Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

 What happened on November 22, 1963, to the best of my knowledge

                                                                                    by Ralph C. Cinque

It is the 59th anniversary of the JFK assassination, and I suspect there won't be much coverage. What little coverage there is will probably concern Biden's decision not to release the remaining documents. But, where do things stand? What can we claim to know?

I can only speak for myself and tell you what I know, and I want to do it in the most concise manner possibly. 

 1. Obviously, Oswald was not up on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy. He didn't even own a rifle. All that was faked. He was definitely standing in the doorway during the shooting. We can see him in both the Altgens photo and the Wiegman film.

That is Oswald's person and clothing. Billy Lovelady did not look like Oswald, nor did he dress like Oswald. And he was an inch shorter and 40 pounds heavier. It is absolutely impossible that that was Lovelady. Moreover, there is no place else but the doorway that Oswald could have been. He wasn't working. He wasn't eating. And he was not in the 2nd floor lunch room because he didn't get there until over a minute AFTER the shooting. Officer Marrion Baker saw Oswald reaching the lunch room- just walking into it. Since he just arrived there at 12:31, it means he wasn't there at 12:30.  The certainty that it was Oswald in the doorway is absolute.  It was definitely him. 

2. After the shooting, Oswald was photographed again in the doorway talking to Police Inspector J. Herbert Sawyer. 

You can see the Three Tramps, and I realize they, reportedly, weren't marched out until 2.  But, I discussed it with Jim Marrs, and he told me that the first reports were that the Three Tramps procession happened very soon after the shooting. Whoever that was had to be a TSBD employee, and you can't tell me there was a second Oswald look-alike there. There wasn't even one, never mind two. That's Oswald.

3. JFK was hit in the back with an ice bullet containing a nerve agent, and it happened very soon after he turned onto Elm, while he was still adjacent to the TSBD. There were reports of a shot at that time. We know it because the Croft photo was crudely altered to hide it. 

JFK had stopped waving and engaging with the crowd. His face must have looked distressed, so this involved concealing that distressed look by closing his eye and covering his mouth with Jackie's extended hair. And she had either turned to look at him already or was in the process of doing it, so they replaced her face with another image of her. I believe it was taken from her national address of thanks following the funeral. 

The shot must have disrupted JFK's jacket in back, so they put an oblong panel over it.

There is a raised panel there over the top of his back, right below his collar.  That is where he was shot.

Another sign that JFK was shot high on the hill is that they moved up the freeway sign in the Zapruder film. You would think from watching it that it was close to the intersection. 

That is our first view of the limo on Elm Street. You can see that LBJ's convertible is still on Houston Street, not yet having turned. So, JFK has just completed his turn, but there is the sign way up there. It was much lower on the hill.

It's the lower sign that corresponds to the one in the Z-film, the Stemmons Freeway sign. It was far from the intersection. In the Z-film, they enlarged it and moved it up. They also changed the angle of it, turning it towards the street to provide more coverage. Their goal was to make it look like Kennedy reached the sign before he was shot. It took a lot of clever editing to make that happen, but there were still some frames of him after the back shot, in which his face apparently showed distress. So, they covered his face with a bogus hand.

That is the last frame of JFK before he disappears behind the sign. He is supposed to have his hand over his face. He never did that. They did it with paint. Jackie isn't working her side of the street like a good political wife. Instead, she is turned and looking at him. Why? She said so in her testimony. It's because he had a "quizzical" look on his face. 

And don't think that the ice bullet laced with poison is a wild speculation. It would be if we didn't know that such a gun existed and was in their possession. But, that we do know that. Here is Senator Church displaying it at his committee hearing in 1975.

The then CIA head, William Colby, said that the gun worked and that it could deliver a nerve agent: shellfish toxin. 

There is also the fact that we know that the back shot involved a very shallow penetration, which is something that could not happen with a FMJ bullet. There is no way that an FMJ bullet, arriving at flight speed of 2000 feet per second, could stop within an inch, but this "bullet" did. It was an ice bullet, and as you know, ice shatters easily. The development of this gun began in the early 1950s, so by the 1963, the CIA had been working on it for at least 10 years. 

And finally, pertaining to this, we can see JFK displaying generalized tetanic spasm in the Zapruder film, the effect of the nerve agent.

Now, I realize that it is difficult for people to accept that, before reaching the Kill Zone, JFK was shot with a nerve agent, but it was done to incapacitate him and immobilize him, so that he wouldn't take evasive action. They wanted to make it easier for their shooters. They wanted him to be a sitting duck. What makes it difficult for people to accept is that I don't have other examples I can point to. But, remember who we are dealing with: the CIA. And it was Allen Dulles' CIA, which pursued mind control, assassinations, the overthrow of democractically elected leaders, etc.  Keeping a thing like this under wraps was something they were very good at doing, and we are just plain lucky that it surfaced at the Church hearings in 1975. 

4. Mary Moorman did not take the Moorman photo. She said she took her picture at the time of the first shot, and it is widely agreed that the Moorman Photo was taken close to the last shot, which was the fatal head shot. I believe it was taken slightly before the fatal head shot. 

In the Spring of 1964, Mary demonstrated for CBS News how she took her picture. 

Mary explained that she started early, looking through the viewfinder as soon as the limo started heading down the hill, and that she waited until she could catch their faces. She said, and I quote: "I wanted to make sure they were looking at me when I took the picture." But, as you can see, the Moorman photo does not show their faces, but rather, the backs of their heads. The Moorman photo was taken on a diagonal angle from behind, which is something Mary never did. 

Even at that late moment, Mary was still facing Elm Street squarely. She NEVER turned and shot diagonally. I think this was a manipulated image because the image of her is exactly the same as prior frames and subsequent ones. 

The one who took the Moorman photo was Babushka Lady, who was not Beverly Oliver. Babushka was an insider who went there to photographically record the assassination. This is her taking the Moorman photo. 

Babushka Lady, at the lower right, is in the PERFECT position to capture what we see in the Moorman photo, which is: the Kennedys off-center and the motorcycle cops looming much larger than them due to their closer proximity to the camera. 

They installed the white thumbprint to obscure Martin, and prior to doing that, they did other things to obscure him, such as cropping the photo. But, above is how it originally looked. 

The white thumbprint was not an accident. It was deliberately applied to the photograph to remove BJ Martin- once and for all.

5. LBJ was sitting in his seat, but slumped down. He is not really out of view. They just charcoaled him. Why? Probably because his face looked nothing like the smiling, festive faces of Ladybird and Senator Yarborough. 

So, LBJ wasn't lying on the floor of the car. He was sitting there, in plain view, but slumped as much as possible, and looking glum. But, not wanting to admit that they took him out of the photo, he concocted the story that SS Agent Rufus Youngblood pushed him down and then got on top of him. So, that's why we can't see him! No such thing ever happened, and Senator Yarborough confirmed it. 

6. JFK was not shot in the throat by a bullet that came through the windshield. They would NEVER have done that when they didn't have to, since he was riding in a convertible. Glass deflects bullets, and curved glass deflects it more than flat glass. The only location that was directly in front of the limo was the bridge forming the Triple Underpass, and it wasn't that close. SM Holland, a railroad supervisor, was up there, and he said that 18 other railroad workers were up there, 14 of whom he vetted himself. Holland was definitely a reliable witness. Since he claimed there was a shot from behind the picket fence, and that he saw the smoke from it, he surely would have said so if a shot were taken from the bridge that he was on. 

And, the fact is, that the geometry doesn't work for the throat shot to have gone through the windshield because the alleged bullet hole was very low on the glass. 

 

So, if the bullet were shot from the bridge and penetrated low on the windshield, just 2 inches above the hood, it never would have reached Kennedys' throat at the back of that long limo.  

I believe that Oliver Stone had it right in JFK that the throat shot was taken from behind the fence, as well.

But, don't assume I endorse everything in JFK because Stone got plenty wrong. He depicted Oswald eating in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shooting, which is ridiculous. He was, without a doubt, standing in the doorway. 

Moreover, I think the throat shot was an ice bullet too. That's because, like the back shot, it only penetrated shallowly. And, like the back shot, no bullet was found on examination. Dr. Perry, who was surely not a conspirator, examined the wound thoroughly. He looked for the bullet. He did an extensive tracheostomy, not just a basic one. He said it appeared to be an entrance wound, but he could find no bullet and no bullet exit. So, as in the back, the bullet just shattered and dissolved. Poof, it was gone!

So, what was the purpose of the throat shot? They knew that finding an extremely shallow bullet wound in the back, from a high-powered military rifle, and no bullet, would be very suspicious. So, by creating a small wound in the throat, they intended to claim that the bullet traversed him. It meant that neither wound could be dissected, and that is exactly what happened. The federal officers at the autopsy would not allow Dr. Humes to dissect the back wound or the throat wound. You had military men telling the doctor what he could and couldn't do.  

7. I can't conclude this without including the other major discovery I have made: the framing and innocence of Jack Ruby. He did NOT shoot Oswald. He was not in the garage at the time. Ruby was finagled to go to Western Union with the Karen Carlin ruse. That put him a block and a half away, and they had those people clustered at the incoming ramp on Main Street only to attract him. Think about it: Who were they waiting for to arrive? Nobody. And they certainly didn't think that Oswald was going to be driven out that narrow, incoming ramp. It was announced that he was going to be driven out the Commerce Street ramp in the armored tank. 

We know that Ruby was highly drugged. He said he was, that he took twice his usual dose of amphetamines plus other large pills. That's in his narrative. Plus, it was reported on WFAA that he was muttering incoherently after his arrest. He was high as a kite. 

Ruby arrived at Western Union an hour earlier than reported, and he said so himself. To the Warren Commissioners, he said that he sent the money wire at 10:15. Of course, he was quickly corrected by a Secret Service agent- one who was was in San Francisco at the time. Ruby didn't dispute it, but he never disputed anything. 

But, the most compelling evidence that Ruby didn't do it is the photographic evidence. Although there are no straight-on images of the Garage Shooter in the garage, we have one image of his face that was taken shortly afterwards: next to the elevator on the 3rd floor of the Police Department. He was surrounded by detectives.

That is most certainly not Jack Ruby. And we have images of Ruby from that day.

They are obviously not the same man- despite things that were done to alter the image on the right. That man's identity was FBI Agent James Bookhout.

That is a spot-on match, save for the fact that 26 years had passed. Look at the short neck, the round face and the similar eyes. Despite their having blackened his eyes on the right, you can see that the spacing is exactly the same.  Both images were manipulated (on the left, they gave him thick, wavy eyebrows) but despite that, you can see they are the same man. 

However, I don't claim that Bookhout actually shot Oswald in the garage. That was just theater, and Oswald was shot afterwards.  

There is also the confirmation that the Garage Shooter wore light socks, whereas Ruby wore black ones. And no, they didn't change his socks, although they tried to claim that. Below, on the left, is the Shooter from the Beers photo, and on the right is Ruby's mug shot. And by the way, the shoes don't match either. It's a dressy wingtip on the left, worn by Bookhout, and a high-top casual walking shoe on the right worn by Ruby. So, you think they changed Ruby's shoes and socks? That's ridiculous. It was a city jail, not a penetentiary. 

I will quit at 7 because this is long enough. But, I want to point out that these 7 things are on ice. I am not proposing them as hypotheses. These things I know with ironclad certainty. There are other things I am not certain about, but these things I am. And considering them together, it makes me realize that the perpetrators were counting on people not having the mental flexibility to see what they did. 

They knew ahead of time that there were going to be doubters, and they planned ways to control those doubters and the direction they went. For instance, regarding Jack Ruby, the plan was to plant vile stories about him- that he was a Mafioso, a hit man, a pimp, a gun-runner, and a man who threw people down the stairs, including women. The story became that he not only shot Oswald, but he was involved in the JFK assassination too- that he delivered guns to Dealey Plaza, that he met secretly with Oswald and others involved, that Oswald came to his nightclub, that he invited a criminal friend to "watch the fireworks" with him in Dealey Plaza. That story got huge coverage by the mainstream media, even though it is certain, beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt, that Ruby was in the Dallas Morning News building tending to his nightclub ads at the time of the motorcade. 

And even the story that Ruby shot Oswald because he was ordered to do so by the Mafia or by the CIA is absurd. If someone ordered you to shoot someone, by attaching a threat to it, would you do it? 
Well, stop thinking that Jack Ruby would! 

Jack Ruby drove to Western Union that morning with his beloved dog Sheba in the car. He brought her along because he loved her company. Would he do that if he was planning to shoot Oswald in a crowd of police? 

Then why did Ruby admit to killing Oswald? He didn't. He accepted that he did it. Big difference. Ruby said he had no memory of shooting Oswald. He said he had no intention of shooting Oswald. He said he never had a violent thought about Oswald. He said what he was feeling all weekend wasn't anger but remorse. And then he started crying, and he wasn't an actor. 

If you continue believing that Jack Ruby shot Oswald, then you are acting like a manipulated Pavlovian dog. Ask yourself: why did they keep printing stories about Ruby watching the motorcade anticipating fireworks, but not other "alternative" stories, such as that Oswald was standing in the doorway at the time of the shots? They knew what they were doing. They knew they couldn't go wrong by spreading an alternative story that was false. 

JFK was murdered by the the National Security State. And I don't mean rogue elements. I mean the core of the U.S. government establishment. It was a State crime. And the truth of that is going to prevail. I can't say when, but remember: the Bolsheviks slaughtered Tsar Nicholas and his family in Yekaterinburg and then burned the bodies. Then, in fear of being found out, they tried to destroy their bones with strong acid. But, they were found out, and today, everybody knows that they did it. 

Then, there was another Soviet crime, the Katyn Forest massacre during World 2. After Hitler invaded Poland from the west, Stalin invaded Poland from the east. The response of England and France was to declare war on Germany but alliance with the Soviets. Then, the Soviets went on to attack Finland, and that was OK too. Then, they murdered 22,000 Poles, including 8000 POWs, 6000 police officers, and the rest the Polish intelligentsia. That got blamed on the Nazis- for decades. But eventually, it came out that the Soviets did it, and today, everybody knows it. The same thing is in store for Dulles, Johnson, Hoover and the others who killed Kennedy. Wait and see.