You heard about Russian dissident Alexei Navalny being poisoned with the nerve agent Novichok and almost dying from it. And it was absorbed through the skin, the intact skin. This is what it does: 

It overstimulates the nervous system, interfering with muscle function, causing spasms.

 Does that sound familiar? I can show you a picture of it. JFK was not in control of his muscles. He was in spasm, the effect of a nerve agent. And it didn't absorb through his intact skin, rather his violated skin. A frozen missile tore into his skin, and the chemical agent got immediately into his bloodstream. I doubt it was Novichok. Shellfish toxin is what CIA Director William Colby referred to at the Church Hearings. But, that is also a nerve agent. We are seeing the effect of that poisoning here. That's what the back shot was all about. It was not a bullet. It was a frozen dart embedded with a powerful toxin, a nerve agent. 

 I've delved into many aspects of the JFK assassination, but this issue of what hit JFK in the back has risen to the top for me. And that's because it goes to the core of the BIG LIE. And what is at the core of the BIG LIE? It's the Single Bullet Theory; the ridiculous and preposterous Single Bullet Theory. 

If JFK had been shot in the back of the neck with a bullet that traversed his neck, he would not have gone on sitting there. And no, the back brace wasn't holding him up. He surely would have been instantly paralyzed on one side, because even if the bullet miraculously avoided the spinal cord, there are nerves coming out on each side of spinal cord, and considering the supposed path of the bullet, it surely would have bored through those nerves. 

And remember that inflammation sets in immediately, and the only way they were able to save Christopher Reeves was to give him massive doses of steroids. It's just ridiculous to think that JFK sustained such a trauma prior to the fatal headshot. 

And of course, people objected to it right away. They made fun of it by calling it the Magic Bullet theory. But, what did they propose happened instead? That's where they dropped the ball. 

Think about it intuitively. A man is riding in a convertible, and he gets shot in the back. Is he going to have any trouble knowing that he's been shot? Is there going to be any doubt in his mind? Isn't he going to act like a man who's been shot? And once he knows that he is being shot at, he also knows that they are going to keep shooting until he's dead. So, he's going to get down, right? And he's going to get his wife to get down. And the people in front of him, he's going to want them to get down too. But, he didn't do any of that. so, WHY WASN'T HIS MIND WORKING? How did he get so instantly lobotomized? 

But, it's not just his strange behavior. His wife was sitting next to him. So ladies, if you were riding in a convertible, and your husband sitting right next to you, was shot in the back, don't you think you would know it? We know from watching the Zapruder film that Jackie knew that something was wrong with Jack, but she didn't know what. If she knew he had been shot, don't you think she would have gotten down? And we also know from her own testimony that she did not know that he had been shot. And I'm not just talking about the sound of the gunshot. She, like others, said she thought it was the sound of the motorcycles backfiring. But, when she looked at him and realized that something was wrong, the first thing she noticed was that he had a "quizzical" look on his face. Who responds that way to getting shot with a bullet in the back? "Hmmm, I think I felt something. What was that? That's weird." That is not what is going through your mind when you have been shot in the back with a bullet, let alone for the bullet to tunnel through your neck from back to front.   

And, I hope I have convinced you that JFK was shot in the back high on the hill. We have three photographs of him riding down the hill NOT WAVING. You know he was a very engaging and very personable President. Look at the Croft photo with the enthusiastic, "Croft Ladies." Look how adoring they are. Why isn't he responding to them? It's because he was shot in the back. This whole photo is so goofy. Jackie could not have had her head turned that much. That is way too much rotation. And why does she look so glum? Look: either she thinks that all is well, or she knows he's been shot. She did not that he was shot. Therefore, why is she looking like that? She is a politician's wife, and she has a job to do. It's to wave at the people and be nice. Why isn't she does it? It's because that is a manipulated image, and the objective was to obscure JFK's face. Notice that we can't see his eyes, or it looks like his eyes were closed. He probably had a startled look on his face. Why? Because was just shot! It was just a little before this that he was shot in the back.  

But again, if it were a bullet, he would have felt it and known it. They all would have known it. But, whatever it was was so slight, that it was hard to tell that anything major had happened. 

Do you know how they like to say which frame of the Zapruder film corresponds to the Altgens photo? I'm sure the famed JFK researcher John Costella would say that it is a complete waste of time to do that, and I agree. But, they do it anyway, and it's usually frame 255 that they settle on, which is ridiculous. 

But, what frame of the Zapruder film corresponds to the Croft photo? NOBODY EVEN ASKS! It isn't even on the radar. That's because there is nothing remotely close to what we see in the Croft photo in the Zapruder film. Why isn't it there? It's because they cut out that whole swath of him riding down the hill having been shot in the back! They took out a big, huge section of the film. Of all the alterations they made, and they made a ton of them, that's the biggest one. 

But, JFK did get shot in the back. and it was well below his neck. You can see the bullet hole in his jacket.

Now, look at this image because you are looking at it correctly for the first time in your life. It's one of many images from the JFK assassination that is shown left-to-right flipped. I unflipped it. He was shot on the right side of his back. That is not in dispute. So, this is how the picture should look.

Look how close to the center that is. Stop thinking that a full met jacket bullet bored into his back there. And stop thinking that a bullet hit him at flight speed there and came to zero velocity in one inch. That is an impossible degree of deceleration. And anything that did decelerate that fast would do a colossal amount of damage and destruction. That's because the energy has to go somewhere. Energy can't be created or destroyed. The bullet can't just stop. It has to take its energy out on something, including itself. But, he wasn't hit with a bullet. It was a dart. An ice dart, loaded with a drug. It never happened before, but it happened then. 
 

Tomorrow is the final day of the shoot of The Pro Bono Watchman which stars the Emmy award-winning actor Mike Gassaway. Although I'm sure the CIA already has a file on me, they should definitely watch this film because they're in it. The CIA plays a big role in the story. I'm going to make them famous. It's what I do.  

  

I don't know who is filling in for Biden's brain right now, but he or she is one hell of a chess player. And it's really quite amazing because the United States signed the Doha agreement in front of representatives from many countries, organizations, and the United Nations. And the terms were very clear: we agreed to be completely out of Afghanistan by May 1.

So now, like an actor, Biden announces the glad tidings that we are leaving Afghanistan, that the 20 year war is ending, the Forever War is behind us now, etc. etc. He didn't say one word about us breaching the contract-  to just helping ourselves to a 4 month extension. 

Some are saying that the May 1 deadline isn't practical because it takes time to remove 2500 troops, but that deadline was on the books for almost a year. It wasn't just sprung on us. 

And be aware that the blather about leaving in September is just that: blather. Without the slightest stumble, they could just glibly say later that because of this or that that the Taliban did, that we ain't leaving; we're staying. 

In other words, the difference between saying "we're leaving in September" and "we're staying indefinitely" is bubkis.

The Taliban responded to it, as I expected, saying that it's a breach, a violation, a non-compliance. The big question is: are they going to resume attacking Americans after May 1? Of course, I don't know. But, see if you think this sounds like a threat because to me it sounds like a threat.  

Now as the agreement is being breached by America, it in principle opens the way for the Mujahideen of Islamic Emirate to take every necessary countermeasure, hence the American side will be held responsible for all future consequences, and not the Islamic Emirate.

I knew we weren't going to leave, and I told you so. But, what I didn't anticipate is the psychological game they are now playing, where they are making staying look like leaving. Touche' Biden's brain. 

So, what is the Taliban going to do now? Again, I don't know. But, I think it's going to be worse than what Biden and his brain are expecting. 

 

The Splat Heard 'Round The World

The Splat. That's what JFK's shot in the back was. It wasn't a bullet that tunneled into his body. It was a sharp but delicate object that just pierced his skin a little and then shattered and splattered, and then poof, it was gone. 

A bullet can't do that. The JFK community dropped the ball on this. From the beginning, and all along, they rejected the ridiculous Single Bullet Theory. But when left with a super-shallow wound in his back, how did they explain it? Nothing but cockamamie ideas- as if the JFK assassination occurred within its own physical universe. 

Think back to high school when you took Driver's Ed. You were taught that a car requires one car length of stopping distance for every 10 miles per hour of speed. So, a car going 60 mph needs 6 car lengths to stop. A bullet travels  at least1200 mph and up to 2800. So, if it were a car, imagine how much distance it would require to stop. 

Of course, a car will eventually stop even with no braking at all. What causes it to stop? Friction. Friction from the road, and also, air resistance. 

Of course, a bullet entering the body is not going to encounter air resistance, but the body's tissues provide resistance. Remember Newton. The bullet and the tissues both act on each other. The tissues suffer damage and disruption, in a word: trauma. The bullet suffers loss of velocity, but it gets damaged too. It may not be much, but it's something. 

So, if a FMJ bullet hit JFK the back, at the speed that it was going, it is mathematically possible to calculate the resistance of his tissues (and we're not talking about a lot of tissue because the bullet did not even reach muscle. It went through the skin to the fascia.) 

If you know the momentum  and propulsive force of the bullet, and you also know the resistance of the tissues, you can determine the distance that a bullet will travel thorough any given tissues. It's a mater of physics and mathematics. 

And for an FMJ bullet traveling at bullet-speed, and going through skin and fascia, there is no way that such a bullet could reach zero velocity in that short a distance. From bullet speed to absolute stillness just from passing through skin and fascia? No way! The mathematics doesn't add up.

I keep telling you: it was not a bullet. It was a very specialized missile that was essentially made of ice. 

What do you know about the physics of water? Did you know that water is the only substance that expands when it's frozen? Are you aware of how unstable ice (frozen water) is? Have you noticed that all you have to do is pour room temperature water over ice cubes, and they start cracking and breaking apart. That's how unstable ice is. And there are ways of making it more unstable. For instance, the more minerals there are in the water, the more unstable the ice is. That's because the minerals interfere with the crystalline structure of the hydrogen/oxygen bonds in the ice. 

Just as an ice cube that you dig out of the tray can burst, so can an ice spicule that pierces your skin. And if it's formulated correctly, it can literally blow up. 

And that is what happened to John F. Kennedy. He wasn't hit in the back with a bullet. If he was, there is no way it could have stopped so fast. But, an ice flechette? Yes. That can be designed to burst on impact, where it just penetrates a little and then blows up. I'm not talking about melting. I'm talking about blowing up into tiny little pieces of ice, which then melt very quickly because they are so small.

And let's also remember that NO BULLET WAS FOUND IN JFK'S BACK. And no bullet was found anywhere else.  And that is another reason to reject the idea that he was hit with a bullet. 

Bullets don't hit their target and disappear, but an ice spicule does, or at least, it can- if it's made right. 

Stop thinking that this is a wild theory. The theory that a solid bullet hit him at speed and went to zero velocity just from passing through clothes and skin, that's the wild theory. That does not constitute enough resistance to stop such a bullet. But, the ice flechette? Don't you get it? It was designed to do just that.   

 

 

 

The world is waiting to see if Eric Nelson, the lawyer of Derek Chauvin, is going to have him take the stand in the George Floyd murder trial.  

I don't know if he is or isn't, but I do know that the dumbest decision ever made, in that regard, was that of Jack Ruby's legal team to not have Ruby take the stand. 

It was so incredibly stupid, I have to wonder if they were really working for the other side. What were they afraid of? That the prosecution would trip him up? Over what? All he had to do was tell the truth. The facts of the case spoke loudly that he had no intention of shooting Oswald. 

If Ruby intended to shoot Oswald, you know, because he was a big Mafioso and his Capo ordered him to do it, he would have known that shooting Oswald in a crowd of police was going to result in his immediate arrest. Right? And he would have known that he wasn't going home again after that- ever. He wasn't going back to his life again- ever. So, his nightclubs, his beloved dogs, and everything else in his life was going to be lost. He would have made arrangements. But, not only did he not make arrangements, he actually brought one of the dogs, Sheba, with him and left her in the car. He dearly loved Sheba, and he often referred to her as his wife. 

This was proof-positive that Ruby had no thought of killing Oswald, and all that talk about a Mafia order is complete, utter nonsense.  

Ruby would have made a great witness for himself if his lawyers just let him tell the truth. But no; right away, his first lawyer, Tom Howard, instructed him to say that he shot Oswald to spare Jackie a trip to Dallas. Howard made it up, and it was the worst legal advice ever given. And when Belli was in charge, he didn't use it. He didn't tell the jury that Ruby shot Oswald to make it easy on Jackie. He said that Ruby shot Oswald because he has a disease, psychomotor epilepsy. You know how an epileptic has involuntary movements, right? You know how an epileptic flails his arms and swings his body, etc.  Belli actually had the nerve to claim that in Ruby's case, his epilepsy manifested with the movement of him taking his gun out of his pocket, rushing Oswald, and shooting him. And you thought the Twinkie defense was bad. 

An epileptic seizure is a chaotic discharge of nervous energy; a wild, uncontrolled eruption of random, disordered and unorganized contractions. To attribute the honed action of taking a handgun, which involves intricate manual dexterity, and rushing someone and shooting him to epilepsy is beyond wrong. It's lunacy. 

So, why did Belli do it? It's because he knew that Ruby had no memory of shooting Oswald. Ruby told him that that all he remembered was going to the garage and being jumped by police. He didn't remember anything else. But, there was nothing else to remember. Ruby was telling him the truth, the literal and complete truth. It was the Dallas Police who were lying, and Belli should have realized it. 

Bill Gates posted an image of himself getting a Covid vaccine, except it isn't him.

That guy has a relatively round head while Gate's head is more geometric. 

Here they are side by side: 

They definitely have similar hair, but other than that, why would anyone think they are the same man?

He spoke of getting the vaccine, and I don't doubt that he did. This is the whole tweet:

Here is another comparison that shows how different their ears are. 

But again, I don't doubt that he got the vaccine. Why should I doubt it when I know very well that millions of people are clamoring to get it and are waiting one long lines to do it?  Even though he has made millions of dollars off vaccines,  the reason he invests in vaccine-makers is because he believes in vaccines.  

So, why didn't he use a real image of himself getting it? I don't know. I could only speculate. What interests me more is not that he used a body double but that he couldn't find a better one.  As body doubles go,  it was pretty shabby, as bad as this:

That is supposed to be Jack Ruby, but it definitely isn't him. His face was rounder; his nose was very narrow, from bridge to tip, whereas Ruby's nose was pyramidal, with a great deal of bulbous tip cartilage. You can see the short forehead on the guy in the big picture, which makes his face look round.  

But, that guy is supposed to be the Garage Shooter of Lee Harvey Oswald, seen hovering with detectives on the 3rd floor of the Dallas Police Department a couple minutes after the Oswald shooting.

I note in the picture that someone took a Sharpie to his eyes and blackened them out. He has black stripes instead of eyes, and that is not a photographic effect. And this really tells us something because if this guy was the Garage Shooter, then Jack Ruby wasn't.

So, to sum up: both are fake images involving body doubles, neither of which were very good. But, Gates really did get the Covid vaccine, while Jack Ruby did not kill Lee Harvey Oswald. 

President Biden hasn't made it official yet, but he has unofficially and repeatedly said that the U.S. will not be leaving Afghanistan on May 1, as called for by the Doha Agreement signed by President Trump.

Once again, it shows that an agreement with the United States is only good while that President is in office. Trump did the same thing, disavowing the Iran Nuclear Deal that Obama had struck. And Trump took it very close to war with Iran- as close to the brink as the Cuban Missile Crisis.    

Biden has qualified his decision not to leave Afghanistan by saying that he expects to get out sometime next year. I don't know if that's his dementia talking or not, but it isn't going to console the Taliban or restrain them.  

No American has been killed in Afghanistan since the Doha Agreement was signed, but come May 1, if we're still there, the Taliban will resume attacking Americans- and I say that with great regret. 

And I have a strong feeling that Biden and his team are delusional about it. They probably think it's just going to be a little bump in the road. They probably think the Taliban is going to bluster a little, but that things will remain the same. 

I suspect they are dead wrong about that.

And what's ominous is that if active fighting resumes between the U.S.and the Taliban, it will be extremely difficult to end it. The next time we pitch "peace talks" to them, they are not even going to be listening. 

We really should get out of there. If we want to keep supporting the Afghan government, we can. We can get money to them, and we can assist them militarily without being in the country. All I'm saying is: just get our people out of there. Once we get our people out of there, there is nothing the Taliban can do to us. 

But, it's almost certain that Biden is going to make a colossal mistake and leave the troops there. The hubris never ends. 

 

We need to begin admitting to ourselves that JFK was impaired mentally in the Zapruder film. He wasn't just impaired; he was completely and totally disempowered mentally in the Zapruder film. But why, when all that happened to him was the equivalent of a scratch in the back and a shallow wound in his throat? What does any of that have to do with his brain? How does any of that impair his brain? It doesn't. He should have been totally quick-witted, in-charge, the Commander in Chief, and there is no excuse for him not being that. But, he was completely incapacitated mentally, and it is obvious. 

JFK was gone; mentally gone; he was stupefied. What could have caused that when he suffered no physical trauma to his brain? It was chemical. He was poisoned. There is no other explanation, unless you are going to invent medical nonsense. JFK was inflicted with a toxin. That's what the back shot was all about. It may have been more than one toxin, but it was at least one. And before you start saying, "When has such a thing ever happened?" it happened then. They had 11 years to develop it. Colby said the program for it started in 1952.   And it may have started before that. Remember that in Operation Paperclip, at the end of World War 2, in which Allen Dulles spearheaded saving over 2000 Nazi scientists, the largest group of which were rocket scientists, but the second largest group were their chemical weapons scientists. They were set up at a secret facility on the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland called Edgewood Arsenal, where they tested and did human experiments with chemical weapons and pharmaceuticals, and that started in 1946. And nerve agents were their specialty. The development of this weapon may have started there. 

JFK was poisoned. Spread the word. 

 

I shall give you the link to a presentation I have prepared for a conspiracy conference on why I believe that the shot to JFK's back was an ice flechette that contained shellfish toxin. Now, if that sounds far-fetched to you, fine. You're entitled to that. It DOES sound far-fetched. But, it's actually less far-fetched that every other theory ever proposed to explain the back shot, and I'll explain.  

As you know, the Official Story has it that he was shot in the back with a bullet that traversed his body, exiting his throat, and then it traversed Connally's body through his chest, bursting a rib bone, and then it burst his wrist, and then it re-entered his body in his thigh and settled there. Talk about far-fetched.  A guy shot a wild pig in the head with a comparable Carcano, and it didn't even traverse its head. Very easily, they could have tested whether that rifle and that bullet could deliver that much energy. They could have lined up animal corpses in a density comparable to Kennedy and Connally and seen whether the bullet would travel that far through that much tissue. And remember, millions of farm animals are slaughtered every day in this country, so it could be done without any extra killing. So, why haven't they done it? Because they don't want to know. They don't want to risk having to explain why it didn't work. 

The Single Bullet Theory is preposterous, and I presume that most of you reading this already know that. But, what about the other theories to explain the back shot? How plausible are they? 

There really is just one other theory, that he was shot in the back with a bullet, and it just stopped a little ways into his body. But, that is ridiculous because if the bullet stopped, it means that all of its energy was transferred to his body. Think of how destructive that would have been. Of course, the bullet could have been destroyed too, but either way, it would never result in the very clean wound that JFK had in his back. We're talking about a bullet that was traveling 2000 feet per second, going from that velocity to zero velocity over a distance of an inch or an inch and a half. That's impossible! Skin, fascia, and even muscle don't have that kind of stopping power. What has the most stopping power in the human body is bone, but it definitely didn't hit any bone. 

But, besides the impossibility of the bullet stopping that fast over so short a distance, there are other problems with the short-shot theory. First, why shoot him in the back on the right side in the first place? They were trying to kill him, right?  If they shot him on the left side, they'd at least have had a chance of hitting his heart, but even then, they would have had to shoot lower. Why deliver a non-lethal shot to Kennedy? And why shoot him in the back at all? Why not shoot him in the head?

Some of said that they were just trying to place one of "Oswald's" bullets in him. But, there was no bullet found. And the whole idea is ridiculous. Some have said that they used a sabot round, but for what purpose? If it was supposed to be one of "Oswald's" 6.5 mm/160 grain bullets, why not just use a corresponding firearm for it and be done with it? These theories are too ridiculous to even ponder. 

Let's go back to the facts that we know. We know JFK was struck with some kind of missile in the back, at the level of T3, to the right of his spine. That came directly from JFK's physician, Dr. Burkley, who was there. We know that several of the doctors tried to probe it with their little finger. But, you realize that every time you do it, you're making the hole bigger and deeper. In his testimony, Humes said that they tried to probe it with a metal probe, and they couldn't even get past the fascia, which is between the skin and the muscle. So, they could not probe to the muscle. My God! How shallow was it if it didn't even reach the muscle? HOW COULD A BULLET, SPEEDING AT 2000 FT/SEC, HIT HIS SKIN AND THEN COME TO REST (ZERO VELOCITY) BEFORE IT EVEN CRACKED THE MUSCLE?  It's impossible. JFK was hit with a tiny ice flachette that was designed to pierce the skin and burst. There is nothing else that is consistent with the autopsy findings. It was definitely not a bullet. 

Here now is the link now to my presentation. This theory is NOT wild and far-fetched. The Official Story, which is the Single Bullet Theory, is wild and far-fetched, and the alternatives to it that have  previously been offered are all wild and far-fetched. This is the most rational, lucid, and well-grounded theory of the back shot that has ever been proposed. 

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2021/04/id-like-to-speak-to-you-today-about.html

 

 

I'd like to speak to you today about something I believe in very strongly, which is that the first shot that hit President Kennedy, which was the shot to his back, at the level of T3, just to the right of his spine, was not a bullet. It was a frozen dart; you might say, an icicle. And this icicle contained shellfish toxin. It was a preparatory shot; to soften him up; to make him an easy target; and to derail any defensive action on his part once he got into the Kill Zone. 

Before I go any further, let me say that my strong conviction about this is based on two things: 1) evidence, that being what we see of him in the Zapruder film, the extreme change in his behavior, his countenance, his awareness, his cognition, and the bizarre and aberrant muscular state that he is in post-sign. He is a wreck; both physically and mentally; and the trauma he received up to that point can't explain it. It can't account for it.

But, the second thing that drives me to this conclusion is the complete inadequacy and implausibility of all other explanations of what we see in the Zapruder film. Of course, the official explanation is that he was hit with one bullet that traversed his neck from back to front. But, that is ridiculous because it would have been so catastrophic, his body would have shut down. We're talking about a tunnel through his neck from back to front. He could not have sustained such a trauma and gone on sitting there, lifting his arms, etc. He would have collapsed for sure, but he may very well have lost consciousness.  There is simply no chance that that happened. And remember: the autopsists could have opened him up and observed that alleged damage, but they didn't. Why didn't they? Why weren't they allowed to? Because that damage wasn't there. 

So, the single bullet theory is just complete, total, utter nonsense. In addition to everything else, it is medical nonsense. But unfortunately, the alternatives that detractors have offered are just as implausible and nonsensical. 

The most popular one is that he was hit with a bullet, but it just stopped an inch inside his body. but, that is impossible. Do you realize that the bullet would have been travelling 2000 feet per second? It would have hit him at that speed. How can an object traveling that fast stop in an inch? And imagine what would happen if it did stop in an inch. You've heard of Isaac Newton. You know about his Laws of Motion. The energy of that bullet traveling 2000 feet per second would have to be dissipated.  It would have to be taken out on something: either the bullet itself, or the tissue, or both.  But, JFK's back was clean. There was a small entrance wound there. There was a hole, but not a lot of damage otherwise. And there was no bullet at all. 

Some claim that the bullet was dug out at the "pre-autopsy." I'm not saying there wasn't a pre-autopsy. I believe there was. Just the fact that JFK's tracheotomy got widened and enlarged tells you that there was.  But, they didn't dig a bullet out of his back. It wouldn't have come that easily. They truly would have had to dig it out, and it would have disrupted his back. It wouldn't have looked so clean afterwards.

JFK was not hit in the back with a bullet. He was hit with a missile, but it was an ice dart. It tore into him a little ways and burst, effectively melting instantly.

So, you don't even have the option of claiming that he was hit with a bullet. There is no evidence for that, and it defies the Laws of Physics. 

But, he was definitely hit in the back with something, and it affected him immediately. He stopped waving. You can see that JFK wasn't waving in the Croft, Betzner, and Willis photos. 

If you watch this video of CIA Director William Colby, he lays out exactly what happened. He doesn't mention JFK, but that doesn't matter. The political incorrectness of saying such a thing would have stopped him even if he knew better. A person who is in a high position in the government can't come out and say that the government killed Kennedy. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4m6dldvNECI&t=37s

In the complete video of that hearing, which is about 40 minutes long, Colby refers repeatedly to shellfish toxin as the agent used. 

This piece from Conspiracy Wiki refers to JFK's "unexplainable wound" linking it to the heart attack gun.

https://conspiracy.fandom.com/wiki/Heart_Attack_Gun

We're talking about brevetoxins which are algal poisons that accumulate in shellfish that are neuro-excitatory. They cause an influx of sodium ions across nerve and muscle membranes, which results in depolarization, and that results in ataxia, the loss of control of one's muscles. And that is exactly what we see on Kennedy in the Zapruder film, where he can't control what his arms are doing. 

That is not a voluntary action on JFK's part. He can't control what his arms are doing. He can't put his arms down. Jackie is trying to coax him to relax his arms, but he can't do it. It is a bizarre, pathological dyskinesia, the result of being poisoned with a nerve agent. 

The back shot, which hit him high on the hill, was taken from the Dal-Tex Building using the CIA "heart attack gun" that Colby described, which was loaded with the toxic ice-dart. Note that Colby said that the gun had a range of 100 meters, and the distance was less than that. 

It tore into his back and got immediately into his bloodstream. From that point on, the limo moved very slowly down the hill, as slow as possible, to give it time to work. 

"Victims have been described as appearing disoriented and possibly intoxicated."

That is in reference to shellfish toxin, and is that not what we see on Kennedy in the Zapruder film? He is a basket case of disorientation and intoxication. 

This image shows the small clean wound on JFK's back. Nobody dug a bullet out of that.

JFK's actions and behavior in the Zapruder film are nothing short of weird. What the hell is he doing there, jabbing his elbow at Jackie? He doesn't know why he's doing it. He has no control over himself. It is a freaky thing and not the result of physical damage to his nervous system. 

To that point, the physical trauma to him was minimal. You can't possibly attribute his bizarre mental absence and his neuromuscular dyskinesia, as seen in the Zapruder film, to physical trauma from one or more bullets. The very strange state that he was in was due to pharmacology and toxicology, not to physical trauma.  

At this point in time, the only physical trauma to JFK is a shallow wound to his back that did not hit anything vital, and a shallow wound in his throat. The autopsists didn't dissect that either, but it certainly did not inflict any damage on his nervous system or his brain. He should have been OK mentally. He should have been able to think and respond. The complete incapacitation of JFK that we see in the Zapruder film was not due to physical trauma. It was due to poisoning. 

Are you aware that shellfish toxin can be absorbed through the intact skin? That with no disruption of the skin, the toxin can pass through the skin and affect a person systemically and quickly? But, in this case, it was delivered through the violated skin. And they had over a decade to develop it. The research started in 1952, according to Colby. He said it was a secret operation of the CIA and Army Intelligence at Fort Dietrich, which is in Maryland, close to Washington. This really is what happened to JFK, and no other theory comes close to explaining the evidence that we see in the Zapruder film of the bizarre and extreme changes that afflicted JFK, and quite suddenly. 

Here he is in Z-180, smiling and waving. This is the "Before" shot.

Here is the "After" shot, showing him all bound up and clenched, and note that he was mentally unresponsive.

Again, physical trauma cannot explain this. Only toxicology can explain it. 

I am old enough to remember what it was like at the time of the JFK assassination, the overwhelming certainty that Oswald was the lone assassin which filled the airways like an ether. It really did seem like the only thing left to do was flip the switch and fry the scumbag. 

But, it was all an illusion. There was no rock-solid case against Oswald. There was no case against him at all. There was no evidence that would have stood up in court. The trial of Oswald would have become a trial of the FBI.

The most important thing to realize is how quickly Oswald would have convinced his lawyer or lawyers of his innocence and how ardently they would have fought for him.  And the authorities knew that. It’s why they couldn’t let him see a lawyer.

And just think: to this very day, they are withholding exonerating information from us, for instance, what Oswald told investigators about how he got to the theater. Have you thought about the fact that they told us that Oswald said that he rode the bus and then the cab to get home, but from there, there’s no “Oswald said.” It’s just what they’re saying, which is that he started walking without a destination until he encountered Tippit, who they presume stopped him because he fit the description of Kennedy’s killer. But wait. If Tippit suspected Oswald of being JFK’s killer, he would have called for backup BEFORE he engaged with him.  And he wouldn’t have just started talking to him; he would have subdued him on the spot. With gun drawn, he would have ordered him to lie down on the ground, or stand against the wall, or what-have-you.  A cop does not approach an armed killer any other way. You subdue him first; then ask him questions. You treat him according to your suspicions; you don’t wait until you confirm those suspicions.

Of course, I'm speaking theoretically because it wasn't even Oswald there. But, whoever the guy was, Tippit did not suspect him of shooting JFK. But, it could have been someone who was involved, and it may be that Tippit was involved. There are prominent researchers, whom I respect, such as John Armstrong, who think so.  

So, where was Oswald going when he was supposedly stopped at 10^th and Patton. Warren Commission David Belin said, “Mexico” which he pulled from straight out his ass.  And even if there were some basis for it other than his wild imagination, the question would still remain: what was he doing at 10^th and Patton if he was heading to Mexico? How does that get you to Mexico?

To this day, they act as though Oswald’s leaving work was incriminating; a sure sign of his guilt. Consider the jackknife that Roy Truly did: When Officer Baker saw Oswald entering the lunch room at 12:31, Truly was completely sure that Oswald could not have been involved. Baker had Oswald at gunpoint, so obviously his suspicions were sky-high. And let’s take a moment and compare Baker’s action to Tippit’s. Baker did what I described a moment ago: he drew his gun. He took no chances with Oswald. So, why didn’t Tippit draw his gun if he suspected the same?

So, Baker had his gun drawn, but reportedly, Oswald never said a word. The only thing that made Baker move on was the reassurance he got from Truly that Oswald was OK. Truly told him, “this man works for me.” But, he must have said it in a way that conveyed, “he could never have done it.”

So, at 12:31, Truly did not have the slightest suspicion about Oswald. But then, a few minutes later, Oswald’s absence triggered him to suspect him of being the killer?  

First, who was it that informed Truly that Oswald left? It certainly wasn’t any of the grunt workers or “order fillers.” They would not have given any thought to whether Oswald was there or not.  It must have been Bill Shelley.  But if Truly didn’t suspect Oswald when he saw him, what sense does it make to start suspecting him a few minutes later just because his whereabouts were unknown?

Supposedly, Shelley took a roll call of his workers, but did he? Wouldn’t they have to be all huddled together to do that?  What does it take to suspect someone of murder? Is their mere absence from a roll call enough to make you think, “Oh My God! He must have killed Kennedy!”

The rifle was found on the 6^th floor, and supposedly, from the unit number on it, they traced it Klien’s Sporting Goods in Chicago. But remember, this was a pre-digital era. There were no computers and no digital records.  Supposedly, from paper records alone, they were able to do that, as if from paper records alone, one could track any gun in America.

But, let’s remember that Oswald not only never admitted ordering the rifle, he vehemently denied it. There is absolutely no basis to think that he would have stopped denying it. There is absolutely no basis to think that his lawyer or lawyers would not have challenged and disputed the claim that he ordered the rifle. The FBI could glibly claim that he did it- to the press. But, could they defend it in court? That Oswald even had a P.O. Box would most likely have been disputed. He didn’t need one. He had no reason to have one. And he never admitted having one. Do you realize that there was no mention of a P.O. box until after he was dead?

The fact that they refrained from showing him any of the evidence about him having ordered the rifle speaks volumes. Why didn’t they use it to force a confession from him? But, they couldn’t show him that evidence because they (meaning the FBI) knew it was phony, and they certainly knew that he would deny it. Not only did they now show it to him; they didn’t even make him aware of its existence. They did show him one of the Backyard photos, and look how he responded. It would have been the same with the other stuff.

Oswald’s alibi would have been the centerpiece of his defense. WHERE HE WAS AT 12:30 was the single most important issue in the case. Obviously, he would have told his lawyers that he was standing in the entranceway with other employees. It’s what he told the police, and he would have told his lawyers the same thing. And then the whole issue of the Altgens photo would have become the top legal concern- and not just whether it was Oswald in the photo, but whether the photo was altered to hide that fact. And of course, it was.

And as I mentioned recently, the FBI’s so-called print evidence would have been strongly disputed by the Defense, and it would have gotten them, the FBI, in a lot of trouble.

Do you realize that the case against Oswald was so bad that not only would his innocence have come out, but the criminality of the FBI would have come out as well?

They couldn’t let Oswald have a trial. Are you kidding? They couldn’t even let him have a lawyer. They would have had to kill the lawyer.