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

 Realize that, sometimes, you are forced to conclude something. It’s like being in check in Chess. You may not be limited to one move, but sometimes you are. You either make that move or you concede.

That is the situation with the JFK assassination. We know that the plotters planned in advance to claim that all the shots came from the rear- from the 6^th floor window. So, why did they shoot Kennedy from the front- and right in the throat? How did they expect to get away with that when it was almost 180 degrees from the direction they were going to claim all the shots came from?

Well, there is only one possible answer, and that is, that they decided in advance to claim that the throat wound was an exit wound.

Now, stop and think about that for a moment. Rack your brain and see if you can conjure up any other possibilities. I know of a researcher who came up with the idea that the throat wound was an accident, that the shot through the windshield caused glass shards to fly about, and one struck JFK in the neck. I give zero chance that, especially since there was no shot through the windshield. Tell me: why would anyone shoot through the windshield when the target was riding in a convertible? You have so many directions from which to hit him from without going through glass. Why make it harder than it has to be? Plus, the safety glass of a windshield is designed not to spew glass shards.  Plus, claiming a random accidental event is always wildly speculative.

Are there any other ideas? Well, if there aren’t any, then it means that they must have planned to claim that the throat wound was an exit wound. And of course, they did go on to claim that. So, if they could claim it after the fact, why couldn’t they decide to claim it before the fact?

Of course, there was no missile found in his throat. And there was no missile found in his back either.  So, what do you make of that? Don’t tell me that they were dug out at a pre-autopsy. That’s not good enough because the plotters know that before the pre-autopsy there was going to be an uncorrupted medical exam at Parkland, and they would not expect to get past that.

Do you think the back bullet fell out? That’s more random chance. Plus, going in, the bullet had to penetrate three layers of clothing. So, do you think the back bullet fell out through the same holes?  You might as well expect a planetary alignment.

Of course, the Single Bullet Theory is nonsense, but only the part about traversing Kennedy was planned in advance. Connally wasn’t even supposed to be hit.

So, it was really just a shallow wound in JFK’s back, affecting only skin, fascia, and muscle; and a shallow wound in his throat that damaged the trachea on the left side and caused a mild contusion in the apex of the lung on the right side.

And in neither case was a bullet present. What does it mean? It means that dissolvable bullets were used. I don’t say they were identical. The one to his back was ice. And I don’t know what material was used for the throat missile. But, I do know that the weapons existed for both. For the back shot, there was the CIA heart attack gun that was showcased by the Church Committee in 1975, and for the throat shot, there was the CIA umbrella gun that was showcased by Charles Senseney to the HSCA in 1977, although in his case, there was no model for it.

But, let’s get back to the chess game. So, the need to rectify a shot from the front with the lone gunman from the rear is the conundrum.  And the only move out of check is that they were never going to claim that the throat shot was from the front. The Single Bullet Theory, but without Connally, was the plan all along.