This is me, in character, playing off the star of The Pro Bono Watchman, Mike Gassaway. 

And now, I have a treat for you. You are going to get to watch a montage from the film, which features my music, a song I wrote called Pallin' Around With Me. But, it's not the version we are going to use. We have yet to record that. It's actually the audition tape of the vocalist, which was just her singing and me on piano. We've got some great musicians coming in to lay down the song with us for the film, including Rick McRae, Terry Hale, and my good friend Paul Popa. But, Hannah Vaughn and I captured the spirt of it by ourselves. Please give it a listen:

https://vimeo.com/555881409

Paul Nejtek

I can't tell if some of these posters are even real, here. Congrats to the sane people. The picture is blurry, relatively far away, and almost from straight behind, and someone's gonna ask if that looks like ruby???? For all I can see in THAT picture it could be Ringo starr.....or bill clinton....or Ralph cinque. Personally I think it legitimacy shows Oswald getting shot. The idea that so many people in the local police department. The local press, the national press etc. Are all gonna be involved in some massive, gargantuan conspiracy......Noone gonna say anything, everyone's gonna go along with it etc. What planet does stuff like that happen on?? At any rate, clearly not earth. Can't wait for a supposed counter example. Anyhow, so clearly Oswald getting shot. If there was little or no blood on the floor or peoples clothing that proves nothing. He had thick clothing on and his aorta was on the other side of his body from where he was shot. Are there any surgeons or crime scene techs on here? Gotta be someone at least knows one. It just doesn't always look like the movies, folks

• Active

  Ralph Cinque

  Paul Nejtek you are being EXTREMELY dense about this, and they were counting on people being dense. The conspiracy to kill Oswald involved the Dallas Police and the FBI. Everyone else went along with it for the same reason why people go along with it today. And it's the same way with 9/11. How could there be a conspiracy so large? How could so many people go along with it? So, let's just say that office fires caused the towers to collapse at free-fall speed into their own footprint even though it's physically impossible. Stop being so indurated in your mind. Stop worrying about the size of conspiracies. Rather, you should think of a relatively small conspiracy morphing into a vast and near-universal Amen because it was like a tsunami of acceptance. And stop complaining about the blurriness of the images because they're all we've got. And blurry or not, you can still tell that the Garage Shooter was not Jack Ruby. Just look at the back of Ruby's head and compare it to that of the Garage Shooter. They were very different, and it's a dealbreaker, in and of itself. Whether you like it or not, Jack Ruby was innocent. He did not kill Oswald. Ruby was a mentally impaired man who was made even more impaired by the drugs that he was given, and I've got evidence for that too, so just try me. And Nejtek, I've got news for you. I'm making you famous. 
• 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• 
  
  
  
  
  

Ralph Cinque

Author

+1

There isn't any chance at all that Oswald shot at Walker. The bullet dug out of Walker's wall was not a Carcano bullet. It could not possibly have come from the rifle that Oswald didn't even own. There were two culprits seen fleeing from the scene, not one, and Oswald had no friends. And both of them drove away in separate cars, and Oswald had no car, no license, and no ability to drive. So, what's the evidence in favor? Just the crap the Mariana spewed months later after being MK-ULTRAed. When first asked, she knew nothing about it, as Rick Bucciarelli said. Thank you, Rick.

There is an alternate story of the JFK assassination that the government has offered, almost from the beginning. And it became official in 1979 with the release of the HSCA Final Report. That story is that Oswald killed Kennedy on behalf of the Mafia, that he did it for them and was working for them. It is so ridiculous and just plain stupid, and I'll tell you why. 

But first consider that, from the beginning, when they polled the public about the JFK assassination, they always posed the question this way:

"Do you believe Oswald acted alone to kill the President, or was he involved in a conspiracy?"  

They never offered the option of saying that Oswald was innocent. But surely, when presented with that Devil's Gambit, some people had to object and say, "Neither. Oswald didn't kill the President alone or with others. He didn't kill him, period. He was completely innocent." 

So, what did they do with those responses? I guess they just chucked them. But, it shows you how cunning and malicious the polls have been. 

So, why is it so ridiculous to think that Oswald killed Kennedy as a Mafia Hit Man? 

First, being a hit man is a skilled profession. It requires not only the shooting ability, but the killing ability. It's not as though anyone and everyone is a killer. Oswald had no expertise at shooting or killing. 

Much is made of Oswald's shooting ability, but don't be fooled. The record that is cited is that of "Lee" not "Harvey." It's not the shooting record of the Oswald of fame. But regardless, that record stinks. "Oswald" came very close to flunking his final marksmanship exam in the Marines. The Oswald of fame was the one who went to Russia, and all we know about his shooting ability is that his Russian pals said he was a lousy shot; that he couldn't hit a rabbit with a shotgun.  

So, why would the Mafia hire Oswald to kill Kennedy? What about his "resume" impressed them? "Let's see: he worked in a radio factory in Russia for 3 years; came back here and flunked out at various low-paying odd jobs.  Hmm, hasn't done any shooting at all since getting back from Russia, where he only went rabbit-hunting a few times. Was in the Marines but was never in combat. Yup. He's our man." Do you see what I mean? It's ridiculous.  

So, the Mafia wouldn't want or choose Oswald, but, would he choose them? First, note that hired killers get paid. They do it for the money. What evidence is there that Oswald was paid by anyone to kill Kennedy? There isn't a speck of evidence for that. 

So, after starting with the ridiculous idea that the Mafia would choose Lee Harvey Oswald to be their assassin, we have to move on to accepting that Oswald did it for nothing, that even though he was dirt-poor, and had to rely on the largess of others to feed his family, that when it came to the Mafia, he was a volunteer, that he killed Kennedy for them just because they asked him to. "You want Kennedy dead? Sure, I'll do it for you. I don't mind. I'm more than happy to. I'm just in it for the sport. Put your wallet away. Your money's no good today. You hear me?"

So, that's two absurdities, but there is a third. It's the fact that there isn't a stitch of evidence that Oswald had any connection with, or involvement with, or contact with the Mafia. 

And keep in mind that "Oswald sightings" abound. Oswald went to the shooting range and shot at other people's targets. Oswald went to the car dealer and test-drove a car at 90 miles an hour. Oswald was seen with Jack Ruby and was a regular at the Carousel Club. Etc. Etc. Etc.  You gotta stop believing that shit. And that's all it is is shit. 

And the biggest bogus sighting of Oswald of all, of course, is that he went to Mexico City, which he didn't. 

So, I'll put it this way: there's as much real evidence that Oswald was involved with the Mafia as there is that YOU have been involved with the Mafia. 

Army sharpshooter and Tulsa Police SWAT Officer Craig Roberts said that he could not have pulled off the shooting from the 6th floor window that was attributed to Oswald. And once he realized, upon looking out that window, that he couldn't do it, he knew, instantly, that there is no way in Hell that Oswald could have done it. And, there is no reason whatsoever to think that the Mafia would have thought that Oswald could do it. Based on what?

But, despite the rank implausibility and absurdity of the Oswald as Mafia Hit Man hypothesis, it was proffered by the evil HSCA in 1979, and even today, there are a few people and a few books that spout the stupid, ridiculous, absurd nonsense. 

It's just a way station- a way station between the Big Lie that Oswald killed Kennedy on his own and the truth that the government, itself, killed Kennedy. And there are no stops in-between those two platforms. Once you eliminate the Big Lie, it falls to the truth, that the "national security state" killed Kennedy; meaning the intelligence agencies, the Pentagon, and most certainly, the Vice President. 

Lee Harvey Oswald (not his real name) was innocent. Completely, totally innocent. He was standing in the doorway of the Texas Book Depository during the shooting of JFK. All the rest is noise. 

 

 

I don't know how Hamas could do what they did without knowing the outcome in advance. This is like the guy who walks down the street and falls in the same hole every day. Reportedly, it was Albert Einstein who said that when you keep doing the same thing, over and over, but expect a different result, that that is the definition of insanity. 

It's not that I don't have sympathy for the Palestinians in Gaza; I do. But, I mostly sympathize with them for the leaders they got stuck with because their leaders brought this on them. And I just don't know how they came to it. 

Hamas Guy 1: The Palestinians in Jerusalem are being mistreated. We should strike back at Israel by lobbing bombs at them. 

Hamas Guy 2: Are you crazy? They'll kill 10 of us for every one of them that we kill. And that's if we're lucky. Look: lobbing bombs at Israel is suicide for us. And if you don't know that, you're stupid.

So, what happened to Hamas Guy 2? 

This is insane because it was a certainty that Israel would respond the way they did, and Hamas had to know it. So therefore, they wanted Israel to attack them? Did they think it would generate worldwide sympathy for them? I gotta tell you; it isn't working on me. I'm just flabbergasted they could take such a course of action. 

Here's an interesting development in my film life. We couldn't get permission from SONY Corporation to use Buck Owens' song, as sung by Christy Mims- and they own both the song and her recording of it- Under Your Spell Again. It's for my next movie, The Pro Bono Watchman starring Mike Gassaway. The song is for a montage in which a father is playing with his 6 year old daughter at the park. Under Your Spell Again would have been perfect for it. But, as the saying goes, necessity is the mother of invention, so I set about writing an alternate song for it, and the result is: Pallin' Around With Me. Of course, it will be Christy Mims singing it in the film. I made this as a demo for her. 

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

The proof that what the British and Americans did during World War II, in targeting German civilians, was a war crime is that such actions were soundly condemned by the 4th Geneva Convention in 1949 and reinforced by the United Nations in 1993, stating that even non-signatory nations are obliged to follow it. In other words, if any nation on Earth waged war the way the UK and US did in WW2, they would be universally damned. Of course, even though the US became a signatory, we went on to kill millions more civilians in subsequent wars: in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.  The truth is that U.S. militarism knows few bounds, and the idea that there has been anything honorable or glorious about any of our wars is an urban myth and a grotesque lie. We have been monsters. 

Look at the Altgens photo. How far from the intersection was JFK's limo? Not that far, The Ford Galaxy is still at the intersection, and the Presidential limo is just 4 car lengths in front of it. So, that's how early the Altgens photo was taken. 

But, when you look at what it displays, it shows JFK reacting the way we see him do in the Zapruder film post-sign, raising his hands to his throat. But, how could that be happening already when the limo is just a few car lengths down Elm? It couldn't. It's bogus imagery. They needed to shift the time of the Algens photo to much later. 

And it truly is impossible. This schematic shows you where the limo was when the post-sign stuff was happening in Zapruder. Altgens was not out in the street then. The plat even shows that Altgens was on the grass, down from Hill and Moorman, and which you can see him there in the Zapruder film. He was long out of the street. 

So, the "story" of the Altgens Photo is a lie. JFK was NOT shot in the throat yet when the Altgens Photo was taken. They faked that imagery. But why? 

First, remember what the purpose of the Altgens photo was. It was to sell the idea that the shots came from the TSBD. You've got those Secret Service agents peering back at the TSBD. That's what they wrote about in the caption, that they were looking at the source of the shots. 

So, if you ever wondered why, after seeing Oswald in the doorway, that they didn't destroy the photo and the negative instantly, this is the reason. They just couldn't resist the temptation to exploit what the two SS agents were doing. And what are they doing? It looks like they are looking at the doorway. At Oswald? Wondering what he was doing there? Maybe. But, they certainly weren't looking at the source of the shots. If they were reacting to a shot from the 6th floor, they would have looked up, not in the doorway. 

So, the whole idea was stupid, but regardless, they had to replace what was going on there in the backseat  of the limo in the Altgens Photo. So, what was going on there? I think that most likely JFK was already shot in the back and was showing it. But, he was definitely not shot in the throat. So, this image is bogus:

It is not even anatomical. JFK's forearm is extending out like  vacuum wand. Jackie never grabbed his arm that close to the wrist. And look how two-dimensional his hand looks.  And look how freaky it look compared to a real photographed hand.

It really is bad art, but then again, they were rushed. 

So, the Altgens photo, like the Zapruder film, was altered to hide the fact that JFK was shot in the back high on the hill, and as soon as he got out of the intersection. It was long before he was shot in the throat. Yet, there are people, even today, who still maintain that the throat shot was the first shot to hit him. No, no, no. The back shot came first. That was the paralytic shot, to seize him up and freeze him up, turning him into a Cigar Store Indian, and offering no more resistance to being shot than a Cigar Store Indian.  

 A supporter of mine sent me this link about George HW Bush's involvement on 11/22. He sent it to me because the author referred to me in it. It was way back in 2013. 

https://andygreek1.websitetoolbox.com/post/did-george-h-w-bush-coordinate-a-jfk-hit-team-6277983

There is absolutely no doubt that that was Bush milling around in front of the TSBD with the other "suits" several hours after the assassination. That's him on the right in 1962. But, notice how freakily deep his head is on the left. Nobody could have a head that deep. So, it is a highly manipulated image in which they did all they could to obfuscate him. 

One of the things they did to obfuscate him was deepen his head. 

One thing they left that gives him away is the hand in his pocket, which was Bush's habitual stance. 

Do you see that bulge? That's his hand in his pocket. Bush had a habit of doing that. He was a hands in the pockets kind of guy.

They even built a statue of him like that.

Look, it was Bush. It isn't personal. The guy I loathe is his son, George W. Bush because he lied us into war and killed over a million people. He got over 10,000 Americans killed.

Lying the country into war has got to be the worst thing that any President can do, and Bush Jr. did it twice. 

This is a poster that is available for sale on Amazon.com. I would order it, but what would I do with it? Hang it on the wall and have to look at it every day? 

It was way back in 2010 that Steve Kober started a thread on Education Forum about the "paralyzing ice bullet" that hit JFK in the back. That thread is still available online today, and it is well worth reading. 

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/15516-jfk-hit-with-paralysising-ice-bullet/ 

Note that the great JFK researcher Jack White supported Steve. Quoting Jack: "Terrific work, Steve. I do not dispute the 'soluble bullet/paralytic round' theories." 

Repeatedly, I have mentioned that CIA Director William Colby reported on the CIA's weaponization of shellfish toxin to the Church Committee in 1975-which was  a mere12 years after the JFK assassination. 

And that is what shellfish toxin does, paralyze your muscles, because it is a neurotoxin.  In fact, they have a term for it: Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning. 

Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning (PSP)

What is Paralytic Shellfish Poison?

Paralytic Shellfish Poison (PSP) is a naturally occurring marine biotoxin that is produced by some species of microscopic algae. Shellfish eat these algae and can retain the toxin. People can become ill from eating shellfish contaminated with Paralytic Shellfish Poison. This biotoxin affects the nervous system and paralyzes muscles, thus the term "paralytic" shellfish poison. High levels of Paralytic Shellfish Poison can cause severe illness and death.

What are the symptoms of Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning?

Early symptoms include tingling of the lips and tongue, which may begin within minutes of eating toxic shellfish or may take an hour or two to develop. Symptoms may progress to tingling of fingers and toes and then loss of control of arms and legs, followed by difficulty in breathing. Some people feel nauseous or experience a sense of floating. If a person consumes enough toxin, muscles of the chest and abdomen become paralyzed, including muscles used for breathing, and the victim can suffocate. Death from Paralytic Shellfish Poison has occurred in less than 30 minutes.

One of the EF participants, Cliff Varnell, whom I don't know, wrote  "The Z-film shows JFK seizing up paralyzed." That's exactly right. We can see it with our own eyes, and we've been seeing it since 1975, when the Zapruder film was first made public. Yet, that seized-up state that Kennedy was in has largely been ignored by JFK researchers of all stripes, even though it is as conspicuous as a bull in a china shop.

He was all seized up, and it was toxicological. There is no other possibility. The physical trauma he sustained to that point can't account for it. 

This is not far-fetched or extreme. It is the only reasonable and satisfactory explanation for what happened to JFK. And there is no understanding the JFK assassination without realizing that he was prepped with a shot to the back, consisting of a neurotoxin, to immobilize him and incapacitate him, so that when he reached the Kill Zone, he would be a sitting duck. 

 

 

The man on the right is Detective Hall. Notice how clear his eyes are and how photographic they look. The man in the center is, supposedly, Jack Ruby, but he's not; he is FBI Agent James Bookhout. But, notice that he's just got stripes for eyes. I put "blurred" there, but it is much worse than blurred. It is completely non-photographic. And it is photographically impossible because either a photograph is blurred or it isn't. If he is farther from the camera, that just makes his eyes smaller. It doesn't cause blur. It certainly doesn't cause what we are seeing there. 

The man on the left is Detective Elmer Boyd. He told the Sixth Floor Museum in an interview that he found out about the Oswald shooting from watching it on television while enjoying Sunday brunch with his wife and her parents. He said that, right away, he excused himself from the nice gathering, and went in to the station to see if he could help. But, this image was taken 2 minutes after the Oswald shooting. It was taken on the 3rd floor of the PD right next to the elevator. There is no way he could have been having brunch with his wife and in-laws when Oswald was shot. He lied. 

Now, regardless of who you are, if you're just going to shrug this off, then you are actively aiding and abetting the killing of Oswald and Kennedy. You are an accessory after the fact in their murders. But, I hope that's not the case. 

The story of the Zapruder film is that JFK was riding down Elm Street, a mature adult in a state of lucidness, awareness, and cognizance, and then he passed behind the Stemmons freeway sign and emerged from it in the mental state of a helpless child. What could have happened to him to turn him from being a competent man into a helpless child? Post-sign, he was mentally incapable of grasping what was going on, and he was completely incapable of doing anything about it, of responding to it. His passivity, under the circumstance, is inexplicable and unacceptable. He also had weird muscle spasming going on.  

But, the most baffling question is: why did people looking at this not react to his bizarre and inappropriate behavior? Why didn't they ask what could have induced such weird behavior?  

It wasn't due to physical trauma. All he suffered in the way of physical trauma at this point was an extremely shallow wound in his back, which didn't even go deep enough to reach muscle, according to Dr. Humes; and a shallow wound in his throat. That's it. How could either or both of those traumas cause him to be so mentally lost and incompetent? They couldn't. They wouldn't. They didn't. Something other than physical trauma had to be responsible. There is only one possibility: a chemical; one that affected his brain and his nerves.

But, let's get back to the question of why people who saw the film didn't ask, "What is wrong with him mentally? Why is he so mentally deranged?" 

Of course, until 1975, the only ones viewing the film were those who were involved in covering up its contents. It doesn't matter what they thought, so let's say from 1975 on. 

Of course, the official story was, and is, that JFK was traversed by a bullet, which is obviously much more severe. But despite that, the story was that he suffered no neurological damage. So, even if one assumes that the Single Bullet Theory is true, it provides no basis to account for his mental aberration. And I am going to repeat something I have said before, that if the SBT were true, I believe he would have collapsed. 

But, he did collapse mentally, so why did people viewing the film not say anything about his mental collapse?   I think it was because they had never seen anything like this before; they had nothing to compare it to. Then, there was the incredible violence of the fatal headshot, with the artificial red cloud that they added and his violent head motion "back and to the left."   That became the talking point and thinking point, of any viewer, such that Kennedy's bizarre, inexplicable mental behavior got lost in the shuffle. 

Many have asked, why did they leave the violent head shot in? Well, now you know why: to keep the viewer focused on that and not on the change in Kennedy's countenance, awareness, and demeanor.

But, it's time to look at that: straight-on, that he was riding down the hill his normal self, then he passed behind the sign and emerged a completely different person, and the degree of his mental incompetence cannot be explained by any physical trauma, real or imagined. 

There is nothing else like the Zapruder film. There is nothing else like the JFK assassination. It really does exist in a singular world; its own world. I refer to it as JFK Land. And JFK Land is a different dimension. And pervading it all is the weight of Officialdom telling you what you are seeing and how to interpret it. The acceptance of JFK's weird behavior and radically different mental state is something that everyone has done: even those who vehemently reject the official story. The fact is: they don't oppose the official story as much as they think they do. They still accept the instant change in JFK's behavior- like good little boys and girls. Well, it's time to stop doing that. JFK looked and acted inebriated because he was inebriated- from a chemical agent that was shot into him.