PROTECTAUS (a review of his youtube videos )

[fobrien1]

PROTECTAUS (a review of his youtube videos )

i always say THE TRUTH REQUIRES NO LIES , what i mean is that if you really seek the truth and you tell the truth to the very best of your knowledge well then you will and should have NO FEAR of the truth . and thus you should have no need to bend , twist , alter , omit the truth or TO LIE .

not every LN (lone nut believer is a liar ) so lets be clear on that , some are good guys , but they have the same problem as the bad guys which is that they have aligned them selves with a LONE NUT scenario that has a great many problems . in essence they have dug them selves into a hole , as they say some times in a journey you get to a point so far that it may be easier just to carry on and keep going rather than to turn back .

to that end and having had many discussions with LNs ive yet to encounter a single one (even of the few more reasonable ones ) that can or will admit that they are wrong on any aspect . the commission was not perfect BUT PRETTY MUCH THEY GOT IT RIGHT . thats about the best you will get . but lets discuss one of the worst LN cases .

protectaus has made and uploaded quite a few videos on youtube . and as with another LN video uploader (james k lambert) who's video i reviewed in another post here has a penchant for deleting posts that prove him or his video wrong . not every post gets deleted as he (unlike the other LN mentioned james lambert ) has multiple videos to monitor not just one . by the way i have been informed that protectaus posts on the jfkassassination forum under a different name (you cant use nick names there or aliases ) likely his real name , i did bring that up on one of his video threads and lets just say he never denied it .

as with james our friend protectaus invited anyone WHO COULD to dispute his video with facts , and as with james he must have thought that no one would or could review a 30 minute video . well i did , he didnt care for that as he attacked me , and i got the usual insults and found my posts rebutting his video and him disappearing . THE FUNNY and laughable thing is that having done that he tried to claim that he offered to debate with me and that i refused lol , so i posted and naturally refuted that nonsense and basically said LETS DO IT . lol it never happened , thats probably because i said I FIRST WANT HIM TO ADDRESS THE FACTS I POSTED AND MY  REFUTATION OF CLAIMS THAT HE MADE IN HIS VIDEO . he decided VERY WISELY i think that he didnt want to go there . as i said above if you speak the truth , post the truth and indeed make videos of the truth then you will have and should have nothing to fear from the truth . so what is protectaus worried about ? lets see.

lets start with the above video . now the truth also does not require sound effects or nasty images to strengthen it , the truth is the truth . if you view the above video you will notice as is the case with all protectaus videos that he uses eerie music and nasty images a lot that may have nothing to do with oswald or this case . he also uses anything and everything at his disposal to try and make oswald look like a guilty nut .

if you watch the above video even in just the first 2 minutes you will notice the use of eerie music , this is to make oswalds childhood appear to be the catalyst that made lee into a crazy assassin . most lone nuts usually also cite a certain dr hertzog to assert that the young oswald was violent and that hertzog believed back then that oswald could in affect be a violent killer . the problem is that the warren commission itself decided that the good doctor couldnt be relied upon and they didnt . but they tend to omit that snippet of info .

at about 1.40 of the video protectaus mentions oswalds fathers death , and he shows a picture of mean looking ray winstone from the prison movie scum . im at a loss as to what a uk movie about a borstall has to do with oswalds childhood unless protectaus is using this nonsense to lay the tracks to what ever nonsense he has to come . oswald was for a time in a home , that would be to understate tho i think . it was more a young offenders institution that housed youths that had been extremely violent and even killed . oswald WAS NOT in there for those reasons , he was placed in a home simply because his mother (a widow ) had to work to provide for her and oswald (so she wasnt around as much as she could otherwise have been ) , and that often involved moving home . any young child will struggle with such home movement as it means losing your young friends and going to new schools where you are the new guy and a stranger . and as oswald found he stood out even more because he was a southern boy with an accent . YOU KNOW WHAT YOUNG KIDS CAN BE LIKE .

so oswald played truant , which means he would pretend to go to school , so his mother thought he was at school but some times he was not . this led to oswald being placed in the above home (which would never be allowed these days ) AND YES it was not a nice place . oswald was scared in there and said so because he was in there with boys who were violent or who had killed and he begged to be taken out of there . so contrary to the BORSTAL BOY view that protectaus is trying to give his viewers where an angry oswald was locked up leading to his becoming the assassin to be the young oswald was only there because of being truant and because his mother ( a widow ) struggled to work and look after him . as soon as she could and as soon as she learned about the violent boys in there she took her son out .

you will learn to expect the same old same old with protectaus , so you are going to see such things as HE WAS A BURDEN TO HIS MOTHER , this is the same mother who wept over his grave and who worked untill her death to clear his name . the same mother who did not know how bad the home mentioned above was and who took her son out of at the first opportunity that arose . our LN friends will say that SHE FORCED the 13 year old oswald to sleep with her in her bed , and as with most LN claims they end up being half truths at best . mrs oswald cpould only afford a one bedroom , so thats why oswald slept with his mother for a short period BECAUSE THEY HAD ONLY ONE BEDROOM AND ONE BED .

[fobrien1]

you will notice and its blatant that even as early as less than 2 minutes 30 of the video that protectaus has made a blatant effort to get in and HIGHLIGHT the use of the word LONER .ever viewed a prosecution ? well protecaus is giving us a prosecution brief as such TO GET US THINKING THE WAY HE WANTS US TO THINK rather than giving us all the true and accurate facts and allowing us to decide for ourselves what the truth is . so he has to lay the LONER lone nut tracks lol .


in the segment with oswalds fellow pupils i see no mention of how he was mocked and taunted over his accent . yes oswald was quiet , we are not all the same , some people are extrovert and some introvert and some in between . but protectaus uses this as the first line of tracks in his LONER lone nut scenario.

next at about 2.20 in the video he uses probation officer john carro . so where is protectaus going with this ? well he is trying to get dr hertzogs discredited claims in via the back door , remember i mentioned the good doctor above who even the commission them selves refuted ? . yes the same doctor .


"Lee Harvey Oswald had a probation officer in New York by the age of 13.  The probation officer’s name was John Carro who due to Oswald’s truancy and lack of social skills, took his case to the Bronx Children’s Court. There, four judges, 3 of which recommended psychiatric care, decided to send him to the Youth House for Boys in the Bronx. (this is the home i mentioned earlier that housed violent criminals and oswald was placed there simply for truancy) .   Dr. Renatus Hartogs, the Chief Psychiatrist, found that Oswald had schizophrenic tendencies and was “potentially dangerous.” " gayle nix


it needs SERIOUS NOTING here that thus far also protectaus makes NO MENTION AT ALL of oswalds dyslexia , he did make a point of pointing out oswalds poor spelling but made no mention as to why he might have had poor spelling . well if you want to produce a video showing an illiterate , poorly educated truant young boy locked up in a home ,a loner with no friends who wanted to be a someone and who would later be accused of killing jfk well then MENTIONING SUCH FACTS WOULDNT TEND TO HELP YOU .

the FACT is that we are talking 1950s and oswald had dyslexia , these days schools and teachers know about such things and they help the kids with it , we are talking about the late 40s and early 50s a whole different world . his classmates certainly mocked and taunted him over his accent and im betting over his poor spelling and writing , so he withdrew from them . i know people who went to school in the 40s and 50s who were beaten senseless by teachers because they were left handed , it was viewed as some sort of abnormal problem (the warped logic being that right handers are normal ) that had to be solved rather than the perfectly natural thing that it was . i know a man (he is naturally left handed) who was beaten and forced to write with and use his right hand , such were the beatings that he did learn to use his right hand quite well . so we are talking about a whole different world back then all be it im sure every country was some what different .

at 3 minutes in protectaus is on to the political oswald . we are talking about the 50s anti communist witch hunt era (and they were witch hunts ) , one (even a teen boy ) could hardly avoid knowing about about what was going on and even have views about it .

next at about 3 minutes in protectaus is in violent lee oswald mode (HE PULLED A KNIFE ON JON PICS WIFE ) . the story goes (the LN version that is ) that oswald and his mother came to stay briefly with john pic and his wife . the story goes that mrs oswald was slowly turning oswald against pic and his wife culminating in oswald pulling a knife on pics wife .

Mrs.OSWALD (oswalds mother ) . Yes, I do. I am glad you said that. My daughter-in-law was very upset. The very first time we went there--I stated before, and I am glad I said that--that we were not welcome. And immediately it was asked what did we plan to do, as soon as we put our foot in the house.. And I had made it plain to John Edward that I was going to have a place of my own, that we were just coming there to get located. My daughter-in-law resented the fact that her mother--this went on before I got there that her mother had to leave the house and go visit a sister so I could come, John Edward's mother.

Mrs, OSWALD . We were not wanted, sir, from the very beginning. So there was, I think now--it was not a kitchen knife it was a little pocket knife, a child's knife, that Lee had. So she hit Lee. So Lee had the knife-now, I remember this distinctly, because I remember how awful I thought Marjory was about this. Lee had the knife in his hand. He was whittling, because John Edward whittled ships and taught Lee to whittle ships. He puts them in the glass, you know. And he was whittling when this incident occurred. And that is what it occurred about, because there was scraps of the wood on the floor."


PAINTS A VERY DIFFERENT PICTURE TO THE ONE PROTECTAUS AND OTHER LNs PRESENT DOESNT IT ? . and one omitted in this video.

the commission and indeed our LN friends prefer john pics version , and bearing in mind john pic was not even there and so never saw the incident at all , he merely took his wifes side and word . a wife who did not want them in her mothers home to begin with .


Mr. PIC - Well, sir; it wasn't but a matter of days before I could sense they moved in to stay for good, and this not being my apartment, but my mother-in-law's apartment, my wife kind of frowned upon this a little bit. We didn't really mind as long as my mother-in-law wasn't there, but she was due back in a matter of a month or so.
During my leave I was under the impression that I may get out of the service in January of 1953, when my enlistment was up, so I went around to several colleges. My mother drove me to these colleges, Fordham University, for one, and Brooklyn, some college in Brooklyn, a couple of other ones I inquired about. I remember one conversation in the car that she reminded me that even though Margy was my wife, she wasn't quite as good as I was, and things like this. She didn't say too many good things about my wife. Well, naturally, I resented this, because I put my wife before my mother any day.
Things were pretty good during the time I was on leave. When I went back to work I would come home my wife would tell me about some little problem they would have. The first problem that I recollect was that there was no support for the grocery bill whatsoever. I don't think I was making more than $150 a month, and they were eating up quite a bit, and I just casually mentioned that and my mother got very much upset about it. So every night I got home and especially the nights I was away and I would come home the next day my wife would have more to tell me about the little arguments. It seems it is my wife's impression that whenever there was an argument that my mother antagonized Lee towards hostility against my wife.
My wife liked Lee. My wife and I had talked several times that it would be nice if Lee would stay with us alone, and we wouldn't mind having him But we never bothered mentioning this because we knew it was an impossibility.
It got toward schooltime and they had their foothold in the house and he was going to enroll in the neighborhood school, and they planned to stay with us, and I didn't much like this. We couldn't afford to have them, and took him up to enroll in this school.
Mr. JENNER - You did?
Mr. PIC - No, sir; my mother did. I think this is a public school in New York City located on about 89th, 90th Street between Third Avenue and Second Avenue. Lee didn't like this school. I didn't much blame him.
Mr. ELY - When you visited these colleges, had you received credit for finishing high school somehow?
Mr. PIC - No.
Mr. JENNER - Did you hear anything to the effect that the reason why your mother and Lee had come to New York had anything to do with Lee's being given some sort of mental tests?
Mr. PIC - No, sir.
Mr. JENNER - Was there a period of time just before the enrollment of Lee in the New York Public School, that he attended for about a month a Lutheran denominational school?
Mr. PIC - I don't know, sir. I am not up to that yet.
Mr. JENNER - I see. All right.
Mr. PIC - At about the same time that Lee was enrolled in school that we had the big trouble. It seems that there was an argument about the TV set one day, and--between my wife and my mother. It seems that according to my wife's statement that my mother antagonized Lee, being very hostile toward my wife and he pulled out a pocketknife and said that if she made any attempt to do anything about it that he would use it on her, at the same time Lee struck his mother. This perturbed my wife to no end. So, I came home that night, and the facts were related to me.
Mr. JENNER - When the facts were related to you was your mother present, Lee present, your wife present? If not, who was present?
Mr. PIC - I think my wife told me this in private, sir. I went and asked my mother about it.
Mr. JENNER - Your mother was home?
Mr. PIC - Yes, sir; she was home.
Mr. JENNER - You went and spoke with your mother?
Mr. PIC - Yes, sir.
Mr. JENNER - Was Lee present when you spoke to your mother?
Mr. PIC - No, sir.
Mr. JENNER - What did you say to your mother and what did she say to you?
Mr. PIC - I asked her about the incident and she attempted to brush it off as not being as serious as my wife put it. That Lee did not pull a pocketknife on her. That they just had a little argument about what TV channel they were going to watch. Being as prejudiced as I am I rather believed my wife rather than my mother.
Mr. JENNER - Did you speak to Lee about the incident?
Mr. PIC - I am getting to that, sir. So I approached Lee on this subject, and about the first couple of words out of my wife he became real hostile toward me, and let me get my notes on it. When this happened it perturbed my wife so much that she told them they are going to leave whether they liked it or not, and I think Lee had the hostility toward my wife right then and there, when they were getting thrown out of the house as they put it.


so there we have it , the word of a man who never saw the incident is accepted by LNs and LN authors and the commission , AND LETS IGNORE THE WORD OF SOMEONE WHO WAS THERE . and he (pic) by his own admission was going to take the word of his wife (who admittedly did not want lee and his mother there ) over his mother every time . its interesting also to note that pic said above that there were no issues at all while he was there . LNs of course believe they have a right to ignore and dismiss any witness , as with mrs oswald they just label her crazy lady and that logic is all that is required to ignore , to dismiss or attack her . jon pics wife to my knowledge atleast has not got her version of events recorded , nor that im aware did she dispute mrs oswalds version . IS THIS REALLY HOW PEOPLE RESEARCH ? .

so why do LNs (and protectaus) feel its important to say that oswald pulled a knife on pics wife even tho any proof of this is lacking ? . well its LAYING THOSE TRACKS . they start by telling you he had a poor childhood , then that he was truant and getting in trouble and angry and then locked up , and then that he started pulling knives SO WHY ? well the knife incident is being used to say HE HAD A PROPENSITY FOR VIOLENCE buts omit to mention that he had no previous violence or after well atleast up to the so called walker incident .

its walker (general walker ) syndrome , remember him ? oswald was accused AFTER HIS DEATH of trying to shoot walker . that was used as a vehicle to state that he had shown a previous PROPENSITY FOR VIOLENCE (with a rifle ) see ? laying the tracks . those tracks just keep getting laid even if there is nothing of value (evidence / proof wise ) at the end of the journey , its just to get you the viewer / reader to think the way THEY WANT YOU TO THINK , god forbid you did your own thinking .

my point being is that people need to understand the LN logic and see when they are being led up a garden path . 

at the 3 minute or so mark our friend protectaus uses another scene from some movie to depict an incident THAT NEVER HAPPENED , he has a young boy burying a knife in a door . as i said LAYING THE TRACKS an affect designed to make you think the way he wants you to think so that YOU WONT USE YOUR OWN BRAIN AND DO YOUR OWN THINKING .

at 4 minutes plus the video states that oswald at el toro was a radar operator and makes a point of highlighting THE LOWEST SECURITY RATING . oswald would later be stationed as a radar operator at atsugi  a high security clearance position as it involved such things as tracking the top secret U2 spy flights . i wonder at the end of the video will that have been mentioned ? , if not we can know why , its because the tone of the video is to tone DOWN anything good that may make him look innocent and to highlight anything bad at all no matter how minor that might make him look guilty . in fact protectaus did mention the top secret atsugi base but didnt mention oswalds top security clearance . as per the usual protectaus ONLY WENT THERE so he could claim that oswald knew little about the U2 , PLAYING DOWN ANYTHING GOOD AND HIGHLIGHTING ANYTHING THAT LOOKS BAD . as oswald had top security clearance and monitored the u2 that means he knew far more than a lot of people knew about the u2 .

lets move on . so now we are on to OSWALD WAS A GOOD SHOOTER . a sharpshooter no less (the second highest level ) , and yes at one point he did BARELY qualify at that level and only after weeks of intensive practice , after that he just barely qualified at the lower level of marksman . the best people to learn from about oswalds shooting ability is his fellow marines

in the above interview mr delgado highlights a few things , one being that LONER oswald GOT ON VERY WELL WITH ALL OF HIS FELLOW MARINES . again i doubt protectaus will bother to mention that or to mention that mr delgado said that oswald had maggies drawers atleast 3 in 10 shots , meaning that he completely missed the STATIONARY target atleast once in every 3 . but it also indicates that he wasnt quite as proficient even then as we were led to believe . by the time of the assassination 4 years later atleast there was no proof that oswald had even fired a rifle or practiced . unless you believe the word of marina oswald , but she is a story all by her self for later on .

protectaus did show mr delgado briefly but neither of the above 2 points were mentioned .

at 5.31 the video says oswald started making trouble with his superiors lol BY ACCIDENTALLY SHOOTING HIMSELF . lol . apparently the pistol (non military issue) fell and went off slightly wounding him , this is usually only mentioned by LNs as a means to ridicule and belittle oswald . it was a silly incident not really worthy of further comment .

[fobrien1]

at 5.35 protectaus says oswald STARTED A FIGHT WITH A SUPERIOR . did that happen ? well yes THERE WAS AN INCIDENT but not AT ALL what protectaus makes it out to be .there was NO FIGHT .

"Oswald was court-martialed a second time on June 27, for using "provoking words" to a non commissioned officer (a sergeant) on June 20, at the Bluebird Cafe in Yamato, and assaulting the officer by pouring a drink on him.353 The findings were that Oswald spilled the drink accidentally, but when the sergeant shoved him away, Oswald invited the sergeant outside in insulting language.354 Oswald admitted that he was rather drunk and had invited the sergeant outside but did not recall insulting him." warren report

above is what even the biased commission had to say THAT WHAT HAD HAPPENED WAS AN ACCIDENT . so oswald DID NOT start a fight with a superior , even the commission said it was merely that oswald was intoxicated and accidentally spilled a drink on a superior who escalated a small incident / accident by shoving oswald . at no time did oswald EVER assault his superior ITS UTTER GARBAGE even according to the warren report .

but again its taking a small thing that looks far worse than it is and blowing it up so that you can highlight it and make oswalf appear as tho he was now going out of his way to attack/assault people .

at 5.39 THE BRIG TURNED OSWALD BITTER lol lol , no more to say on that fine bit of speculative deduction.

there is an incident that thus far protectaus didnt mention , in which oswald CONTRACTED AN STD (sexually transmitted disease ) IN THE LINE OF DUTY , this is documented . lets come back to that .


at 6 minutes we are back to mr delgado UNDER MR BUGLIOSI EXAMINATION OF COURSE and not in the video that i posted above . apparently now oswald SHOT POORLY BECAUSE HE DIDNT CARE . you have to understand the LN logic . first oswald was a good shooter , then when delgado etc said UM NO HE WASNT GREAT AT ALL then they said oh well that WOULD EXPLAIN THE MISSED SHOT lol lol . but the shooting / shots that struck jfk were of sufficient toughness that oswald had to be reasonably good to make them , so they really need oswald to be a reasonably good shooter . so now oswald REALLY WAS GOOD BUT PRETENDED TO BE BAD lol or he just wasnt bothered lol .

at 6.07 OSWALD LIED , but oswald did go home to his mother . but soon after he was off again , there is far more to this part of the story than that he simply lied . lets move on


i guess the next segment is being used to state that oswald was a nobody who wanted to be a somebody and defected and revoked his us citizenship in order to become a somebody . well the first problem is that oswald NEVER REVOKED HIS AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP . he remained at all times an american citizen .

at 8 minutes or so protectaus shows a laughable image of someone in a full bathtub of bloody water lol . yes oswald was told he had to leave and he didnt want to go and cut his wrists , nothing so melodramatic as the image protectaus displays . but WHAT is glossed over here and not mentioned ? AMERICAS FALSE DEFECTOR PROGRAM .

at 8.38 protectaus says that oswald decided to teach him self russian aggressively but oswald already had studied russian as a marine , he even took an exam and apparently his russian was sufficiently good that some in russia thought he was russian . well maybe with the stress of being locked up in an insane asylum he forget all that lol .

at 9 minutes we are onto oswald apparently living the high life lol . it warrants no comment really i guess other than why would the russians pay oswald whom apparently considered of no worth at all so much money ? a lot more than the average russian citizen .

we are up to about 12 minutes of the video now and oswald is back in the USA . what we hear is NO REPORTERS , what we should be hearing is why wasnt the fbi/ cia and the police on hand to arrest oswald a supposed traitor who supposedly offered american secrets to russia ? . im guessing for the very reason that protectaus tried to play down oswalds security status (atsugi was top security clearance ) while in the military , the logic is HE WAS LOW SECURITY and he knew little or nothing so he really had little information to give the russians . so then why would the above agencies be interested in oswald ? but in fact all tho the cia lied about it initially they later admitted that they did in fact debrief him .

protetaus shows us marina saying LEE SHOT KENNEDY , but what is not mentioned ? well the small matter of a threat to deport her that both she and robert oswald mentioned . we now know that she was blatant in her lies to all the agencies and commissions that she spoke to , and we know that from both the warren commission and hsca .


Marina Oswald’s Credibility

The Warren Commission was aware that many of Marina Oswald’s statements were contradictory and unreliable (see, for example, her evidence about Oswald cleaning and practising with his rifle). One of the Commission’s attorneys, Norman Redlich, wrote in a memo to J. Lee Rankin that

“neither you nor I have any desire to smear the reputation of any individual. We cannot ignore, however, that Marina Oswald has repeatedly lied to the [Secret] Service, the FBI, and this Commission on matters which are of vital concern to the people of this country and the world” (HSCA Report, appendix vol.11, p.126).

Redlich expanded on this when testifying before the HSCA:

“She may not have told the truth in connection with the attempted killing of General Walker. … I gave to Mr Rankin a lengthy document. … I indicated the testimony that she had given, the instances where it was in conflict” (ibid., p.127).

so bearing in mind the threat of deportation and that they had her essentially locked up and her now proven blatant lying HOW MUCH CREDIBILITY SHOULD WE ASSIGN MRS OSWALD ? . she had a reason to lie (fear of deportation) thats fact , and we know as fact as seen above THAT SHE DID LIE .

next protectaus says that oswald DEVELOPED PHOTO FORGING SKILLS , then he shows us an identification PHOTO that was oswald and not forged lol . i think i know where this is headed but lets see

yes i was right THAT OSWALD RECEIVED A RIFLE UNDER THE NAME HIDELL AT HIS PO BOX . lol . but again what LNs say is often not as informative as what they omit LETS SEE

Quote:
It is not known whether the application for post office box 2915 listed "A. Hidell" as a person entitled to receive mail at this box. In accordance with postal regulations, the portion of the application which lists names of persons, other than the applicant, entitled to receive mail was thrown away after the box was closed on May 1963. - WCR pg 121

above is the warren commission LYING stating that IT IS NOT KNOWN WHETHER THE APPLICATION FOR POST OFFICE BOX 2915 LISTED A HIDELL" but they knew full well that it did not list HIDELL OR ANYONE ELSE other than mr oswald . how do i know that ?

Quote:
INVESTIGATION: Our investigation has revealed that Oswald did not indicate on his application that others, including an "A. Hidell," would receive mail through the box in question, which was Post Office Box 2915 in Dallas. This box was obtained by Oswald on October 9, 1962, and relinquished by him on May 14, 1963. Commission Exhibit 2585 FBI

not only did the commission PROVABLY know that HIDELL WAS NEVER AUTHORISED TO RECEIVE MAIL AT OSWALDS PO BOX because the fbi told them , they also put the fbi information above in a commission exhibit . but there is a second commission lie proven above . the commission and postal inspector harry holmes LIED and said that postal regulations were such that at the very least that part 3 of oswalds po box application form would be routinely discarded when the po box was closed (this is the part where oswald would have to name anyone (including hidell) other than him that would be allowed to receive mail at his po box )  . thats a lie

Section regulation 846.53b "Part 3 of the box rental application, identifying persons other than the applicant authorized to receive mail must be retained for 2 years after the box is closed."

so we now have a second warren commission lie proven above . part 3 WOULD NOT be discarded untill atleast 2 years after the po box was closed . that means both the commission and fbi could run along to the po box at any time up to somewhere in 1965 and still get their hands on part 3 of that form . SO WHY LIE AND TELL US THAT IT WAS DISCARDED ? , well if it had hidell on it you can bet that we would have been shown it , so wouldnt that indicate that hidell WAS NOT LISTED ON IT ? . well hell yes because the fbi told the commission that that was exactly the case . after all the fbi couldnt possibly say "Our investigation has revealed that Oswald did not indicate on his application that others, including an "A. Hidell," would receive mail through the box in question" unless they actually HAD AND READ PART 3 OF THAT FORM .

so now we know part 3 of the form not only WAS NEVER DISCARDED that the fbi and the commission had access to it . so in denying the existence of part 3 of that form the commission is now caught in a third successive lie .

"Our investigation has revealed that Oswald did not indicate on his application that others, including an "A. Hidell," would receive mail through the box in question" FBI given to warren commission CE 2585

anyone like to bet a buck that protectaus wont mention ANY of the above ? . lol


i will do another thread about the rifle as it requires its own thread . so we will for now move away as much as we can from the rifle itself .


at 13 minutes MARINA TOOK 3 PHOTOS , well she said she did but then as we NOW KNOW her and the truth are not bosom buddies . in fact she even lied about the photos first denying ever taking any . then when shown a photo she changed her story and said OK I TOOK ONE , by virtue of her saying that she took one photo that makes her denial a lie  . the police then said BUT WE HAVE TWO HERE , and again she changed her story and admitted taking two and only two . that makes her story about taking only one photo a lie . but later two more photos would emerge in the later 60s and late 70s and she obliged yet again by saying SHE TOOK THOSE ALSO . which makes her story about taking only two photos yet another lie . so which of the above lies should we believe ? . and this is the person that protectaus says WE SHOULD BELIEVE ? lol .

as a test try offering protectaus a witness that LNs say lied and see if he will accept word one of what they say , i will save you the time HE WONT . but still do try and see what happens .


at 13 minutes or so we are on to the walker shooting . now im not going into that at all really at this point again it warrants its own thread . sufficient is it say that all the commission had was the so called walker note THAT DIDNT EVEN MENTION WALKER OR ANY CRIME . and THE WORD OF MARINA OSWALD whom they already knew was a liar . as was proven above


“She may not have told the truth in connection with the attempted killing of General Walker. … I gave to Mr Rankin a lengthy document. … I indicated the testimony that she had given, the instances where it was in conflict”

thats it , thats all THEY had , the word of someone even they said was a liar and a walker note that didnt even mention walker lol . nuff said


you will learn as you go that LNs like to use certain words a lot ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY CANT PROVE SOMETHING . one of their favorites is CONSISTENT WITH . now think about that , what does it mean in reality ? . well in this case it means little more than that bullets fired at jfk were all (so we were told ) copper jacketed and the walker bullet in evidence is also copper lol . but the bullet was NEVER matched EVER to the carcano . and in fact the detective at walkers said the bullet he saw was steel jacketed BUT THATS ANOTHER STORY else we will never finish protectaus 30 minute video lol.


as of 14 minutes we hear that OSWALD HAD ANGER TOWARDS JFK yet not A SINGLE PERSON close to oswald EVER said anything other than HE GREATLY ADMIRED JFK . so its clear now video wise we are onto MOTIVE lol and no real motive was ever found .

at 14.24 protectaus says OSWALD STARTED A FIGHT in fact the opposite is true it was carlos bringuer who did the attacking , oswald was the victim , that however didnt stop the police arresting oswald lol . both later appeared in a debate and ts been said that it was likely a staged incident , likely is not however proof so i will have to invite people to read up on that incident and decide for them selves .

its worth noting that protectaus placed the sound of a laughing crowd over oswald when answering the question put to him THAT NEVER HAPPENED IN THAT INTERVIEW . perhaps protectaus didnt want people to hear the excellent answers oswald gave and the manner in which he gave them  ? . remember PLAY DOWN OR DONT MENTION anything good and highlight anything no matter how small that might look bad .

what protectaus covered is oswald talking about countries such as AMERICAS COMRADE IN WAR BRITAIN who adhere to certain socialist polices such as socialized medicine and medical . wow here is protectaus telling us all about ossie the commie when americas war buddy britain also adheres to socialist MARXIST POLICIES .

oswald may well have been a bad husband that however in no way proves anything in regards jfks assassinaton . but again protectaus wants to condition his viewers , oswald hit his wife SO HE MUST BE A BAD MAN THUS HE SURELY MUST BE GUILTY lol lol . there would of course be no justification for hitting a woman or anyone but as with anything there are always two sides and marina wasnt all sweetness and light to oswald either .

james hosty is up next , the fbi agent who admitted UNDER ORDERS that he withheld information about oswald  AND THAT HE DESTROYED EVIDENCE under orders also .


at 15.49 its ruth paine (and michael ) again she deserves her own thread . but she in the video clip says SHE WANTED TO LEARN THE LANGUAGE (russian ) HENCE SHE ASKED MARINA TO STAY WITH HER SO SHE COULD LEARN . hang on a second now DIDNT MRS PAINE TEACH RUSSIAN ? lol go check it out , you will find that she did .

oswald in mexico is next lol SO WHATS MISSING ? . well first is hoovers admission as early as 1960 that someone was very likely using oswalds identification . while oswald was supposedly in mexico sylvia odio and her sister said he called to their house , even the hsca believed them . a man cant be in two places at once unless apparently his name is lee oswald .

at the embassy consul azcue and a mrs duran said the man purporting to be oswald was BLONDE that his face went red when angry and that he spoke in very broken russian .

the fbi as admitted by hoover viewed a photo of the man the cia said was oswald and said NO ITS DEFINATELY NOT OSWALD . they were given an audio tape of the mans voice (of a man claiming to be oswald ) and said NO ITS NOT OSWALDS VOICE EITHER . remember when i said what LNs DONT SAY is often a lot more interesting than what they do say ? lol lol . clearly someone was down there saying he was oswald , that wouldnt prove that oswald wasnt down there but it does have certain permutations , such as that he was being impersonated AND SO WHY and or that he wasnt down there alone . this area of the case among others  prompted a commission statement that WE ARE HERE TO CLOSE DOORS NOT OPEN THEM .


oswald was anti social , lol sound bad doesnt it ? lol , at his rooming house he was a good tenant staying in his room not bothering anyone , who was clean and tidy , polite but quiet and always paid his rent ANTI SOCIAL ? .


oswald was REJECTED REJECTED REJECTED when applying for jobs GEE HOW MANY OF US APPLIED FOR JOBS EE DIDNT GET ? quick lets buy a rifle and shoot someone lol . it means nothing . oswald applied for a better permanent job paying more money than the depository and they called him back about it , ruth paine took the call OSWALD WAS ALREADY AT THE DEPOSITORY THEN and that was the end of that . so the lie that he applied for jobs and was rejected for all of them is a nonsense . but again he is laying the tracks MORE REJECTION FOR OSWALD ill show them ill kill jfk lol .

OSWALD WANTED A BETTER RELATIONSHIP WITH CUBA , hasnt obama now achieved that ? lol  guess that makes obama a commie then lol

OBSESSED WITH ANGER TOWARD KENNEDY ? lol protectaus should start reading testimonies HE MIGHT LEARN A THING OR TWO .


LEE LEAVES HIS WEDDING RING IS THE NEXT ITEM , yes he left his ring at the paines WOW ITS A MIRACLE HERE IS THE PROOF THAT OSWALD DID IT THAT WE ALL WANTED . lol lol lets move on

HE LEFT NEARLY ALL HIS MONEY . um NO HE DIDNT . this exercise is intended as a means to say that oswald knew by that morning that he was going to shoot jfk and that he would not return as he would be dead or in jail SO I BETTER LEAVE ALL THE MONEY I HAVE IN THE WORLD OUT FOR MARINA TO FIND . or as LNs put it "consciousness of guilt" lol but even a cursory look at the evidence will tell you that the money was FOUND IN A WALLET that was tucked away . over  weeks and indeed months when ever oswald had money ( he only used what he needed to live on) he would leave most of it in that wallet . marina could use the cash if she needed to but she didnt . this of course is good for LNs who like to assert that he did not provide for his wife and kids , yet in the same breath they often cite marina saying he told her buy shoes for the girls BECAUSE IT MAKES OSWALD LOOK GUILTY here take my money i wont need it lol . its a nonsense OSWALD LEFT BEHIND NO MONEY it was money saved up over weeks and months kept in a wallet in a drawer .


at 18.45 THE RIFLE BAG a sack that was never proven to have carried a rifle .

HE WOLDNT BE GOING HOME ON THE 22ND . well thats it the case is all sown up lol . um no not quite . LN and protectaus star witness marina testified that oswald told her that as he stayed on thursday instead of friday that it didnt make sense to stay again on friday , im certain as any man familiar with an angry wife would be that  the cold war like frost he got from marina played a part in that decision . LN star witness marina said that LEE SAID HE WOULD RETURN AT THE WEEKEND . funny that protectaus didnt mention that ? . its in his star witness testimony DOESNT HE BELIEVE HER ? or perhaps he doesnt know what she testified to ? .


at 19.22 protectaus jumps from i believe charles given (with moustache ) its certainly not norman or williams . and we are now at 12.30 . well now hold on there a minute , they broke for lunch about 11.40 to 11.45 am WHAT HAPPENED TO THE TIME BETWEEN THAT AND 12.30 PM ? well i have another post here on this forum that throws some light on that and shows you what protectaus seems not to want to tell you .

what protectaus is trying to do is to lie to you and pretend that when they broke for lunch at 11.40 or 11.45am that OSWALD STAYED ON THE 6TH FLOOR AND NEVER WENT DOWN STAIRS but we know as fact from my other post on this matter  that he did indeed LEAVE THE 6TH FLOOR .

interesting background music lol akin to the omen or similar THE ANTI CHRIST lol .


there are a lot of witnesses here talking and we will discuss all those elsewhere .

[fobrien1]

at 21.41 protectaus infers by using a clipboard found that oswald filled no orders that morning WELL AGAIN A LITTLE READING OF TESTIMONY AND RESEARCH WOULD HAVE TOLD HIM OTHERWISE . two of the three men in the window under the snipers nest window norman and jarmin both said oswald filled orders and jarmin said that he had to get oswald to correct an order that was in error . i will detail this in another thread . so his own witnesses are disputing him .

oswald was not the only employee missing , mr truly testified that he reached that conclusion because he didnt see oswald with some of his co workers , had he looked closer he would have seen that atleast charles givens was also unaccounted for .

22.00 bus driver mcwatters . he never said he saw oswald on his bus nor ever identified oswald . thats all that needs saying here , but his testimony is online free . SEE FOR YOURSELF


mrs earlene roberts is shown very briefly , there is good reason for that . but whats omitted ? lol . well whats not mentioned is that oswald arrived at 1pm or a tad after , and that she testified that he was in his room 3 or 4 minutes and then left . that has him leaving his rooming house door about 1.04pm . but what the video doesnt mention is that THAT WAS NOT THE LAST SHE SAW OF OSWALD . after he had left she was watching tv for a moment and she then got up and went to the window . what did she see ? she saw oswald STILL OUTSIDE at the bus stop . he didnt walk away while she observed him . that means oswald was still standing on beckley about 1.04 to 1.05pm at the least . BEAR THAT IN MIND AS WE GO ON

next up is helen markham she will have her own thread also . so whats omitted here lol ? well mrs markham testified based on going to work at here usual time and going for her usual bus that the time of the shooting was in and around 1.06 or 1.07pm . 10th and patton was just shy of a mile away from oswalds rooming house , i dare say even usain bolt couldnt get from beckley to 10th street in 2 minutes or less. so now you know why protectaus left that little snippit out .

jack tatum wasnt known about untill 15 years later

Mr. Tatum will reiterate his statement to be reduced to typewritten form

(By Moriarty) "Mr. Tatum, if you'll repeat your statement slowly, I'll attempt to type it."

Although I did not remember the exact time I remember it was early in the afternoon on Friday, November 22, 1963. I was driving XXXX north on Denver and stopped at 10th St. when I first saw the squad car and men walking on the sidewalk near the squad car. Both the squad car and this young white male were coming in my direction(East on 10th Street). At the time I was just approaching the squad car, I noticed this young white male with both hands in the pockets of his zippered jacket leaning over the passenger side of the squad car. This young white male was looking into the squad car from the passenger side. The next thing I knew I heard something that sounded like gun shots as I approached the intersection. (10th & Patton). I heard three shots in rapid (illegible)I went right through the intersection, stopped my car and turned to look back. I then saw the officer lying on the street and saw this young white man standing near the front of the squad car. Next. this man with a gun in his hand ran toward the back of the squad car, but instead of running away he stepped into the street and shot the police officer who was lying in the street. At that point this young man looked around him and then started to walk away in my direction and as he started to break into a small run in my direction, I sped off in my auto. All I saw him to the intersection and run south on Patton towards Jefferson.

Q. Did you know Lee Harvey Oswald, Officer Tippit or anyone else at the scene.
A. No

Q Did you not report this information to the authorities?
A. There were more than enough people there and I could not see what I could contribute.

Q. Is there anything you wish to add to your statement?
A. At this time I can't think or anything.

Jack Moriart Joe Basteri Jack R. Tatum
Feb, 1 1978

anyone see there where he identified lee harvey oswald as the killer bearing in mind he was in his vehicle driving though the intersection ? . no mention at all to the hsca in his statement that it was oswald but he does so in a video ? atleast 15 years later .


at 23.34 we have domingo benavides . in 1963 / 1964 and for years after that said he could not identify the man he saw . in fact he was invited to a line up and said there was no real point because he didnt think he could identify the killer . its in his warren commission testimony CHECK IT OUT . so why is protectaus using witnesses that later contradicted them selves ? instead of showing us what they testified to in 63/64 ? .


Mr. BELIN - Then what happened? Did the officers ever get in touch with you?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Later on that evening, about 4 o'clock, there was two officers came by and asked for me, Mr. Callaway asked me---I had told them that I had seen the officer, and the reporters were there and I was trying to hide from the reporters because they will just bother you all the time.
Then I found out that they thought this was the guy that killed the President. At the time I didn't know the President was dead or he had been shot.
I was just trying to hide from the reporters and everything, and these two officers came around and asked me if I'd seen him, and I told him yes, and told them what I had seen, and they asked me if I could identify him, and I said I don't think I could. It this time I was sure, I wasn't sure that I could or not. I wasn't going to say I could identify and go down and couldn't have.
Mr. BELIN - Did he ever take you to the police station and ask you if you could identify him?
Mr. BENAVIDES - No; they didn't.
Mr. BELIN - You used the name Oswald. How did you know this man was Oswald?
Mr. BENAVIDES - From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy, resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald.


at the 24 minute plus mark we are onto officer mcdonald . for some reason lol LNs dont like using his testimony in which he states that he TOLD OSWALD TO STAND and he did AND THAT HE ASKED OSWALD TO COME TOWARDS HIM and he did AND THAT HE DID SO WITH BOTH HANDS UP ABOVE HIS HEAD and that the pistol was tucked in his waist band all that time . he also testified that he was the first to reach for the pistol in oswalds waist band , that he tried to remove it and that oswald then reacted and slapped his hand away and that he then struck him .

oh and oswald shouted I am not resisting arrest multiple times , odd thing to say if you just stood up in front of witnesses and pull a gun on a cop lol .


at 25.00 oswald was talking about the two arraignments where he was not allowed legal representation . also he later requested a lawyer called apt who never got the message apparently . so he thought apt would be coming and when finally he was asked about legal representation he declined one assumes thinking apt will be along any time now . so oswald had no lawyer at any time and in fact at that time the police were not obliged to give him one or advise that he was entitled that came with the miranda case . i wonder had wes frazier a lawyer present when fritz tried to get him AGAINST HIS WILL to sign a confession he never gave ? .


at about 26 minutes look at oswalds face when he is told YOU HAVE BEEN CHARGED , look like the face of a man who is thinking great NOW IM FINALLY GOING TO BE FAMOUS YIPPEE ? .


DENIAL IS NOT PROOF OF GUILT , proof is proof of guilt and as we can see there is not a lot along the lines of proof in this video .


at 26.40 OSWALDS PALM PRINT WAS FOUND ON THE RIFLE the date 22/11/63 , on 23/11/63 the fbi had the rifle they thoroughly pulled it apart and processed it and they said THERE WAS NO PALM PRINT found anywhere on the rifle . the prints found were near the left trigger guard which they deemed useless for identification .so according to the fbi there were no prints belonging to oswald found . only after oswalds death and in a nonchalant manner did DA wade say to the press OH BY THE WAY FELLAS DID I MENTION WE HAVE A PALM PRINT OF OSWALDS ON THE RIFLE ? . i will a post on this and DA wade at a later stage . day of the dalllas police did say he lifted PART of a palm print , part was exposed (he lifted that so he said ) and part covered by the rifle stock . he said he didnt lift that part . he said further that he gave the rifle to the fbi as ordered and that the above print was still there quite visible . SO WHY DID THE FBI THEN FIND NO TRACE OF IT ? . day later testified that the print had to have been left while the rifle was broken down , and that the print was very dry , meaning very old weeks or months old . day was asked by the fbi to sign a statement in regarding the finding of that print HE REFUSED . assuming day is honest and found the print what does it prove ? it doesnt prove that oswald handled the rifle on 22/11/63 in the snipers nest , all it would show is that at some point weeks or months prior that oswald handled the rifle while it was broken down . NOT QUITE HOW PROTECTAUS MAKES IT LOOK IS IT ? .

OSWALDS SHIRT FIBERS ON THE RIFLE lol not so . if you read the testimony of the fbi expert he said there was no way to state as fact that a fiber came from oswalds shirt to the exclusion of all other shirts , its not a finger print or DNA . the fbis tests including fibers tests have since come under serious fire no pun intended for being inaccurate .


26.53 THE SNIPERS NEST BOXES ARE COVERED WITH OSWALDS PRINTS once again not so , i mentioned david emerling in another thread who also makes the same FALSE statement . they found a grand total of 3 prints ON TWO BOXES . there was new plywood floors being laid and the staff cleared an area by moving boxes in that area and over ALONG IN FRONT OF THE WINDOWS .then they started again clearing an area ,  moving boxes over the windows and laying more flooring . also oswald worked there filling orders so his prints would have been AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN found all over . the print expert testified that the prints could have been on those boxes a matter of hours or as much as 3 days prior . again NOT QUITE HOW PROTECTAUS MAKES IT LOOK IS IT ? .

i will go into detail about the rifle . ce399 and all bullets and fragments . however only two larger fragments were matched to the carcano far from ALL , and that is not proof that oswald owned or fired the rifle in evidence .


THE COMMIE SALUTE lol lol hogwash and nonsense he spent the whole time protesting his innocence (something LNs actually try to state that he didnt do lol ) its not unreasonable to state he was showing the press that he was still in cuffs and not being treated correctly or perhaps the press asked him to show them the cuffs  . that said im not claiming i know as fact where as protectaus is , fact is he is basing his claim on a photo with no knowledge of what was actually happening or being said in those seconds . but remember LNs will use ANYTHING THAT SOUNDS BAD OR MAKES OSWALD LOOK BAD no matter how small .


NO CHURCH WOULD BURY OSWALD lol lol yes he must be guilty then . the church the bastian of all that is good and holy , tell me how many **** priests abused more little kids than we can ever possibly know ? and which the church leaders hushed up . the same church that lets many in africa contract and die of aids and give birth to babies born with aids rather than allow these people use contraception .  nuff said .

at 28.00 the video ends with mrs oswald weeping over her sons grave saying lee harvey oswald my son even in death  has done more for his country than any other living person . EVER SEEN PARKLAND the movie ? . made by tom hanks and based on vincent bugliosi book ? have a look at it and see how they portray mrs oswald saying what she said in the video at 28.00 . ill give you a hint its a complete distortion .

what protectaus shows us is that any idiot can make a youtube video especially when they are not encumbered by such things as actually PROVING WHAT THEY CLAIM IS TRUE