, was to bait the first responder inside. And Oswald fulfilled that task perfectly. The lunchroom encounter was a scene that Truly & Oswald were essentially play-acting, a scene they'd planned for beforehand. 

[Richard Gilbride]

As regards Welcome Barnett-

Thanks to Alan Ford for the link to Amy Pond's 2017 interview. Had I had that information for my 2015 essay Inside Job, I don't think I would have come down quite so hard on Welcome Barnett. But you misconstrue my take on his comment at the 2013 Daily Campus conference, that "I let the man who shot the President of the United States walk out the front door." The very next sentence in that Inside Job essay reads "He realized he was on the front landing at the same time as Oswald."

You make the allegation: "Now! What you did was take the line from Barnett out of context in order to pass it off as an admission that he went straight for the front door, where he encountered Mr. Oswald and let him leave."

Yes, I stand corrected, I took the line from Barnett out of context (somewhat). But nowhere did I state or imply that this was an admission he went straight for the front door. You are putting words in my mouth that I never spoke nor intended.

The critical question, which the Amy Pond interview didn't clarify, is that Barnett was on the front landing at the same time as Oswald. This was one import of the title of that first subsection of Inside Job- Down the Steps at 12:34. Not 12:33, as attributed by the Warren Commission.

From about 2:20-4:35, Barnett recounts how he initially ran for the back of the TSBD, then saw Baker pull up on his motorcycle, was directed by his sergeant for the front door, then bumped into Brennan, who told him what he'd seen. So his arrival at the front landing "took 3 minutes. We timed that. I did the whole thing again for the FBI. It took 3 minutes."

His 1964 testimony estimated this as "between 2 1/2 or 3 minutes... Three at the most".

And in 2017 at 8:10-8:50, Barnett was clearly under the impression that "Oswald had already walked out" of the TSBD, when he went to "secure the door... It always bothered me that I didn't get to the front door to start with to seal it off." And that is the proper context for which to interpret his statement at the 50th anniversary conference that "I let the man who shot the President of the United States walk out the front door." I mis-interpreted that in 2015, based on that sparse Daily Campus article.

What I didn't misinterpret is that several independent sources (Holmes' testimony, Jarman's HSCA interview, next-day reports in the London Free Press and Sydney Morning Herald) indicated that Oswald had an interaction on the front landing with a policeman before he left. Even Howard Brennan thought he'd been at that front landing area at the same time as Oswald.

Couple that with a micro-analysis of Pierce Allman's post-ambush reactions (by which we can set the Oswald-Allman encounter in the front lobby at 12:33:00), we have every right to conclude that Oswald's interaction on the front landing was with Welcome Barnett.

Barnett's initial minute on the front landing (if we are to believe Jarman especially, and Holmes, and the 2 newspaper reports) included allowing Oswald to walk down the front steps, on the authorization of Shelley, who vouched that he was alright, that he worked there.

I'm not saying Barnett had any idea who Oswald was at the time. But the indications are- in the early chaos of his first minute on the front landing- that he stopped Oswald, then let him go once Shelley vouched for him.

And that Barnett conveniently forgot about this incident when he filed a late after-action report, when he testified, and when he was interviewed by Amy Pond in 2017.

But the uncomfortable realization that he may have let Oswald walk away-  Barnett dismissed that, since it complicated the question of Oswald's departure, who, according to Brennan's memoir, "came out the front door of the Depository while I was trying to avoid the TV reporter."

[Alan Ford]

As regards Welcome Barnett-

Thanks to Alan Ford for the link to Amy Pond's 2017 interview. Had I had that information for my 2015 essay Inside Job, I don't think I would have come down quite so hard on Welcome Barnett. But you misconstrue my take on his comment at the 2013 Daily Campus conference, that "I let the man who shot the President of the United States walk out the front door." The very next sentence in that Inside Job essay reads "He realized he was on the front landing at the same time as Oswald."

You make the allegation: "Now! What you did was take the line from Barnett out of context in order to pass it off as an admission that he went straight for the front door, where he encountered Mr. Oswald and let him leave."

Yes, I stand corrected, I took the line from Barnett out of context (somewhat). But nowhere did I state or imply that this was an admission he went straight for the front door. You are putting words in my mouth that I never spoke nor intended.

Huh? You tried to pass his comment off as a crucially revealing off-script admission that he went to the front door quickly enough to be there when Mr Oswald was coming through the front door. Good to see that we both now agree that this was a complete misreading of his comment

The critical question, which the Amy Pond interview didn't clarify, is that Barnett was on the front landing at the same time as Oswald. This was one import of the title of that first subsection of Inside Job- Down the Steps at 12:34. Not 12:33, as attributed by the Warren Commission.

From about 2:20-4:35, Barnett recounts how he initially ran for the back of the TSBD, then saw Baker pull up on his motorcycle, was directed by his sergeant for the front door, then bumped into Brennan, who told him what he'd seen. So his arrival at the front landing "took 3 minutes. We timed that. I did the whole thing again for the FBI. It took 3 minutes."

His 1964 testimony estimated this as "between 2 1/2 or 3 minutes... Three at the most".

And in 2017 at 8:10-8:50, Barnett was clearly under the impression that "Oswald had already walked out" of the TSBD, when he went to "secure the door... It always bothered me that I didn't get to the front door to start with to seal it off." And that is the proper context for which to interpret his statement at the 50th anniversary conference that "I let the man who shot the President of the United States walk out the front door." I mis-interpreted that in 2015, based on that sparse Daily Campus article.

Thank you, Mr Gilbride

What I didn't misinterpret is that several independent sources (Holmes' testimony, Jarman's HSCA interview, next-day reports in the London Free Press and Sydney Morning Herald) indicated that Oswald had an interaction on the front landing with a policeman before he left. Even Howard Brennan thought he'd been at that front landing area at the same time as Oswald.

Oh, but you are misinterpreting the multiply attested fact by leaving out a critical detail: Mr Oswald had an interaction at the front entrance with a policeman and Mr Truly. The reason you leave this 'detail' out is that it points compellingly to the scenario that the front entrance was the place where the actual LHO-Baker-Truly encounter happened.

Officer Baker (and this interaction was seen by Mr Billy Lovelady) asked Mr Oswald if he worked there because he wanted someone who knew the building to show him to the nearest stairs. Mr Truly then came up and offered to show the way.

Why, DPD told the press all about this within-seconds-of-the-assassination front-door encounter that same day--------------and only changed their line after the lunchroom fairytale was invented to deprive Mr Oswald (an employee who claimed truthfully that he "went outside to watch P. Parade" AFTER buying a Coca-Cola in the second floor lunchroom) of his alibi for the shooting.

Once again--------you staked all on the historicity of the lunchroom story, to the point where not even the revelation (in 2019) of Mr Oswald's own alibi claim (that he "went outside to watch P. Parade" AFTER coming back downstairs from his PRE-Parade second-floor-lunchroom Coke purchase) can give you pause. Sad!

[Jerry Freeman]

I guess you just only have to look like Secret Service-----

Mr. BELIN - It had already been sealed off?
Mr. HARKNESS - There was two officers with Inspector Sawyer at the front.
Mr. BELIN - Were they stopping people from going in and out?
Mr. HARKNESS - I don't know.
Mr. BELIN - You don't know?
Mr. HARKNESS - No, sir; I don't know that, because I didn't go up and talk to them. 
Mr. BELIN - Did you notice whether or not people were coming in and out of the building?
Mr. HARKNESS - No. I was interested in getting around to the back of the building to make sure it was. [To make sure it was what?]
Mr. BELIN - Then am I correct that your testimony is that you didn't notice whether people were coming in and out? Did you notice, or did you not notice whether people were coming out of the building at that time?
Mr. HARKNESS - Several officers at the area, and it was a lot of people around. I don't know whether they were going in or out or not. I couldn't say that.
Mr. BELIN - Then you went around to the back of the building?
Mr. HARKNESS - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Was anyone around in the back when you got there?
Mr. HARKNESS - There were some Secret Service agents there. I didn't get them identified. They told me they were Secret Service.
Mr. BELIN - Then did you say around the back of the building?
Mr. HARKNESS - Yes; I stayed at the back until the squad got there.

Stanley- why can't you be more attentive?

[Mark A. Oblazney]

My schism with the community has essentially been the result of my in-your-face refutation of the lunchroom hoax propagandists Sean Murphy, Greg Parker, Bart Kamp, Jim DiEugenio. Not only did Officer Marrion Baker talk about the lunchroom encounter with Detective Marvin Johnson, adding that he searched the suspect, immediately after composing his affidavit; Oswald himself told his interrogators he had been in the lunchroom alone at the time of the assassination (see part 5 of The Men Who Killed Kennedy for Agent Hosty's attestion of that, at 17:00). Yet these hoax proponents build their theory around the numerous errors that arose from the numerous retellings of this lunchroom incident over the years, as if they're congenitally unable to process information that refutes their belief system. They have shown themselves incapable of admitting their error, and have successfully bullied dissenting arguments off of the EdForum, with the inside assistance of their cohort moderator James Gordon. Not only am I banned from that forum, but so is mention of my name and my research. And, with a contrived persona that I am the bad guy in this lunchroom "debate", I am ignored by Lancer and C.A.P.A. and other public venues such as Black OP radio. And so I end up having to publicize my TSBD research on my own dime and with whatever resources I can muster. The two curious behaviors of the Depository elevators are a rosetta stone of what happened in Dealey Plaza, and nobody in this JFK research community has been able to put together a counter-argument to my central thesis (employee complicity), and I have been writing about just that for a dozen solid years.

"I believe you, Richard"______  Olliber Stowne, jest like he said to Judit.......  sigh+

[Denis Pointing]

I watched the video. I liked your speech at the end. I can see the case means a lot to you. How come you consider yourself radioactive to the old guard in the research community? Is there something in your research fundamentally against their idea of the case?

What Gilbride isn't telling you is that the reason many in the CT community shun him is that he believes JFK's assassination is linked to flying sauces and alien beings. IOW, Gilbride is a kook and an embarrassment to any serious researcher.

https://books.google.nl/books?id=SC-wBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA180&lpg=PA180&dq=Richard+Gilbride+aliens&source=bl&ots=egYL2wKJMz&sig=ACfU3U1TOmF0jYPmEeSLR2BiNt89J1GT2A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjKmafz0tn1AhXCNuwKHZmECi4Q6AF6BAgOEAM#v=onepage&q=Richard%20Gilbride%20aliens&f=false