Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent and standing in the doorway of the Book Depository during the shooting of President Kennedy. We have a photograph of him in which we can recognize him and his clothing. 

That was a Russian shirt that Oswald brought back with him. It had a soft collar, and most of the buttons were missing. That's why it was sprawled open. The reason why the t-shirt margin is descended on both is because Oswald had the habit of stretching his t-shirts. 

Things were done to alter the image on the right, which is from the Altgens photo. The man who is crammed next to him in an impossible way wasn't there. He was put in there to hide the distinctive look of Oswald's Russian shirt. I redid the photo, restoring Oswald's left shoulder.

Now, look at this comparison:

That is the same man wearing the same clothes. And the facial features match too.

I circled the identical collars with the distinctive furl beneath it. Below is another striking likeness. Same man/same clothes

It's the same man wearing the same clothes. I know that two government investigations, the Warren Commission and the HSCA, said that it was a different man, Billy Lovelady, but they lied. They were totally corrupt. They were as corrupt as the criminal elements that stole the 2020 election from President Trump. Compare the faces up close: 

That is the same face and the same features. 

However, it was complicated because the men who killed Kennedy were arrogant, but not arrogant enough to just say he was someone else. So, they changed the top of his head to that of another man; just the very top; the crown.

So, on the left is how Oswald looked in the original photo, and on the right is what they did to him, to garner the confidence to say he was Billy Lovelady. 

But, the image they used of Lovelady to transfer his crown to Oswald was 6 years old. I refer to him as Young Lovelady, and you can see below that the crowns are identical.

Do you see how identical those crowns are? Nobody's hair looks exactly the same over 6 years time. It looks the same because it is the same. 

Oswald had the habit of standing with his hands clasped in front of his body, left over right. He was doing it in the doorway when he was photographed, and he did at other times as well. We have 5 or 6 photos of him standing like this.

There was a coup d'etat in 1963. Allen Dulles, Lyndon Johnson, and J. Edgar Hoover were all in on it, and every government investigation of the JFK assassination that followed was corrupt. Lee Harvey Oswald was not a lone gunman, and he wasn't one of multiple gunmen.  He was just a patsy, as he said. They didn't need him to kill Kennedy; they just needed him to take the blame for it. Nobody in his right mind would have chosen Oswald to shoot Kennedy. He was no assassin. He practically flunked his last shooting test in the Marines in 1959, and the only shooting he did in Russia was to go rabbit hunting with a shotgun a few times. Then, he did no shooting here. He never ordered a rifle from Chicago. J. Edgar Hoover's corrupt FBI concocted that story, and this article by John Armstrong proves it. 

https://harveyandlee.net/Guns/Guns.html

We've been lied to for 62 years about this by our government and media. Now, because of President Trump and the people he has appointed, there is a real chance to topple the tower of lies. And  again: it's not that there were multiple shooters and Oswald was one of them. That is just noise. It is just another lie to replace the original lie. The truth is that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent and standing in the doorway of the Book Depository during the shooting.   

Why in Zapruder film are the spectactors on the north side of Elm not responding to Kennedy? They aren't waving or clappng. They aren't moving at all. They are just standing there as he rides by.

Then after that, a little lower on Elm, we get to the Croft people, who were just below the obelisk, and they are all animated and excited, either waving or clapping at him.

We're talking about human behavior here. So, why such a stark difference between the two groups of people?

And why doesn't the Zapruder film get to the Croft people? Why don't we see them in the film? They were above the freeway sign. So, the limo had to pass them before reaching the sign. Yet, we never see them in the film.

Are you starting to believe me now that sign is fake and a huge swath of the film was cut out?

 I want to discuss Zapruder film alterations. This was spurred by my having watched Doug Horne's lengthy discussion of it. He began with the alteration that many have cited: the removal of the stopping of the limo. Many witnesses said that the limo came to a complete stop during the shooting. But, in the Z-film, not only does the limo not stop; it doesn't even slow down. It was accomplished by removing frames and was easy to do, even in 1963. 

Another thing that was easy to do was to add the phony freeway sign. And they did that within days. The November 29, 1963 LIFE magazine included the phony freeway sign. 

Doug Horne didn't mention the phony freeway sign. That went over his head. Another big mistake he made was to trust Dino Brugioni, and it baffles me. The CIA killed Kennedy. It was THEIR operation. And Dino Brugioni worked for the CIA. He was the operational head of their "National Photographic Interpretation Center." So, whose side do you think he was on? I assure you he was on the CIA's side. And if Dino Brugioni really was a truther, why did he wait until 2010 to say so? Why didn't he write about it in his book PHOTO FAKERY, which came out in 1999? In it, he defended the Zapruder film, the Backyard photos, the Altgens photo, etc. Everything from the JFK assassination he defended. The only photographic larceny he presented in the book were things by the Nazis and Soviets. 

What Brugioni offered Horne was that frame 313 in the Z-film, which is the fatal head shot, was, originally, a bigger deal. He said that in the original film, the mist cloud rose 3 or 4 feet above JFK's head. Horne pointed out that since the Parkland doctors all described a big blow-out wound in the right bottom of JFK's head frame 313 should have shown that. However, Brugioni didn't confirm that. He just talked about the 3 or 4 foot cloud. However, a great many people have been shot in the head. Has it ever caused a 3 or 4 foot cloud? And if it did cause a 3 or 4 foot cloud, don't you think spectators would have seen it and described it? A lot of people said that part of JFK's head went flying off, but they didn't describe a 3 or 4 foot cloud rising above his head.  

So, I think Brugioni was blowing smoke at Horne and Janey, and they fell for it. I think Brugioni led the team that made the alterations- to the Altgens photo, the Jackson photo, the Zapruder film, etc. However, the alterations to the Zapruder film weren't made in a week or even a year. The elementary stuff, like adding the phony sign, was done within days. But, the more difficult, complicated, and cutting-edge stuff had to wait for technology to advance. I sincerely believe it took years to get the Zapruder film in the shape we see it today. And the need to alter the Zapruder film may have spurred technological advancements in film.  

And what about Zapruder himself? He definitely saw his original film and more than once. At first, he accepted $50,000 for it, where he got to keep a copy. But then, LIFE came back to him and offered $150,000 if they could own the film outright and he NOT keep a copy. And he accepted that. 

Why didn't they want him to have a copy? Because they were going to alter it. Well, not them. The CIA was going to alter it.  

$150,000 in 1963 is worth over $1.5 million today. But, let's remember that the government has always lied about inflation. $150,000 is probably worth over $3 million today. So, Zapruder got a heap of money for his film. 

So, when he saw the November 29 LIFE magazine, which included the phony freeway sign, what did he think? Of course, I don't know, but I know he was paid a lot of money, and I know he was very patriotic, and that does things to people's minds.  

And the whole history of paying the Zapruder family is sordid. After paying him all that money, LIFE magazine sold the film back to the Zapruders in 1976 for one dollar, which is to say that they just gave it to them. But, that proved to be a ruse because the film went to the National Archives which controlled it with an iron hand. For years, they managed a cottage industry for the Zapruders, in which they rented the film out for steep fees, which went to the Zapruders. All the Zapruders had to do was deposit the checks. But, when they eventually asked for the film back, they were denied, and eventually, a settlement was reached with the government in the 1990s giving another $16 million to the Zapruders. 

So, why such an immense bounty to the Zapruders? Because they supported the authenticity of the Zapruder film. That's what they were paid for. Not explicitly of course, but that's what it amounted to.   

But, Doug Horne missed a lot more than the phony freeway sign. The most difficult and intricate alteration to the Zapruder film was hiding the fact that JFK was shot in the back high on the hill, that he rode down the steepest part of the hill reacting to having been shot in the back BEFORE he was shot in the throat. And that's why they needed the phony freeway sign. The phony freeway sign served as a curtain. It covered the road much more than the real sign did. The real sign was at 90 degrees to the road, so it was like a blade. But, the phony sign is larger than the real one, and it's facing the road. So, it provides a lot of curtain and a lot more cover.  

The story of the Zapruder film is that JFK rode down the hill and nothing happened to him until he was behind the sign. Then, everything happened behind the sign- except for the fatal head shot. And to tell that story, they had to move the sign up, so that the limo got to it sooner.  They wanted the story to be that he reached the sign smiling and waving- where all was well- but then he was shot behind the sign, and when he emerged from it, he was a bizarrely stricken man. 

But, if you look at the film CLOSELY, you'll see that he was stricken BEFORE he disappears behind the sign. And he stopped waving before he reached the sign. And Jackie was turned, looking at him before they reached the sign. So, even though they used the phony sign to create a BEFORE and AFTER, the fact is that he exhibited distress before reaching the sign, which we can still see.

This is frame 200. In it, Jackie is turned and looking at her husband. Her focus is on him because she knows that something is wrong. JFK is not waving, and he has his hand over his face, which he didn't do. Dino's guys did it, and it was to cover up the distressed look on his face from having been shot in the back. 

And the testimony supports this because Jackie said that she first realized that something was wrong with her husband when she saw that he had a "quizzical" look on his face. It was followed by other things, but that was the first element, and it was a separate element, him sitting there in the car not knowing what had happened to him and what was going on inside of him. If he had just been struck in the back with a metal bullet that went from 2000 feet per second flight speed to stillness in 1 1/2 inches (which is impossible, so it could not have been a metal bullet) he wouldn't have just sat there looking quizzical and doing nothing. He would have acted. But, rapid changes were going on his body, and he was powerless. 

So, what they did was remove a lot of frames to exclude most of his reaction to the back shot. But, they couldn't remove all of them without creating jump cuts. So, they had to keep some in, and they doctored them, as they did in frame 200, putting his hand over his face. They also separated the film into three tracks and slid the track of him in the limo forward to compress what happened to him, to bring the back shot and the throat shot closer together. 

 In frame 225, notice that the two spectators are not focused on JFK and Jackie. They are looking and pointing higher on Elm Street, as if the limo hadn't reached them yet. I am not the first to point this out, and far from it. 

I will have more to say about this, but I'll end by asking you a favor: If you are a friend and supporter of mine, please do watch my film DOVEY'S PROMISE because it is a truther film. Twice in the film, it lays out that the CIA killed Mary Pinchot Meyer. And realize that the damage control after Raymond Crump was acquitted was that he was guilty and the jury got it wrong. But, as I explained in a recent post, there is no way that Crump, or any other derelict, could have done it. Mary Pinchot Meyer was executed. She was assassinated in a professional hit that surely had nothing to do with rape or robbery. Then James Angleton broke into her house the very night of her murder to retrieve her diary? That makes denying CIA involvement in her murder absolutely futile.   

So please watch DOVEY'S PROMISE because it is a very incendiary film in support of JFK truth. Plus, I think you'll enjoy it as a courtroom drama. I dare say it is the best courtroom drama since A FEW GOOD MEN. So, here's the link, and thank you.

https://vimeo.com/ondemand/dovey

  

The prosecution of Clay Shaw in New Orelans in 1969 was the only direct criminal prosecution in the JFK case. However, the prosecution of Raymond Crump in 1965 was definitely tied to the JFK assassination, even though it wasn't spoken of at the trial.

Judge Howard Corcoran not only forbid any mention of the JFK assassination, he also forbid any mention of the CIA at the trial.

But, the CIA was there. Cicely Angleton, wife of CIA Counterintellligence chief James Angleton, attended every moment of the trial.

And when it was over, with the victory of Dovey Roundtree, the implication was that, not only was Raymond Crump innocent, but no other person like him could have committed the crime. NO ONE has ever suggested that another person similar to Crump did it but managed to escape. Crump's innocence defaults to Mary's murder having been a professional hit and most likely by the CIA.

Why is that? It's because of the evidence that came out in the trial. Some of the evidence pertained to Crump specifically, for instance, his small size, the fact that he didn't have the physical prowess to attack and rape her. She was 3 inches taller than he was, very fit, and about the same weight as him, while he was this little guy who was a chain-smoking alcoholic. And the star witness for the prosecution said that the man he saw standing over the body was 5'8" and 180 pounds, which was much bigger than Crump. However, there were other elements of this case that ruled out any other regular assailant.

The first motive that was put forward was robbery, but that never made sense- for anyone. That's because the armed assailant began by attacking her physically with his hands, and a robber wouldn't do that. A robber would have pointed his gun at her and demanded her money and valuables. He didn't need to grapple with her. It's not like he wanted to reach into her pockets himself and take the money. So, the actions of the attacker prove that he wasn't a robber.

Then, the other motive that was eventually put forward was rape, but that didn't make sense for anyone either. That's because the location did not have the seclusion and isolation for rape. It was only 128 feet from busy Canal Road in Georgetown. I've seen the photo of the crime scene taken from the sidewalk of Canal Street and it's like a picture window.

And the towpath was a popular walking trail. Another hiker could have come along at any time, and a rapist would have known that.

But, there's more. After being shot the first time, Mary tried to run away. She ran 24 feet and then collapsed into a tree. We didn't include the tree in my film DOVEY'S PROMISE, mainly because of how our location was, and I didn't think the tree mattered anyway. The important thing was that she ran; then collapsed; then the attacker dragged her back; and then he shot her again, killing her instantly. However, a robber or rapist would have had no reason to do that. He would have shot her whereever she fell and then ran away. So, her killer, obviously, had something else in mind, which was to insure her visibility to the man who was tricked into becoming a witness, Henry Wiggins.

And that's why, in the damage control that's been done over the years and decades, no one has ever suggested that it was done by another derelict. They have stuck with Crump, saying that he did it; that Dovey and the jury simply got it wrong.

Well, that is ridiculous for the reasons I gave. Crump lacked the physical capacity to do it. He wasn't big enough or strong enough. He lacked the criminal precedents to do it. At the time, he had no prior history of sexual violence or any kind of violence. As Dovey said in her Closing Statement, "Would he start with this?"

And, Raymond told Dovey, why he went there that day. It was to have a sexual rendezvous with a woman named Vivian. And Vivian confirmed it to Dovey over the phone. In DOVEY'S PROMISE, we had them meet in person, and it's a favorite scene of mine because my actors, Joy White and Trisha Zarate, did very well, and I love the music that Kaizad Patel wrote for that scene.

So, with Crump's innocence being certain, it defaults to a professional hit, and who else but the CIA? It was the very evening of the murder that Ben Bradlee and James Angleton broke into Mary's house to retrieve her diary, which points to the motive right there.

But, the point is that the Mary Pinchot Meyer case is a smoking gun in the case that came before, which was the murder of John F. Kennedy. And that's why it is so very important to this day.
If you'd like to watch Dovey's Promise, here is the link:

https://vimeo.com/ondemand/dovey

 The image on the left does a good job of showing that when Zapruder was on his pedestal shooting the top of Dealey Plaza, the intersection, there was no way the Stemmons Freeway sign could have entered his field of view. I'm sure he had to turn quite a bit to his right, coming down Elm, before the sign came into view. And that was my experience when I went there with a sign.

So, this proves that sign we see in the Zapruder film is bogus. It was added to the film. to function as a curtain. And the fact is that the whole story of the Zapruder film was built around that sign. Because: the story was that he came down the hill, and nothing happened until he disappeared behind the sign. Then, everything happened behind the sign and out of view to us. Everything, that is, except for the fatal head shot.

And it's interesting that in the first telling of the story, they just left it at that- that everything happened behind the sign. In the November 22, 1963 LIFE magazine, they presented frames and a story, and the story was that at 313, JFK just fell into Jackie. They did not include the fatal headshot. 11 months later, when they went back to the Zapruder film, they did include the fatal head shot. So, why didn't they include it on 11/29/63? The answer, I believe, is that they didn't know what story they were going to tell. because there were too many unknowns.

 There is a longstanding denial that needs to be exposed, and I am referring to the denial that Oswald went to the 2nd floor lunch room. He most certainly did, and it is substantiated by direct evidence, and also by indirect evidence that is also very compelling.

The direct evidence is that Oswald told interrogators that he went to the 2nd floor lunch room when an officer came in. It is in the Fritz Notes. These are notes that were found in Fritz' possessions 10 years after his death. His Executor found them and turned them over to the ARRB.

It states in Fritz' handwriting that Oswald "Claims 2nd floor Coke when Officer came in." Now, Oswald didn't actually get the Coke until Baker and Truly left. Both Baker and Truly said that he had nothing in his hands when they saw him. And when Baker saw him in the lunch room, he was just walking through it. He didn't see Oswald fiddling for a dime or inserting it into the machine or anything pertaining to getting a Coke. And there is no evidence that Baker and Truly knew each other. For the longest time, neither described each other by name. Baker referred to Truly as the Superintendent, and Truly referred to Baker as the officer. Eventually, by the time it got to the mock trials, Baker referred to Truly by name. Truly, however, never participated in any of the mock trials, and I'm not surprised.

And the reason I'm not surprised is because Truly was dirty. He was in on it. He was CIA, and the TSBD was a CIA front company. But, Baker was NOT dirty. He was clean. He was an honest cop. It's not as though they tapped every single member of the Dallas police force on the shoulder and whispered, "Psst. We're killing Kennedy on Friday. You want in?" Baker definitely was not involved.

So, the idea that Baker and Truly collaborated in perjuring themselves is ridiculous. They didn't even know each other. And you don't propose such a thing to a stranger because the stranger can talk. He could tell authorities that Mr. Truly asked him to lie.

So, Truly never went to Baker saying, "Let's you and me lie and say that Oswald had no Coke." They both, independently, on different days, said it because it was true.

So, that's the direct evidence that the encounter happened, but what is the indreict evidence? The indirect evidence is that Oswald had to be somehwere. His time had to be accounted for. We know he left the TSBD several minutes after the shooting. The WC put it at 12:34. So, we have to account for where he was and what he was doing between 12:30 and 12:34.

So, at 12:30 Oswald was in the doorway watching the motorcade. We have ample photographic evidence for that, plus it's also in the Fritz Notes that Oswald said that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front." And Oswald could only have known that Shelley was there by being there himself. And then he began his trek to the lunch room. And there is no reason to think that he ran or even walked fast. It may have taken a minute or longer for him to get there.

So then, he had the encounter with Truly and Baker. Then, after they left, he got his Coke. Then, he walked back downstairs the same way he came up: which was through the office area. And there he had another enounter, which was with the secretary, Geraldine Reed. And she claimed in her Warren Commission testimony that she tried to talk with him, asking him if he knew that the President had been shot. She said that he gave no response.

But, something else happened: a reporter approached him and asked him where the pay phone was, and Oswald pointed him to it. That reporter was the Canadian Rober O'Neill, who went on to become the anchor for PBS News.

And then, Oswald went out the main entrance and was again photographed in the doorway, this time talking to a police inspectdor. I believe it was Police Inspecdtor J. Herbert Sawyer. And that got captured in one of the Three Tramps photos.

And that was it. Then Oswald left for home.

And unfortunately, the same people who deny the lunch encounter also deny bus and cab. They claim that Oswald was the one who got into the Nash Rambler. And they childishly think that it was Ruth Paine's Nash Rambler, as if Lyndon Johnson, Allen Dulles, and J. Edgar Hoover, in plotting the murder of John F. Kennedy, would have relied on Ruth Paine for transportation.

Oswald said that he took the bus and cab, and if you are an Oswald defender you cannot call him a liar. And the reason that you can't call him a liar is because he hadn't done anthing, and therefore, he had no reason to lie to the police- about anything. And Oswald was smart- smart enough to know that he shouldn't lie to the police when he was innocent.

You can't defend Oswald while also calling him a liar. There are no exceptoins to that.

So, I am calling on all real Oswald defenders to believe him.

I am reminded of a line in a great movie, which happens to be my movie, DOVEY'S PROMISE. In the scene, Dovey Roundtree has been questioning Raymond Crump for the first time, and from that meeting, she is so impassioned in believing in his innocnence that she offers to defend him for one dollar. He is being prosecuted for the murder of Mary Pinchot Meyer, the last mistress of JFK, who was murdered in a Georgetown park 11 months after he was.

So, she is trying to lift his spirits by telling him what she plans to do to marshal his defense, and then she asks him if he believe her. And Raymond leans forward and says, "If you say it, I believe it."

Well, if Oswald said it, you need to believe it, that is, if you are really an Oswald defender.

 This is the 2nd floor lunchroom. Notice in the far-ground that there's a little room attached to it with a door. And the door has a window. It was through that window that Officer Marrion Baker first saw Oswald. And it was more like a flash because Oswald was on the move; he was entering the lunchroom.

But, Oswald could not have gotten there by going through that door we see because if he had, the door would have still been in motion. That little anteroom was small- no bigger than a closet. So, if Oswald had pushed that door open to get there, the door would have still been open.

So, the fact that the door was closed and stationary when Baker saw Oswald through the glass means that Oswald came through the other door, which was on our left as we view the scene. There were two entrance doors: one on the stairwell side, where Baker was, and one on the office side, which was the door that Oswald used. And between them was a third door that went into the lunchroom., as we can see.

Now, there is no doubt about what I'm saying because Oswald just got there a few steps ahead of Baker. And if he had come down from the 6th floor, Baker and Truly would have heard him coming down, and Truly, who was ahead of Baker, would have encountered him. Truly was making his way up to the third floor, but when he realized that he had lost the officer, he went back down to see what happened.

And I want to say again that it was really quite insane that in pursuit of a killer or killers that Truly would be the one leading the charge. He clearly knew what they were doing, that they were on the trail of the assassin or assassins. So, why would Truly feel safe about being in front? Wouldn't he take cover behind the officer?

The answer to that conundrum is that Truly knew very well that he was in no danger because he was involved in the conspiracy. The TSBD was a CIA front company, and the CIA killed Kennedy.

But, the point is that this simple, ordinary photograph completely exonerates Oswald because it shows that he did not come down from the 6th floor: he came up from the 1st floor, using the stairs in the southeast corner of the building next to the doorway. Oswald went from the doorway, where he was standing and photographed, to the 2nd floor lunchroom.