Continuing now to expose the bogus Prayer Man claim, I am entirely open to the idea that it was concocted solely as a diversion and distraction- to draw people away from the truth that Oswald is the Doorway Man in the Altgens photo and Wiegman film. 

It wouldn't be the first they did such a thing. The whole Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunch room ruse from 1974 was done for that reason, explicitly: because it's noise that will distract from the truth. 

You see, they know they can't go wrong promoting a falsehood because falsehoods do not threaten the truth. The official story of the JFK assassination is a falsehood, but it is never going to be supplanted by another false story. And they know that. 

But, getting back to Prayer Man, first, we should reject ALL of the claims of people being "in the shadows." Why would someone watch a motorcade from back there? You can hardly see anything. You could see the narrow window in front of you as the cars pass, but you couldn't take in the whole panorama and majesty of that motorcade from back there. And there was no reason for anyone to do it. 

We heard Shelley say that he was back in the shadows, which was a lie. Shelley was on the steps, and you can be damn sure of that. That's because his purpose was to make sure that Oswald didn't descend into the crowd. How were they going to claim that he was up on the 6th floor if he was wandering around Dealey Plaza? They had to keep Oswald in the building, and that was Shelley's job.  

So, Oswald came out, and he only took a couple seps to the edge of the landing. Did he try to go further but Shelley stopped him?  I don't know. It's possible, but I don't know. Maybe he spontaneously and on his own accord stop where he did. But, if he did try to  leave the steps, you can be sure that Shelley was there to stop him and did. What excuse did he give him, or would have given him, not to venture any further? I don't know, and I am not going to speculate. What for? Shelley was Oswald's boss. And they may have none each other from long before because they were both in the Civil Air Patrol. 

We just have the one picture of Oswald from the CAP, and that looks like Harvey to me.

  

Look how well the CAP Oswald matches Oswald in New York. That is the same guy. 

So, Oswald may very well have had a connection with Shelley, and I have to wonder whether it struck him as odd that Shelley should be working there. It's well known that Oswald was not friendly and sociable at the TSBD; just the opposite; and in stark contrast to how he was with people in Russia. So, why was he so withdrawn at the TSBD? I have a feeling that he knew that the place was not what it was cracked up to be, that something else was going on there. 

But getting back to November 22, Shelley said he was "back in the shadows" just to provide an explanation for why he isn't seen in the Altgens photo. But, he was "back in the shadows" he would have been behind Oswald, and that was no good. What I'm saying is that Shelley was like a linebacker there to block the forward advance of Oswald, and he couldn't do that if he was behind him. So, that was definitely a lie. 

But, anyone who was there to actually watch the motorcade would not have done it from back in the shadows. They would have come forward where they could see much more and much better. So, that is another reason to reject the whole idea that Prayer Man was anybody. 

You see that slight contrast beneath the arrow. Well, that's Prayer Man in Wiegman. And don't try to make any sense of it. It's just noise. I am certain that this film was deliberately blurred so that we can't see it very well. It was taken by an NBC cameraman, and they had the best equipment in the world. No way could they have produced something as bad as this. This was deliberately blurred and distorted. But, that's definitely Oswald top center wearing his trademark shirt. Who do I think Prayer Man was? Nobody. 

Simple question: There are 3 ears here: Lovelady's, Oswald's, and Doorman's, going from left to right. Which two match, and which one is the odd man out?

Prayer Man was Nobody

by Ralph C. Cinque 

Not only was Prayer Man not Oswald, it's likely that he wasn't anybody, that he didn't exist, that the whole clip of him, supposedly from the Darnell film, is fake. Here's why:

This is supposed to be from the Darnell film, but when you watch the Darnell film, you don't see it. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCHTdTF7YbE

In the gif, you see Officer Baker running towards the entrance. He is about to reach it. 

So, this is image below is right before Baker got there, and he said that he reached the entrance about 10 seconds after the last shot. And he was timed doing it. He did several reenactments for the Warren Commission.

So, the above image had to be less than 10 seconds after the last shot. But, who are all those people? We know who was in the doorway, and it wasn't these people. It was Frazier, Lovelady, Shelley, Stanton, etc., not those people. Some claim that the tall man at the top of the steps was Frazier. But, is he? On the left below is Frazier at the time he was brought in. 

On the right is the alleged Frazier figure from the clip, and I drew those black lines to show you how imposible it was for him to stand that way. Nobody could. But, Frazier was not wearing a white pajama top like that guy was wearing. 

Now, watch this clip of it, which shows Baker getting to the steps.

So, the story of this clip is that less than 10 seconds after the last shot, there were a hoard of people herding into the TSBD, going up the steps to enter the TSBD. But, that did not happen. And what happened to our people? You know, the Altgens Family?

Da nah nah nah.

Da nah nah nah.

Da nah nah nah; Da nah nah nah; Da nah nah nah.

They're creepy and they're kooky, 

Mysterious and spooky, 

They're all together ooky, 

The Altgens Family. 

Their doorway's a museum 

When people come to see 'em 

They really are a scree'um 

The Altgens Family. 

Neat.

Sweet.

Petite.

So get a witches shawl on 

A broomstick you can crawl on 

We're gonna pay a call on 

The Altgens Family.

Their names are still debated,

Black Hole and Obfuscated,

Their histories are related,

The Altgens Family.

See Oswald is the Doorman,

He doesn't have a prayer, Man,

Lovelady's got no hair, Man,

The Altgens Family

Lee.

Shel-ly'.

Bil-ly'.

Lee's innocent, you dodo,

Scan Altgens' altered photo

For characters we all know,

The Altgens Family.

 So, where are they? How come we can't see them in this image?

We don't see a single person that we should see. Not one. And it's less than 10 seconds after the last shot. And how could Baker have run up the steps, as he said he did, if it was that crowded? Baker didn't say anything about having trouble getting up those steps. 

Mr. BELIN - You then ran into the Building, is that correct?
Mr. BAKER - That is correct, sir.
Mr. BELIN - What did you see and what did you do as you ran into the building?
Mr. BAKER - As I entered this building, there was, it seems to me like there was outside doors and then there is a little lobby.
Mr. BELIN - All right.
Mr. BAKER - And then there are some inner doors and another door you have to go through, a swinging door type.
As I entered this lobby there were people going in as I entered. And I asked, I just spoke out and asked where the stairs or elevator was, and this man, Mr. Truly, spoke up and says, it seems to me like he says, "I am a building manager. Follow me, officer, and I will show you." So we immediately went out through the second set of doors, and we ran into the swinging door.
Mr. BELIN - All right.
Now, during the course of running into the swinging door, did you bump into the back of Mr. Truly?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. BELIN - Then what happened?
Mr. BAKER - We finally backed up and got through that little swinging door there and we kind of all ran, not real fast but, you know, a good trot, to the back of the Building, I was following him.

So, I propose to you that the entire footage of Prayer Man is bogus. And remember there is a lot of bogus film work in the JFK assassination. It is the most cinematically altered event ever. So, who was Prayer Man? Most likely, Prayer Man was nobody. 

This is Memorial Day weekend. so let's look back at U.S. wars. The only time I know of that the U.S. was attacked by another country was by England, in the War of 1812. And when I say "attacked" I mean came here and attacked us.

Some people say that we were attacked on 9/11, but you know that I take my cue from the 3000+ architects and engineers who say that the towers were imploded in a controlled demolition. And, 18 hijackers could not have done that. So, we were not attacked by foreigners or any foreign government on 9/11.

But, let's look at the wars that resulted from 9/11. First, there was Afghanistan, in which we crossed an ocean and two seas to attack a 3rd world country. The immediate purpose of doing 9/11 was to invade Afghanistan. There were other reasons why they did it. They wanted a long "War on Terror" which was really a War of Terror. And they wanted the Patriot Act. But, it started by attacking Afghanistan, and that was the immediate result that they were seeking. And by "they" I mean the neocons who were in control of Bush and his administration.

But now, let's look at the Afghan War in terms of Memorial Day. But first, note that we memorialize our warriors because, supposedly, they did great things. They protected us. They saved us from great evils, including the loss of our freedom. For instance, our World War 2 warriors stopped Hitler from taking over the world and killing every Jew. Isn't that why we call them the Greatest Generation? I'll come back to that. But, what about our veterans and martyrs from the Afghan War? What did they supposedly do for us? What did they supposedly save us from?
They traveled halfway around the world to attack a 3rd world country that hadn't done anything to us. They started a war that has continued for 19 years, killing thousands of Americans, and hundreds of thousands of Afghans, many of whom were women and children, and is still raging to this day. Trump signed a peace deal that recognizes the right of the Taliban to return to power. Would he have done that if he really believed the Taliban had attacked us on 9/11? And right now, as I type, the fighting and dying continues in Afghanistan. In recent days, women and children have died there. One can only hope that at some point, the fighting will end, but if it does, it's because the Taliban is back in power running the country by Sharia law. It's either going to be that, and I think Trump is willing to have that, or perpetual war.

So, on this Memorial Day, what did the American veterans from the Afghan War fight for? What do they have to feel good about? What do we have to thank them for? From having saved us from what? And what did our martyrs who died in that war sacrifice their lives for? And why should any of us think that it was worth it? Why should their loved ones think it was worth it?

Are any of the platitudes going to work on you? Because: they are not going to work on me.

And is it any better for the Iraq War? No, it is not any better. In fact, it's worse because more people died there; more Americans and more Iraqis. Johns Hopkins researchers determined that by 2010, at least 1 million Iraqis had died because of the war, either directly or indirectly. And that was just by 2010. In the 10 years since then, many more have died. And remember: there were no weapons of mass destruction. All the reasons given why we had to attack Iraq proved to be false. How George W. Bush has stayed out of prison after that is a mystery to me. What is wrong with us that we don't hold him accountable?

What about Vietnam? That was essentially a civil war that was none of our business. But there, we killed 3 million and lost 58,000, but what was the result? They won; we lost; but, we left them with an ongoing legacy of birth defects and deformities from Agent Orange. You might say that was America's Zyclon-B.

And that brings us back to the "good war." World War 2, which I want to talk about. But first, since we're looking backward at history, note that Dr. John Quigley, the late History professor at Berkeley, wrote a book, The Ruses for War, in which he destroyed the justifications for all the post WW2 wars, starting with Korea. He devoted 100 pages to demonstrating that it was the South that attacked the North, and it's very persuasive. And, since the government of South Korea, at the time, was our puppet, it means that we (the U.S,) must have told them to do it. It means that we, the U.S., are responsible for starting the Korean War, not the North Koreans or the Chinese.
So, like the Vietnam War, the Korean War was a war of aggression by the United States. And, Harry Truman even violated the Constitution by sending U.S. troops to war without a declaration of war by Congress, as required by the Constitution. But, Truman got away with it, and every President that followed him has done it and gotten away with it. And now, it's widely accepted that it's the President who decides whether to go to war. Truman essentially amended the Constitution, himself.

So, all the post World War 2 wars were bad, where there is nothing to celebrate on Memorial Day. But surely that doesn't apply to World War 2. That was the good war, right?

Sure, all those other wars were just rackets like General Smedley Butler told us, but not World War 2. That was heroic and necessary. It had to be fought because otherwise Hitler was going to take over the world. We had to stop Nazism, and war was the only way to do it. So, let us please honor the Greatest Generation who defeated the Nazis and saved us from a fate worse than death.
Well, are you ready? Are you seated? Maybe you should sit down because I wouldn't want you to faint. But, the truth is that that war was a racket too. It did NOT have to happen. 65 million people were killed in World War 2, and they did not have to die. And guess what? Hitler did not start World War 2, nor did he want World War 2.

As briefly as I can, I'll explain it to you what happened, and I'll try to be as succinct as possible. And first know: I am not a Hitler lover. I think it's abominable that he built a culture around hating Jews and blaming them for everything. But, facts are facts, and the fact is that World War 2 was started by England and France, and with the encouragement and material backing of the United States. They declared war on Germany; not vice versa. England and France, started that whole fucking war! They did it, supposedly, because Hitler invaded Poland.

But, Hitler gave his reasons for invading Poland. The German city of Gdansk was ripped out of Germany and given to Poland at the end of WW1. So, it was a German city being ruled by Poles, and that turned bad; ugly bad. Another big piece of Germany was given to Poland called the Corridor, and Hitler told the Poles that they could keep that, but he wanted Gdansk back. Gdansk was a port city which made it valuable to Poland which was otherwise landlocked, and Hitler told them that they could keep the port. But, the Poles wouldn't budge. And, there were hostilities all along the long German/Polish border, and Hitler said that Germans were being attacked and killed along that border, and that is why he invaded Poland, to stop that.

Now, whether you believe that or not, the fact is that Germany invaded Poland from the west, and then the Soviet Union invaded Poland from the east. England and France not only refrained from condemning the Soviet Union for doing the exact same thing Hitler did, they allied with the Soviets and supported them, as did the U.S.

Do you have any idea how much FDR supported "Uncle Joe"? Before we even got into the war, FDR sent him tons of food (at a time when many Americans were starving due to the Great Depression) fiber, rope, guns, ammunition, and even whole planes. These were sent to a man who killed more human beings than anyone else who ever lived: 40 million. And this was before the U.S. officially entered the war. You simply cannot overstate how pro-Soviet and pro-Communist FDR was. His closest advisors were dyed-in-the wool Communists, such as his Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, and William Bullitt, his Ambassador to France.
Do you know how many millions of civilians the British and Americans killed in their carpet bombing campaigns in WW2? I am not talking about "collateral damage." I am talking about the deliberate targeting of civilians. And before anyone tries to make excuses for it, realize that TODAY, it would surely be declared a war crime if any nation fought a war that way.

World War 2 did NOT have to happen. Hitler did not want war with the West. It was the West that wanted it, and it was the West that started it.

But, what about the concentration camps? Wouldn't Hitler have killed every Jew in Europe and in the world if he could, had we not gone to war with him? It's true that Hitler was a raving anti-Semite, but the way he intended to solve his "Jewish problem" before the war was not to kill them but to emigrate them out of Germany to other countries, particularly Palestine. Between 1933, when Hitler became Chancellor, and 1939, when the war began, two-thirds of Germany's Jews had left Germany. The Jewish population in Germany had shrunk from 500,000 to 165,000 by the start the war. And that was accomplished without killing any of them. The German Zionist organization cooperated with the Nazi government to bring it about.

For the record, I am not an anti-Semite, and I have Jewish friends whom I love dearly. But, the point is: WW2, like all the other wars, did not have to happen.

I don't claim to know what the true facts of the Holocaust are. I don't doubt that Jews were killed in large numbers. But, honestly and sincerely, and I tell you this without malice, that the number of Jews killed can't be as high as 6 million, and that's because that figure was cited when the number attributed to Auschwitz was 4 million. But, that's been reduced to 1 million, so how can the total still be 6 million?

And realize also that the Holocaust story has been revised and not just by revisionists. At first, it was claimed that there were death camps in Germany, but now it is widely admitted that there were no extermination camps in Germany, but only in Nazi-occupied Eastern Europe. But, if there had been no World War 2, there would have been no German occupation of Eastern Europe.

But, I agree that the whole Nazi mindset and ideology of hating Jews was monstrous, and it had to end. And I think it could have ended without war. The world was right to ostracize Hitler and Germany for hating and persecuting Jews. I am as appalled by it as anyone else. But, I have to think that it could have ended without war, just as I think that slavery in the South could have ended without having a Civil War. We are talking about the possibility of having prevented a war that killed 65 million people. How would that not have been a good thing?

So, what do I have to celebrate this Memorial Day? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

There's a common dismissal that people will use who are dismissive of Oswald in the doorway. It is to say that "two government investigations determined it wasn't Oswald but Lovelady."  But, do you know what the operative word is there? It is the word: government. They were government investigations. Now, if you support the government's whole story of what happened, then it follows that you would respect government investigations. But, I am talking about people who reject the official story of what happened. So, even though they reject the government story of what happened, they want to accept the government investigation of this issue. 

But, if you don't accept the government's story that the crazed lone nut Oswald did it, then you have no reason to accept any of the government's work on the matter. 

And it's important to remember that if Oswald didn't kill Kennedy, then it means the government killed Kennedy. There's no one else it could be. The Mafia? Well, the Mafia had a role in it; they were brought into it; but, it wasn't their operation. The Mafia couldn't change the motorcade route. The Mafia couldn't control the press and make them push the official story. The Mafia couldn't introduce phony evidence and get it to stick. Only government could do that, and the FBI was government. How and why would there be a big cover-up, that continues to this day, to protect the Mafia? 

No, if Oswald didn't kill Kennedy, then the government killed Kennedy, and it was a coup d'etat. Those are your choices, and there is nothing in-between.  And that's why if you know that Oswald didn't kill Kennedy that you have no basis to trust any government investigation. 

And when you look at what the government did the two times it investigated the Doorman issue, you realize how corrupt it was. 

The Warren Commission relied entirely on witnesses to vouch for who Doorman was. They had images of Lovelady that were taken by the FBI for the purpose of comparing him to Doorman. They even unbuttoned Lovelady's shirt to imply that that's how it was on 11/22/63 even though Lovelady never said his shirt was unbuttoned that day. 

The unbuttoning on Lovelady is very important because it shows that they were consciously trying to duplicate the look of Doorman. It's a Benjamin Braddock moment. 'There is Lovelady, standing the way he did on 11/22 with his shirt unbuttoned." I think that someone may have pushed the shirt aside where the arrow is to create a gap artificially. Of course, the two men are miles apart. Lovelady's shirt isn't even long-sleeved. And how ironic that Lovelady had the habit of clasping his hands in back while Oswald clasped his hands in front.   

But, the Warren Commission didn't use that photo of Lovelady. They just got a few TSBD employees to say that Doorman was Lovelady. But, they didn't pick those employees randomly. They screened them ahead of time, and that's where the FBI came in. Do you realize that just about all of the witnesses who testified to the WC were first screened by the FBI? So, when Joseph Ball asked Buell Frazier who Doorman was, he did so knowing beforehand that Frazier was going to say Lovelady. And the same went for Danny Arce. But, with Lovelady, Ball had been given no assurances that he would cooperate. And that's why instead of just asking him who Doorman was, Ball cunningly had Lovelady "draw an arrow to himself." And it turned into a fiasco because Lovelady drew an arrow to another figure, the one we call Black Hole Man. He drew it in the black space of the enclosure of Black Hole Man's arms, and with a black pen, and we just got lucky that a little bit of it overlapped his forearm. 

The big arrow on the left is definitely Frazier's arrow, and the only other mark on the photo is that little line on the forearm of Black Hole Man. And really, the whole image of Black Hole Man is bizarre because visoring one's eyes with one's hands can't possibly blacken out your whole face. "They" blackened out his face, and they also removed the vertical stripes from his shirt. 

Lovelady really did tell the FBI that he wore that short-sleeved shirt on 11/22, and we have another image of him in that shirt on 11/22.

That is from the Malcolm Couch film which was taken about 20 seconds after the shooting, as Lovelady was heading for the railway yard with Shelley, and there was a throng of people who did that. 

What about the HSCA? They brought in Robert Groden, who is supposedly an Oswald defender, cough, cough, and he vouched for Doorman being Lovelady. But, his photographic comparisons included not a single image of Oswald and Doorman, and it's because those collages scream that we are seeing the same man wearing the same clothes. 

Admittedly, the tops of the head look different, where Doorman's has a simian shape in contrast to Oswald's geometric shape, and the hair looks very different. But, that's what they changed. They weren't going to just say that he was Lovelady. They had to do something to "Lovelady-ify" him, and that's what they did. Look at it without that. The match is perfect in every way: the face, the features, the slenderness, the sunken t-shirt, the outer shirt. 

And no, there is no "plaid pattern" on Doorman's shirt. The contrast that you see is due to light reflection as well photographic haze and distortion from the gross enlargement that it is. And they may have added a line or two to throw us off. But, it's nothing like plaid. And then, to deter us from Oswald's signature hand-clasping in front, they tried to make it look like the black man his his arm going up in front of Doorman, like he's hailing a tamale vendor. But, it's ridiculous. How could his skin exhibit the exact same greyscale as his supposedly rolled up shirt? And they put the thumb in the wrong place. His thumb should be on the other side. The whole thing is fake; breathtakingly fake. The arrogance of these people to do such a thing. And then there is the stupidity of those who actually believe this shit, and I mean both LNS who believe and supposed Oswald defenders who believe it. Shame on them. 

This image is from the 30 year retrospective on the killing of Oswald by NBC. It is the only image in existence of the face of the Garage Shooter. It's not from the melee' in the garage, but it is very close in time to the melee' in the garage. And since it is such a direct shot of his face, why isn't this a go-to image? It is supposed to be Jack Ruby, but why, when you do a search for images of Jack Ruby on Google or elsewhere, doesn't this image pull up?

Notice that it is an impossible photograph. Notice that Detectives Boyd and Hall both look clear and sharp, and their eyes look normal. But, "Ruby"  in the middle (actually James Bookhout) looks blurred, and his eyes are black bars. Why would his eyes be captured as black bars when Boyd and Hall have normal eyes? And why is Sims in back so blurred that he looks ghost-like? And all these differences are occurring in one photograph? That is impossible. The only time that blur occurs compartmentally in a photo is if there is a moving object in the photo, and everything else is still. But, in this case, they're all still. In fact, if anyone was moving, it was Hall, and he is the sharpest of all. 

It was taken on the 3rd floor by the elevator. That was the main administrative floor of the DPD, where the Homicide Bureau was, and Curry's office was, etc. So, it's normally a very busy place.  But, it was a Sunday morning, and the floor was completely shut down at that point. They were actually hovering in the dark at that time, and the light you see was due entirely to the flash on the camera. 

Here  are some examples of genuine blurry photos. Notice that they are blurry throughout. 

I can think of something good that has come out of Covid, and that is, deterrence of war. If you recall, Trump almost started a war with Iran last year. And then in January, he killed Iranian General Soleimani along with 9 Iraqis, after he was invited to Iraq by the Prime Minister of Iraq to discuss peace in the region, including how to defuse the longstanding friction between Saudi Arabia and Iran. So, that's what he was there for, and we killed him. We said he was a terrorist, but he was actually internationally recognized for fighting terrorism. And one of the Iraqis we killed with him was Abu Mahdi al Muhandis, the head of an Iraqi militia, a unit within the Iraqi Armed Forces, and also a member of the Iraqi Parliament. But, we didn't like him, so we killed him. And, we pretend that we recognize and respect Iraq's sovereignty. And you wonder why Iraqis hate us so much.

And ironically, the killing of Soleimani occurred after the Covid crisis began. It was underway in China, for it was January, and Covid started there in December.

But, Bolton, Pompeo, and other Iran-haters had Trump's ear, and a war almost got started. The mainstream media seemed gung-ho about it, just as they were before the disastrous Afghanistan War in 2001 and the tragic Iraq War in 2003.

But, the nice thing now is: How are you going to start a war if your soldiers all have to wear face masks and have to social distance 6 feet or more apart? It makes it rather tough. Plus, I think the very idea of it would go over like a lead balloon at this point.

Another country we may have attacked by now if not for Covid is Venezuela.

So, if you're wondering what the sunny side of Covid is, this is it: the sidelining of war. May that side effect last forever.

Lee Harvey Oswald was described by the Warren Commission as insane. Criminally, psychopathically, monstrously, abominably insane. And they said it wasn't a sudden breach that occurred to him on Thursday, November 21 or whenever they thought he was reading the newspaper and came across the motorcade route and decided, on the spot, to kill Kennedy. And keep in mind that there is no chance that that happened. Oswald did NOT know the motorcade route. On Friday morning, he did NOT know that JFK's limo would be passing the building. He had to ask James Jarman why people were gathering on the sidewalk because he didn't know. And if you think he did it just to create an ignorance alibi, think again, because he didn't use it. He never told police, "How could I have killed Kennedy when I didn't even know that he was going to pass the building? Just ask James Jarman." Oswald never said it. 

But, as I said, the claim was not that he cracked up in late November, but rather, that he was sliding down the abyss of insanity long before that. They said that he tried to kill General Walker on April 10. Of course, he didn't. They said that he intended to shoot Richard Nixon, also in April, and that the only reason he didn't is because Marina locked him in the bathroom. And when it was pointed out to her that you can't lock someone in a bathroom from the outside, she said that even though she was a 5'3" 100 pound woman, and pregnant at the time, that she just held the door shut at the handle with her brute strength, and he could not overcome her. So, I guess what? For hours, they struggled there at the door, him on one side, her on the other, in a tug of war, and finally, enough time passed that it was too late for him to go kill Nixon? And by the way, small point: Nixon wasn't even in Dallas at the time. 

Then, they said he got the idea that he and Marina would hijack a plane together to get to Cuba, and that they would both be wielding guns, that she would have a gun in one hand and June's hand in her other hand.  

How did they get Marina Oswald to say these things? Remember that she was held in confinement for months, and during that time, she underwent intense brainwashing. I'm sure they told her that she was traumatized, and her mind was playing tricks on her, that she was having trouble remembering things that happened because her mind was in turmoil, but they were going to help her regain those memories. And lo and behold, things that she could not remember on 11/22/63, such as Oswald owning a rifle, Oswald going to Mexico City, Oswald posing for the Backyard photos, all came back to her by the time she testified to the Warren Commission. She did 90% of the damage to Oswald. The Warren Commision case against Oswald was largely Marina Oswald. How could she do that to her own husband?

Well, you need to realize that they weren't getting along too well, that there were things about Oswald that irritated her. Their marriage was definitely under stress. They weren't living together. But, on the other hand, they were not heading towards divorce. His loyalty and devotion to her and their children was not an issue. And even though she was not ready to move back in with him, she did let him sleep with her on the Thursday, and they were still very much married. So, why did she do what she did to him after the assassination? It was mind control. She was suddenly immersed in a world in which people perceived Oswald as monster. You should think of it like cult indoctrination, where a person is separated from all their family and friends and immersed exclusively in the world of the cult 24/7. You should think of it like Patty Hearst being immersed in the world of the Symbionese Liberation Front, and in both cases, sex and drugs were very much involved in the "conversions." 

But, the point is that Oswald was NOT insane, and in those two days in which he was in custody, it is quite obvious that he was not insane. He was lucid. He was rational. He was intelligent. And at the Midnight Press Conference, he came across as the most civil and rational person in the room. In fact, he made such a good impression at the MPC that they had to add background noise to make him look bad. You hear a guy saying, "At ease" which sounds very military. Just listen to the racket. They added cacophony to distract from Oswald's lucidness. 

It's difficult to find the complete MPC. Most versions are truncated. And that's because Oswald spent most of that minute twenty seconds talking about his being denied a lawyer. You really should listen to him and then ask yourself whether the very next day, he would turn down the offer of a lawyer. I am telling you that Oswald never met with H. Louis Nichols. That was damage control: to undo the damage Oswald did at the MPC.

https://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/01/lee-harvey-oswald.html

The point is that there is a complete disconnection between the Oswald we can see and hear and the one, the psychopath, painted by the Warren Commission. That whole portrait of him was completely fictitious. And the insanity went the other way. The insanity was the "rush to judgment" that Oswald was guilty. And it was based on the blind, driving force of "group-think" that took hold of people's minds in mass. Instantly, accepting Oswald's guilt became a "litmus test" for loyalty to the government, to the country, and to decency. The polarization, the great divide between being socially accepted or becoming an outcast, a social pariah, took place immediately. 

Dan Rather spoke of their being a tsunami, and I don't think he used that term that weekend. It was years later after we all got used to the word tsunami. And there was a tsunami that hit instantly: to either believe and accept the scenario being claimed or become an enemy of the United States of America. Either you're with us or you're a terrorist. That was the choice that George W. Bush gave in 2001, a man who went on to kill over a million people. And it was the same choice given to us in 1963; either accept the official story or be an advocate of anarchy, chaos, and revolution.  And the pressure of that choice- it even overcame Robert Kennedy. He couldn't stand up to that tsunami either. 

Oswald was NOT insane. It was the world around him that was insane. And the same is true of the world around us. Look at the Corona lockdown. When the tsumani hits, it hits hard. 
  
   

So, you still think I'm completely full of it about Ruby being innocent? Then try to explain this. Here we supposedly have a film frame converted into a photo. And remember that movie cameras were primitive back then; they worked by taking still photos and stringing them together.  This was from a newsreel. 

Why, in this photo, are Oswald and "Ruby" clear, while everyone else is extremely blurred? Not just a little blurred, but terribly, awfully, grotesquely blurred. Whatever causes blur in a photo is will affect the whole image. The idea that Oswald and "Ruby" could come out clear and focused while everyone else is highly and hugely distorted is photographically impossible. They did this. And what they did was take Oswald and "Ruby" from the Jackson photo and implant them into this. Remember, this was supposedly taken by a cameraman who was in a different spot than Robert Jackson. So, the angular difference alone would change the outcome a lot. But, as per Oswald and Ruby, this is identical to the Jackson photo. It is the Jackson photo, installed into this film frame. You still think they weren't up to dirty tricks? Why would they have to do this? It's because the whole story was a lie. Jack Ruby did NOT shoot Oswald. I keep telling you that, and you need to start believing me. 

It's interesting that they were determined to have an explicit photographic record of the Oswald killing, and they went to great lengths to do it up big. With the Jackson photo, it's rather like a Benjamin Braddock moment. 

"There is Oswald. Oswald has been shot. He is not feeling well. There is Jack Ruby. He is still pointing his gun at Oswald even though Oswald has already been shot, and he has slapped his arm against his chest, as in, 'Oh no, I've been shot.' There is Blackie Harrison who is reaching for the gun. But, Blackie does not want to interrupt his cigar smoking. Blackie enjoys his cigars. There is Jim Leavelle. He has his fingers buried in Oswald's crotch. Jim is looking at Jack Ruby, but he has not lunged at him yet, even though enough time has passed for Oswald to slap his arm against his chest. Jim Leavelle is in no hurry. He has to think about it a while. There is Detective Bill Lowery nestled to the wall. Bill is clasping his hands in front like a Jehovah Witness at the door. Bill looks very calm and relaxed even though a gunblast has just gone off. It takes more than that for him to come out of that peaceful pose. There is Captain Will Fritz. He has his hand out like he is startled. But, he is not flinching, and he is not turning around. He is just standing there with his hand out, posed like that. There is reporter Tom Pettit in the white coat. He does not look startled either, even though a gunblast has gone off. There is LC Graves. Ruby had to brush right past him to get to Oswald, but Graves did not see him then. This is not the angle that Ruby shot Oswald. He shot him from left to right, with the bullet  entering at the 7th rib on the left side and settling directly under the skin at the 11th rib on the right side. So, the bullet went from left to right and also downward. That is quite amazing that the trajectory was downward considering that the shooter was so short. And since he shot Oswald at an angle of about 45 degree to this, (coming at him from the side and not in front of him) it means that he, the shooter, in this photo, has moved quite a lot since he pulled the trigger.  But, why is he still pointing the gun at Oswald? And how could he do all that motion in just a small fraction of a second? Then, there is the cop in the white hat  who is behind Oswald and obviously looking past the men in front of him. He is looking at something farther away. If you look at his eyes, you see that he is not focused on Oswald.

He looks like he couldn't care less about Oswald, that his mind is somewhere else. He seems entranced with something, like he is staring intensely at something. What could it be? Was it the Wizard of Oz? No. I know. It was the camera. But, he is a policeman, and since when do policemen care about cameras, and especially when someone is being shot? That does not seem right. Why at that moment, with a shot having just gone off, and Oswald vocalizing his pain, could that guy be standing there, staring entranced at something farther away, and look as frozen as a Cigar Store Indian? This is confusing. How could it happen this way? This does not ring true. I am having an evil thought, that this wasn't real, that this was a staged, posed, planned photo. Where is Elaine? She'll know what to do. I need Elaine. Elaine! Elaine! Elaine! 

My Stretch of Texas Ground is now an Official Selection of the Switzerland International Film Festival. Because of Covid-19, the festival is going to be held online, with details pending. But, in the meantime, they sent me this laurel. It is the first Swiss festival at which we have been selected, and I am very pleased.

You would have to be out of your mind to say that these are the same man. 

I've said repeatedly that this Jackson photo was not taken during the Spectacle. It was taken beforehand, and it was staged. And that means that means that everything about it was staged, including the Blackie Harrison figure (who was not Harrison) smoking his little cigar. Now, why did they put that in there? They put that in there because the guy was not Blackie Harrison, and they needed to cover up the bottom of his face. Apparently, they thought he could never pass for Blackie unless they did that. And what that means is that Blackie was instructed to do the bit with the cigar. It wasn't spontaneous on his part. 

You really should read the testimony of William Blackie Harrison.

https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/harrison.htm

First, he did not want to testify until he had a chance to read the FBI report about the Oswald shooting, and the report of his superiors at the DPD. Why? It's because he wanted to make sure he didn't contradict them. He also showed up with his own personal defense attorney, and he's not the only DPD officer to do so. 

The Jackson photo is supposed to be a fraction of a second after the shot. This is a fraction of a second after the shot in the KRLD film. 

"Ruby" had just fired and Blackie is not near him. The first one to make physical contact with him was Graves, and his first action was to push him away. 

Next, Blackie starts moving in. His right arm is not reaching for "Ruby" but his left arm is tending to his cigar. 

Then, Blackie lets go of his cigar in order to bring both arms in at the same time to grab "Ruby." 

So, there is Blackie with his cigar in his mouth, but he is reaching for "Ruby" with both hands. We have no film frames of Blackie tending to his cigar with his left hand while reaching for "Ruby" with his right hand. That "story" occurs in the Jackson photo and nowhere else.  

Note that in the film frame, Oswald is already on the ground. The fact is that nothing remotely close to this occurred at the Garage Spectacle. This was a staged photo session that was done in advance during the time that the Dallas Police cleared out the garage, as per the testimony of Dr. Bieberdorf. And something else just occurred to me: they were expecting Ruby. He was guided there, through drugs and suggestion, and they would not have started doing this until Ruby was tucked away on the 5th floor. Because: if they had tried to do it BEFORE he got there, he could have walked in on it, and they certainly didn't want that. So, this had to be after. And Blackie claimed to be one of the officers who hustled Ruby up to the 5th floor. Him, McMillan, Archer, and Clardy. And note that McMillan is missing from this photo. You see him in Beers but not in Jackson. So, since Blackie was with McMillan, how come he is here when McMillan isn't here? It's because it isn't Blackie in this photo. 

I'll end with the collage comparing the real Blackie with the Blackie figure in Jackson. You would have to be out of your mind to say that these are the same man.