Now, I shall begin a series of posts to demonstrate that, just as Oswald was placed at the TSBD in a nefarious scheme designed to frame him for the assassination, Frazier and Lovelady were both placed there too, to play roles in it. They were both unwitting assets to the plot. They were both puppets have their strings pulled by a puppetmaster.

I think it's very obvious that Lovelady was an alternate patsy. In case it didn't work out with Oswald, they'd slip Lovelady in. Lovelady was a convicted felon. He was convicted for stealing weapons from the Air Force and trying to sell them. He was in the AF at the time. He received a dishonorable discharge, a fine, and he did some jail time. And after the matter was settled, he left the state of Maryland without paying what he owed on his fine. And Maryland tracked him down to Texas- the TSBD- and they sought to extradite him back to Maryland for further prosecution. But, the VP of the TSBD, O.V. Campbell, paid his fine and the added penalty. I doubt it was his own money.

Now, why did Campbell do that? Was Lovelady really that good of a stockman? That's right: Lovelady was not an "order-filler" like Oswald and Frazier. Lovelady was a stockman; he handled stock when it arrived and placed it where it needed to go. It was January 1963; so the assassination was 10 months out. And they needed Lovelady just in case they needed him.

Are you aware that, from the beginning, Lovelady was referred to as "Billy Nolan Lovelady"? So, why diid he get the 3-name treatment given to assassins? Because: that was standard operating procedure for assassins. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, Mark David Chapman, James Earl Ray, Arthur Herman Bremer, etc.

I doubt they gave any thought to using Lovelady as an Oswald double. Why would they when he was an inch shorter than Oswald and 40 pounds heavier? So, what they did when they decided to transform Oswald into Lovelady in the Altgens photo was a spur of the moment thing. And it was so stupid. All they had to do was destroy the photo, since nobody knew about it except Altgens hmself, and he wasn't going to bitch. But, they were arrogant. They thought they were gods. They thought they could pull off anything and get away with anything.

Frazier was probably an alternate patsy too. He too was 3-named: Buell Wesley Frazier. But, I suspect Lovelady would have been preferred.

Next time, we'll look at Frazier's oddyssey from Huntsville to Irving and then to the TSBD.

 Exploiting mental illness was an element of the JFK assassination. I have written many times about the mental derangement of Jack Ruby, which was partly drug-induced. He got to the basement an hour early, where he was pounced upon by Police and taken up to the 5th floor. There, they told him that he shot Oswald, and he believed them out of a pathological deference to Authority. It's one thing to be compliant to Police, but to forego your own cognition because Police tell you that you did something is pathological.

Ruby said that he had no thought to shoot Oswald, and no memory of doing it. In other words, he was not aware that he shot Oswald, and he never had the slightest impulse to do it.

Even though it seems there are a lot of murders, the vast majority of people have an absolute aversion to killing people. There is a barrier within them that keeps them from doing it because they respect human life. Even if they hate someone, their aversion to killing is stronger than their hate. They still won't do it.

And you can be sure that Jack Ruby had that aversion to killing too. So, when, after he knew he had no intention, no impulse, and no capacity to commit murder, he accepted that he did JUST BECAUSE THE GOD-DAMN DALLAS POLICE TOLD HIM THAT HE DID, you can be sure that mental derangement was involved because that isn't normal. It's normal to trust your own cognitive awareness and your knowledge of yourself.

And what it says about the Dallas Police speaks volumes. They must have known that Ruby was mentally impaired and would be amenable to accepting that he shot Oswald JUST BECAUSE THEY TOLD HIM THAT HE DID IT. Do you think they would have tried that with anybody? Of course not.

It's very significant that we don't know the name of Ruby's doctor. We know the name of his rabbi, so why not his doctor? I mean the doctor who put him on amphetamines; calling them diet pills.

Jack Ruby was an MK-ULTRA asset of the CIA. There is no telling how long they were grooming him. And I bet that his doctor was a CIA doctor.

But, there was another case of mental defect involved, and that is Wesley Buell Frazier. Do you think I'm wrong about that? Then read Frazier's Warren Commission testimony. In it, Joseph Ball asked him where he was in the doorway, and Frazier said on the steps, one step down from the top, next to the handrail. That was early in the interview. But, later in the interview, Ball asked him why we don't see him in the Altgens photo, and this is what Frazier said when Ball showed him the Altgens photo:

Mr. BALL: Can you see your picture any place there?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't, because I was back up in this more or less black area here.
Mr. BALL I see.
Mr. FRAZIER - Because Billy, like I say, is two or three steps down in front of me.

So, Frazier contradicted himself, and Ball knew it. But, Ball also knew that Frazier was his witness - saying that Doorman was Lovelady - so, he wasn't going to call him on it.

And there's no doubt that Doorman is standing on the top level. There were no steps above him. And Lovelady said that he was on the top level. But, he didn't mean as Doorman, but rather, as the man next to Doorman with the blackened-out face who was visoring his eyes with his hands. That's who Lovelady was. Look at this image.

But, we need to seriously ponder Frazier's mental state at the time. I don't think he lied through his teeth. I think that he lost track of what he said earlier in the interview about being on the steps, one steps down from the top, next to the handrail. And that is where he was. So, when he claimed something else the second time, it's not that he frankly lied, it's that his mind didn't connect the two. He was in a different mental realm.

And it relates to the other things that happened. There is NO CHANCE that Oswald told Frazier that he was going to Irving to get curtain rods. Just think: he was going there to talk to his wife. Why would he need to tell Frazier any more than that? And why would Oswald's mind even go to curtain rods? How did he even know that Ruth Paine had curtain rods in her garage?

Oswald said that he never said that to Frazier, and his denial is far more credible and plausible than Frazier's claim that he did.

So, where did the idea of curtain rods come from if it didn't come from Oswald? I think that most likely it came from the Dallas Police. "Did he tell you that he was going there to get something, such as curtain rods?" Remember, they were threatening to charge Frazier as Oswald's accomplice. So, not being capable of conjuring up something himself, Frazier went along with what they suggested.

And the tendency that Frazier has to disassociate has continued his whole life. At one of the mock trials, Frazier said that Lovelady was very short. He estimated that his height was 5'2". That would be extremely short for a man. Lovelady was 5'8". The FBI measured him. And Frazier also said that, because of his short stature, Billy was having trouble seeing. So, Frazier said that, before the motorcade arrive, he urged him to go down to the bottom of the steps and watch the parade from the sidewalk. And he said that Billy did that. But, if that were true, then he couldn't be on the top landing as Doorman at the same time.

So, Frazier was destroying the whole claim that Lovelady was Doorman, but he was too incompetent to realize it. He still doesn't realize it- to this day.

I tell you, honestly, that I think Frazier is a nice man. And he was functional in his working life. He held various low-level jobs. He joined the Army in 1965. He did two stints, with an interval of civilian life in-between. He married and had a son. He divorced his wife and married another woman. But, there is nothing out of the ordinary about any of that. But, I sincerely believe that Frazier has a mild cognitive disorder in which he dissociates. He loses track of what he said, and he fails to see the internal contradictions in what he claims. He contextualizes everything to where he is oblivious to his own inconsistencies. The examples that I have given you should confirm what I am saying.

But, the big question is: did Frazier wind up at the TSBD, and living in Irving on the same block as Oswald's family, all by accident? I seriously doubt it, and I'll get into that next time.

 I have been involved in a discussion among about 50 JFK researchers, and one of them is Professor Sterling Harwood, J.D., Ph.D. He asked me a question to which I responded, and I am posting both here.

SH: So, if the contusion/injury to the apex of the right lung was from the shot entering JFK's throat, and the throat wound and back wound are two unconnected wounds, then why did the full body scan find no bullet or bullet fragments between the throat and the right lung?

RC: Sterling, I can answer that, although I know that some will find it hard to accept. But, you have to think outside the box on this. First, you are absolutely right that two missile wounds were found in JFK's body, one in his throat and one in his back, but neither contained a missile. And you know what happened after that, that they were declared to be one shot, which traversed him. So, there was a "Single Bullet Theory" even before Connally was added to it.

What I suggest to you is that it was all planned in advance, that they knew they were going to be making a shallow wound in JFK's back that contained no missile. And I'll add that not one of the multiple claims of a bullet being found that "fell out of him" are credible.

So, I tell you that they created the second hole, which was the one in his throat, precisely to create a story for what happened to the bullet that caused the first hole, which was the one in his back. Both the back shot and the throat shot involved non-bullets. The back shot involved an ice dart, which burst and melted upon entering him. So, it was gone in a flash. The throat missile was another kind of dart, often called a flechette, and I don't know what material it was made of. Charles Senseney never described the material. Sprague and Cutler referred to it as "plastic" but they never saw it. Fletcher Proudy did see it and described it as "plastic or nylon." But, that was a reference to how it looked. I'm thinking that it may have been some kind of waxy material or resin that would dissolve at internal body temperature.

But, one thing is for sure: there were two wounds from projectiles, but neither one contained a projectile.

Now, I realize that anyone hearing this for the first time is going to recoil because it's outside the box. It's way outside the box. But, you need to understand that what the autopsists found was weird and baffling: a bullet wound in JFK's back that had no bullet and was shorter than any metal bullet could have stopped. A metal bullet hitting the skin at 2000 feet per second cannot stop in an inch and a half. There is too much energy there that has to be dissipated before the bullet can stop. That resistance came from only one source: the resistance of JFK's tissues. Well, going through an inch and a half of skin, fascia, and muscle could never have dissipated all that energy. It would have taken more tissue than that.

And Dr. Perry was in JFK's throat just 10 minutes after he was shot, and what he found was a very small entrance wound, minimal damage to the trachea and a mild contusion in the apex of the right lung, and no missile. And he looked for one. He also looked for an exit wound but didn't find one.

So, to the people who think that JFK was shot in the throat with a bullet, what happened to it? Don't tell me it was dug out at the pre-autopsy because Dr. Perry was in JFK's throat before that, and there was no bullet there. If the pre-autopsists could find the bullet, then Dr. Perry could have and would have found it.

So, if you reject the Single Bullet Theory, and you should, what then explains the two shallow wounds in JFK's body with no missile in either one? What I am telling you explains it, that JFK was hit in the back with an ice dart that burst and dissolved right away. And he was struck in the throat with some other kind of "blood soluble" projectile (and that is the term the great JFK researcher Jack White used.) And that theory explains everything.

 I want to discuss the Single Bullet Theory, but I don’t mean the theory that a single bullet traversed Kennedy and Connally. I mean just that a single bullet traversed Kennedy; that the back wound and the throat wound were caused by the same bullet.

The first medical team that saw JFK were the Parland doctors. They didn’t discover the back wound, but as regards the throat wound, they thought, unequivocally, that it was an entrance wound. Dr. Perry spoke for them, and if you listen to his press conference, he was categorical that it was an entrance wound, and no other Parkland doctor challenged him.

It was the opposite at Bethesda, where they found the back wound but missed the throat wound. Dr. Humes thought it was just a tracheotomy in his neck, and it never dawned on him that there was a bullet wound there.

It’s very odd because JFK’s White House physician, Admiral George Burkley, was there, and he had also been at Parkland. So, why didn’t he tell Humes about the bullet wound in JFK’s throat? I can’t answer that.

But, they did find the back wound, and several of them probed it. They found no bullet inside the wound, and they also x-rayed JFK’s whole body and found no bullet within him. Nobody suggested at the autopsy that the bullet from the back wound came out his throat.

They didn’t dissect Kennedy to reveal the whole track of the back wound. There is an urban legend that they wanted to, but the admirals in the room wouldn’t let them.

But, the next morning, Humes talked to Perry and found out about the bullet wound in JFK’s throat. And that’s when the idea of a single bullet that traversed Kennedy was born.

I’m being facetious because I actually think that it was all planned in advance. The plotters knew that they were making a shallow wound in JFK’s back with the ice dart, and since the ice was going to melt, there was going to be no projectile there. And that’s why they also made a shallow wound in his throat, again with a dissolvable missile, but it wasn’t ice. And that would leave them with two shallow wounds and no missiles, which opened the door to concluding that a single bullet traversed Kennedy.

Again, I’m leaving out the part about Connally because that didn’t surface until April 1964.  

But, let’s go back to Humes talking to Perry and finding out about the throat wound. That is when he should have DEMANDED that he be allowed to go back in and track the back wound to find out, definitively, if it was connected to the throat wound. And, if necessary, he should have threatened them, that he would go on a nationwide tour denouncing the autopsy and accusing them of obstructing justice, if they wouldn’t let him do it. Of course, Humes wasn’t that kind of guy.

So, that is the context of what happened. But now, let’s talk about the medical context of JFK having a burrowing wound, a tunnel, from back to throat, entering adjacent to the midline in back and exiting in the midline in front, and the effect that that would have on him, and his capacities.

First, be aware that Dr. David Mantik told me that he analyzed it and determined that such a bullet path would have impacted the spinal cord. Obviously, if it had done that, it would have been devastating and JFK would have collapsed. Most of his somatic muscles would have been denervated, and very likely, he would have lost consciousness.  Obviously, that didn’t happen, and there is no evidence that ANY of JFK’s muscles lost their nerve supply.

There is no doubt that JFK’s spinal cord was not traumatized. But, a bullet entering the top of his back, adjacent to his spine, and exiting in the midline of his throat, would surely have gotten close to his spinal cord. So, in what condition would JFK be from that?

Even if the bullet didn’t hit his spinal cord, it would have burrowed through the nerve that emerge though the intervertebral foramina.

So, it starts as rootlets that emerge from the spinal cord. They coalesce into roots. Then the roots become a spinal ganglion. And then the spinal nerve, which contains both sensory and motor fibers, emerges from that and goes out to the body.

So, even if the bullet missed the spinal cord, it would still likely blow through the emerging nerve tissue and interrupt the transmission of nerve signals between the spinal cord and the body.

I am not aware that there has ever been another shooting victim with a traumatic wound like the one that, supposedly, happened to Kennedy.  So, we don’t have any comparable cases to compare it to. But, we can still deduce that, if Kennedy had been impacted in the manner claimed, that the consequences would have been dire, that his muscles would have been affected, that some muscles would have lost their innervation, and that his ability to sit upright would have been stalled.

From looking at the Zapruder film, we can see that Kennedy was highly impaired. He exhibited muscle spasms in which he lost control of his arms. He raised them in response to a respiratory obstruction from the throat shot, and he cleared that obstruction by coughing. But after that, he couldn’t put his arms down. That involved the deltoid muscles and the elbow flexion muscles, therefore the biceps and the brachialis. But, as he sat there, the spasticity spread to include the trapezius, the levator, and other muscles, causing him to hunch his shoulders severely. JFK also experienced a complete mental collapse, in which he lost the ability to speak, to communicate in any way, to be aware of his surroundings, to respond, or to take any kind of evasive or defensive action.

But, the question is: did he exhibit any sign of nerve interference, where the transmission of nerve signals from his central nervous system to his muscles was interrupted? And the answer is: no he did not. And I tell you that that disallows the single bullet theory, even as it applies to JFK alone.

So, I am left with the strong belief that JFK had two shallow wounds: one in his back and the other in his throat. The back wound involved no damage to vital tissue. It affected skin, fascia, and muscle, and nothing else. And the throat wound damaged the lower trachea on the left side (and keep in mind that the trachea is very superficial, that you can place your index finger at the bottom of your throat and touch it through the skin) and it also caused a mild contusion (which is a bruise) in the apex of his right lung. But, that it. That was the totality of his physical trauma until the fatal head shot. And that’s why he was able to continue sitting upright, with all his postural muscles working and all his other muscles working too.

So, the Single Bullet Theory, even as it applies to Kennedy alone, is a lie. Until the fatal head shot, JFK was hurt much less bad than Connally, who did have a traversing wound through his chest.

But, JFK did exhibit bizarre physical and mental aberrations, which we see in the Zapruder film. I tell you that they were caused, not by physical trauma, but by the nerve agent, and possibly other toxic agents, that were delivered by way of the back shot.

 Let's look at the big picture of what happened that weekend. First, Oswald was innocent and was standing in the doorway during the shooting. Believe it or not, the FBI quickly announced that the guy who looks like, and is dressed like Oswald, is actually Billy Lovelady, but they did not produce Lovelady, and sit him in front of a sea of cameras and mics to tell the world himself that he was Doorman, and they never provided any image of him either. Can you imagine claiming that someone looked so much like Oswald that his wife and kids mistook Oswald for him, but never provided his image so that people could see for themselves? The only one who published a photo of Lovelady was Mark Lane, and it was a photo he pirated. Eventually, Harold Weisberg got into the document pile of the Warren Commission and found the FBI photos of Lovelady and published them.

Jack Ruby was innocent too, and he was up on the 5th floor being minded by SS Agent Forrest Sorrels when the Garage Spectacle went down. Ruby got to the garage an hour earlier, and he told the Warren Commissioners that he sent his money wire at 10:17. That is in the transcript.

So, Ruby got there early, and the cops were there. And they jumped him, and he didn't know why. So, he started saying, "Hey, what are you doing? You know me. I'm Jack Ruby. I'm not some criminal." He admitted saying that, and detectives even said he said it. But, we know from the films that the Garage Schooter never spoke, and reporters said he never spoke. Ruby had hiw own private melee' with the cops an hour before. Then they hustled him upstairs and told him that he shot Oswald. Ruby was so out of it mentally, that he couldn't defend himself. And he had a pathological admiration and respect for the Dallas Police. They couldn't have gotten away with it if it had been you or me. And then, an hour later, they put on the show with FBI Agent James Bookhout filling in for Ruby. Then, it was easy enough for them to slip Ruby into the story later., in a classic bait and switch.

As for Kennedy, he was shot in the back high on the hill, and I mean right after the limo completed the turn from Houston. But, it wasn't a regular bullet, it was an ice bullet that contained a nerve agent, and maybe other drugs. We see the effect of the drugging in the Zapruder film, where Kennedy went into nerve agent spasms, and he suffered a complete mental breakdown, where he couldn't talk; he couldn't think; he couldn't communicate in any way; and he couldn't be aware. He was zombified.

So, the back shot was a prep shot. They absolutely did not want to kill him until he reached the Kill Zone, which started at the freeway sign. And it ended across from Zapruder, which is where the fatal head shot hit him. And right there at the start of the Kill Zone was Umbrella Man. What an amazing coincidence, since he was just an insurance agent who wasn't even looking for the motorcade. And yet, he wound up in the Kill Zone. What were the chances?

And using his Umberlla Gun, Umbrella Man shot the flechette into JFK's throat. He was definitely not Louie Steven Witt, but he may have been Fred Geb. Fred and his brother Ralph were both WW2 vets and career military, and they went to the same high school as LBJ's henchman Malcolm Wallace, and they were friends with him; close friends. Small world, isn't it?

And Mary Moorman was in the street facing up Elm as the Kennedys approached her, and she took her picture right at the time that JFK was shot in the throat by Umbrella Man. They swapped her picture out with one taken by Babushka Lady, who was an insider. It amounted to replacing Mary's picture of their faces with one of the back of their heads. How did they get her to accept that swap? I dare say it involved mind control plus the persuasive power of money. They damaged her valuable historical photo, so I say they must have brought a check for her. Nobody gets to damage someone's valuable property without compensationg them. The only thing Mary has said about it nothing. She said they never explained how the white thumbprint wound up on the photo. I suspect that the truth is that they had her sign an NDA. And even though in the Spring of 1964, she got into the street to demonstrate how she took her photo, facing up Elm, she started saying that she didn't get into the street, and that she didn't take her photo until the Kennedys were even with her. But, there is absolutely no doubt that the "Moorman photo" was taken on a diagonal angle from behind. And that's why it captured the backs of their heads. So the official story is that even though Mary waited for hours to take her picture, and even though she had them in her viewfinder from the time they rounded the corner from Houston, that she let them pass her and then photographed them from behind. Did I mention that not one of the 8 billion people on Earth would do that?

The United States government killed Kennedy and Oswald. It wasn't the whole government. It was a network from within the govenrment, consisting of what Vincent Salandria called "the national secruity state." So, it was the intelligence agencies, the Secret Service, the Vice President, the Joint Chiefs- that is who killed Kennedy. It wasn't Oswald. It wasn't the Mafia. It was the national security state.

 This is Part 2 of my takedown of the Evil Praymanites. They claim that Oswald was eating his cheese sandwich in the doorway, during the motorcade, at 12:30. Why would he do that? They were let off work early, at 11:45. We were told that it was precisely so that the employees could eat lunch and tidy up before the motorcade arrived. Who knows, maybe it was because they had to do things on the 6th floor like arrnage the boxes to build the Sniper's Nest. But, that's what we were told, and there is no reason to doubt that they did get off at 11:45. 

So, since Oswald got off at 11:45, why would he wait until 12:30 to eat? He hadn't eaten that day. According to Ruth Paine and Marina, the only thing he consumed before leaving for work was coffee. 

So, presumably, he was ready to eat. So, why wouldn't he? What else did he have to do in lieu of eating?  Why would he have postponed eating? In order to do what? 

And if he put off eating until 12:30, how did he spend that 45 minutes, and where did he spend it? Oswald told his interrogators that he spent the lunchbreak eating in the 1st floor lunch room, which is where he always ate. In this note by James Hosty, it appears that Oswald said that he went to the 2nd floor lunch room first to get a Coke, with which to wash down his lunch. A cheese sandwich can be rather dry, right? 

I can't think of any reason to doubt that Oswald did what the note said, which was eat his lunch early in the lunch break, and then go outside to watch the Presidential Parade. That's what P. Parade stands for.

So, why would he be eating at 12:30? He wouldn't. He couldn't. He didn't. It is just an Evil Prayermanite lie. 

And why would anyone be eating during JFK's motorcade? I mean, if it were say an Easter Parde or 4th of July Parade, you might be noshing on something as you watched. But, not when it's the President of the United States. We have footage of the entire 10 mile drive from Love Field, with all the huge, thick crowds that lined the streets, and I don't recall seeing anyone eating. And in Oswald's case, it is particularly ridiculous because he was given the opportunity to eat at a time when there was nothing distracting him or preventing him from using the time to eat. It is impossible to conjure up anything that would have prevented him from doing so. No, he was not writing a love letter to Judyth Baker, telling her how much he looked forward to running away to Mexico with her, abandoning his wife and kids. There is no reason to believe that Oswald ever met Judyth Baker, and there is no evidence that he did.  

So, if you are a sane and rational person, you are going to believe Oswald that he ate his lunch early in the lunch break in the Domino room and then he went outside, where we can see him in the Altgens photo and the Wiegman film. But, I mean as the Doorman, not as the shadowy figure that the Evil Praymanites conjured up and call Prayer Man. As I said in Part 1, there was no Prayer Man. He is an invention. Why did they invent him? They invented him to muddy the waters, to create a false rumor to draw people away from recognizing that Oswald was the Altgens Doorman and the first Wiegman Doorman. 

The 2nd Wiegman Doorman was another invention. There was no 2nd Wiegman Doorman. He is just a still image that was added to the film. The reason they added him was because Oswald had left for the lunch room, so there was no Doorman. Apparently, the commotion that caused Wiegman to do his second pan of the doorway concerned Oswald. I think it was Bill Shelley ordering Oswald to go to the lunch room. There must have been a bit of a scene there. 

So, Oswald was definitely not eating in the doorway, but he was in the doorway, and here are three images of him on 11/22. Left is an arrest photo; center is Wiegman; and right is Altgens. 

 There was no Prayer Man. Not only is the claim that Oswald was Prayer Man false, but the claim that there was a Prayer Man is false. 

Let's be thorough about this. Prayer Man is a figure who is supposedly seen in two films: the Wiegman film and the Darnell film. We are talking, of course, about the doorway of the Book Depository. 

First, we should acknowledge that the quality of the films is very poor, and I mean extremely poor. There is a photo that is derived from a frame of the Wiegman film which shows the doorway during Wiegman's second pan of it. Wiegman captured the doorway the first time just from rounding the corner. But then, after passing it, he swung back around and shot the doorway a second time. Now, why did he do that?  

We don't know. He never said. And nobody ever asked him. I tell you that he must have detected a commotion in the doorway. Why else would he have done it?  

The Wiegman film that we have today is EXTREMELY blurry. The clearest image we have from it is a still frame that was converted into a photo. It is an image of his second pan of the doorway. Here it is, and next to it I have put the corresponding frame from the Wiegman film that we have today, which is from a Youtube video. 

I don't know the source of the superior image on the left, but it's very existence tells me that there is a higher quality version of the Wiegman film in somebody's hands, presumably NBC. Congresswoman Anna Luna from Florida has been saying, for years, that NBC has a better quality Wiegman film that they have been hiding. 

But, the Youtube postings of the Wiegman film are all we have. The Prayermanites claim that in the black of the doorway between black man who is next to the column and the Doorman on our right is another person. Do you see anybody? I don't see anybody. So, why do they claim it? 

What those evil Prayermanites did is post a Photoshopped image from the Wiegman film in which they added Prayer Man. 

 Do you think that is a bold statement? It is not. The Prayermanites admit it themselves. A 2024 Prayer Man analysis says that it examined eight Wiegman frames and that seven failed to show Prayer Man with sufficient clarity and detail. It then singled out one lone frame as the promising one. Then, that one frame was subjected to "light/clarity adjustments, AI-powered enlargement, noise cancellation, desaturation, contrast adjustment, and histogram manipulation." In other words, it was Photoshopped, and I'm using that term generically for image manipulation using software. 

The only thing that matters is what we can see in the Wiegman film. And the Prayermanites can't show you a version of the Wiegman film that looks like what they are claiming.  All they show is the doctored frame. And since you can't see it in the Wiegman film, there is no reason to believe or accept any of it.  

And consider that the Prayermanites have been around for a long time, probably 15 years. And they have always claimed that the Wiegman film shows Prayer Man. But, if they didn't do their image enhancement using AI until recently (2024), how were they claiming it in the beginning before there was AI?  

Do you think the Prayermanites have a better version of the Wiegman film? How could they have any version of it? It's not like you can buy it. I think they started with the same still frame that I showed you that is relatively sharp, and they applied their machinations to it. There is no reason to believe that their doctored frame is legitimate. If you are going to accept their doctored image, you might as well get your checkbook out to buy the Brooklyn Bridge.   

The bottom line is that the Wiegman film, as it appears on Youtube, is all there is. It's all we have. It is the only access we have to the Wiegman film. And the only way we can confirm what is in the film is by viewing the film. We can't trust anybody's still-frames of it because it is too easy to alter them. 

Prayer Man being in the Wiegman film is something we must reject outright, if we are honest and smart.  

The only other place the evil Prayermanites claim shows Prayer Man is the Darnell film, and I will cover that next time, and it is a humdinger of a story. And when I'm through, you'll understand why I call them the Evil Prayermanites.  

 Watch the Midnight Press Conference again with your focus on one thing: does Oswald sound sane? It is a very pertinent question because he would have had to be completely insane to shoot Kennedy. So, does he sound sane or insane?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CK_xxne2WE

I tell you that he sounds so sane that they put a lot of noise over him trying to diminish his composure, steadiness, and grounded self-control. He showed a lot of equanimity and self-possession, despite the extraordinary situation he was in.

And if we look at Oswald's life at the time, his objectives are clear and sane. He wanted to get his family back under his roof. He wanted to find a better job. He wanted to acquire a driver's license. For him to destroy his entire life by shooting Kennedy goes beyond insane. It goes to the realm of the totally inexplicable and imponderable. Not only did Oswald have no reason to shoot Kennedy; and no benefit from shooting Kennedy, but there is no credible and coherent basis to assume he would derive any satisfaction from shooting Kennedy.

And notice how passionate he sounded in asking for a lawyer. He was imploring the whole world to get him a lawyer. Do you really think that just 18 hours later, when he was offered one, that he just shrugged and said no? I know that's what we've been told, but this is the JFK assassination, and everything weve been told has to be scrutinized and challenged.

And especially if you defend Oswald, if you deny that he killed Kennedy, it is your responsibility to defend his sanity too.

And consider that in the weeks before the assassination, there is no basis to claim that Oswald was focused on Kennedy at all. And he could not have had any expectation of seeing Kennedy. So, theoretically, and we don't know that this happened, if he was browsing the newspaper on, say, the Tuesday, and saw the motorcade route, that he instantly got the compulsion to kill Kennedy? Without any progression? Without any bridge? Without any preliminaries whatsoever?

The plotters knew they had a credibility problem that way, and that's why they conjured up the Walker shooting attempt. But, the credibility of the Walker story is every bit as bad, with the bullet dug out of Walker's window not matching Oswald's supposed bullet, and witnesses seeing two culprits, each driving off in their own car. And Marina was involved too because supposedly she knew that her husband was a homicidal maniac, and yet, she not only didn't inform the police, but she followed him down to New Orleans to live with him, after knowing about it, and also subjecting her daughter to him.

I get it that women have been known to forgive men for violent acts, such as slugging them in a drunken rage. But, shooting at Walker was different because there was no personal connection and no immediate provocation to provide even a rudimentary explanation for it.

And why wasn't Marina charged for failing to report a felony if she knew Oswald had shot at Walker?

But, let's get back to the MPC where Oswald came across as lucid, rational, and sane. He devoted his whole speech to not just pleading for a lawyer BUT PROTESTING THAT THE DALLAS POLICE WERE DENYING HIM ONE. So, after doing that, how could he say no when offered a lawyer? Such a reversal would have been a mental break in itself. Again, there is no basis to think that Oswald was in such a mental state.

The man we hear in the Midnight Press Conference appears lucid, rational, purposeful, and remarkably self-possessed. His known concerns immediately before November 22 appear overwhelmingly directed toward ordinary, rational personal pursuits. There is no clearly demonstrated progression toward killing Kennedy. The alleged route discovery supplies no obvious psychological bridge. The Walker episode is offered to supply that bridge, but itself presents serious evidentiary and behavioral questions. And his urgent demand for a lawyer creates an additional question about the subsequent claim that he rejected legal assistance.

There is something terribly wrong with the story that H Louis Nichols met with Oswald- the real Oswald- who rejected his offer of a lawyer. I am asking you to doubt it, on principle, knowing that Oswald was sane. But then, when you look at the specifics of the Nichols' story, especially the timeline of it, you will realize that it never happened, that Nichols met with someone, but it wasn't the Lee Harvey Oswald of fame.

 Watch this video of the Midnight Press Conference because it's bizarre.

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

It starts with reporters in the hall. One, with a strong Texas accent, says "we should get a larger room." They are in a hall; not in a room, but that's what he says. Then, another reporter says "How about the Assembly room?" Then another voice says, "All right; let's go down there." But, you don't see any of those figures. It's just their voices, and I suspect it was just added to the footage to concoct it; to fabricate it. It was an attempt to make it look like the reporters organized the Midnight Press Conference- not the cops.

Then it gets to the conference, and you hear a narrator say, "The suspect is coming down the aisle and into the Identification room." But, that may have been added too.

Then, Oswald is led in, and he starts speaking, "I positively know nothing about this siutation here, and I would like to have legal representation."

Then, he said, "I was questioned by a judge, but I protested at that time that I was not allowed legal representation, during that very short and sweet hearing."

Notice that he did not say anything about John Abt or wanting John Abt. And he could not have been protesting that the Dallas Police didn't get him John Abt because they couldn't get him John Abt. All they could do is get him a Texas laywer, and that is what he was talking about.

Now after that, there is jump cut. So, they cut something out; something they didn't want us to hear. The next thing we have is:

"I really don't know what this situation is about. Nobody has told me anything except that I am accused of murdering a policeman. I know nothing more than that, and I do request that someone come forward to give me legal assistance."

Then, a reporter asked him if he killed the President.

"No. Nobody has said that to me yet. The first thing I heard about it is when the newspaper reporters in the hall asked me that question." That implies that the Police never informed him that he was suspected of killing Kennedy. So, why didn't they tell him?

The final thing Oswald said was in response to a reporter who, apparently, asked him about his swollen eye. He said; "A policeman hit me."

But, this version below, supposedly, shows Jack Ruby. At 1:18, it says it's him standing among the reporters, but it is obviously not him. They deliberately made it very dark to obscure it. I lightened it some, and you can still tell that he isn't Ruby.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20gMauCyU0s

But, there is also this version which shows Ruby in the back of the room. Now, that is where Ruby said he was. He said he was on a table in the back of the room. And it does look to be him. It's weird that it starts as a still image and then it starts moving, and I'm not sure that Ruby ever moves.

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

So, it may be a still image of him that they added to the film. But, that is him, and it is where he said he was.

But, I have to finish this by pointing out that the whole idea of giving Oswald a press conference makes no sense. Remember: they would not let Oswald have a lawyer, which means they didn't want him talking to a lawyer. So, why would they let him talk to the world? They took a big chance doing that. And therefore, they must have had an ulterior motive, and I think it was to kill him on camera. I can't think of any other ulterior motive. I presume Ruby was not in a spot where they could pin it on him. Consider that the whole press conference only lasted one minute. Why abort it so soon, after going to all that trouble? For one, Oswald was doing them a lot of damage complaining about being denied a lawyer. But, once they realized that the shooting of him wasn't going to happen, they ended it abruptly.

Now, don't tell me they did it to give the press access to Oswald because if they were concerned about that, they would have let it go on for more than a minute.

 It is clear to me now that the images of Jean Hill and Mary Moorman in the Zaprduer film are bogus. On the left is a photo of Mary taken late that afternoon, and on the right is a Costella frame from the Z-film.

Note that how we source the Z-film is very important because with Photoshopping and now AI, anything is possible. We have to be sure we don't use something that was tampered with or digitally enhanced. But, we can trust the Costella frames.

1 Mary's raincoat had enormous white buttons, which we don't see in the Costella frame. You could claim one button in 303, but I also included 296 which shows no buttons at all. There is no rationalizing this. The buttons should be visible.

2 Mary's raincoat was extremely long. It appears to go all the way down to her ankles. But, in the Costella frame, it is not that long. On her left side, which is on our right, it only goes a little below her knee.

3 On the left, her coat is wrinkled and looks baggy on her, like it's a a size too big. On the right, it looks sleek, streamlined, and tight-fitting.

4 Mary's shoes in the Zapruder film do not correspond to what we see in the still photo, which is a mocassin-style loafer, although dressier than a mocassin. There is no basis to claim that the Zapruder frame displays Mary's shoe authentically, as seen so clearly and sharply in the still photo. It is another non-sequiter.

5 When we consider the above issues and then add the weird flow of Mary in the Z-film, where she continues to point her cameraa straight ahead even after the Kennedy's have passed her, it makes her entire presence in the film not just questionable but non-credible. I'm not questioning that she was there. Of course, she was. But, the imagery of her that was captured by Zapruder's camera got replaced with the crude imagery that we see in the film.

 Look what I found. This is from the day of the assassination, and Jean Hill said that "We were looking at the President, we were looking at his face. As Mary took the picture, I was looking at him, " Listen to it yourself. You can start at the 5 minute mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rgmr03l4GFI&t=285s

Then, after that, "he grabbed his hands across his chest." I presume she was referred to his repsonse, raising his hands up to his throat. There is nothing else she could have been talking about.

So, it seems that Mary's real picture was taken right after the throat shot, which was followed by his reaction to it.

Like Mary, Jean said that there were several shots after Mary took her picture. Therefore, it had to be taken long before the fatal head shot because that was the final shot, and nobody disputes that.

 Supposedly, in the Zapruder film, Mary Moorman was still looking through her viewfinder when the fatal headshot occurred at 313, and she still waited longer to take her picture. The "experts" tell us that she didn't take it until 315 or 316.

But, Mary never said that. She said the opposite, that she took her photo at the time of the first shot.

And wouldn't she have turned to keep tracking the Kennedys? Why would she keep pointing her camera straight ahead when they had already passed her?

You have to admit that this is a bizarre image, and it is contrary to real life. In fact, is something that we have never seen except here, in the JFK assassination.

So, why didn't Mary turn? First, I'll tell you why she didn't turn in real life, and then I'll tell you why she doesn't turn in the film.

She didn't turn in real life because she finished taking her photo before they reached her, and then she got down on the ground. And she doesn't turn in the Zapruder film because they just added a still image to the film. It wasn't a moving image. So, that image couldn't turn. It's just art- crude, crappy CIA art. It's just a painting. And paintings don't move.

The real images of Jean Hill and Mary Moorman in the Zapruder film were taken out of it and replaced with bogus still images.

 According to the U.S. government, Mary Moorman still hasn't taken her photo yet in this frame. And that is insane because Mary waited there for hours, and she saw the limo when it turned onto Houston Street, and she brought her camera up to her eye as soon as it made the turn onto Elm Street. And even though she was poised and ready to take her picture as soon as the limo was on Elm, she let the Kennedys pass her a long way before she pressed the shutter? Nobody on Earth would do that. Not one of the 8.3 billion people on Earth would do that.

 Now, let’s peer into the Looking Glass to see what really happened with the Moorman Photo. Are you aware of the things Mary said on 11/22/63 and soon thereafter? I have audio files of everything she said. Here is one of them. You can listen to it.

https://soundcloud.com/ralphcinque/mary-moorman-spring-1964

So, she stepped out into the street, and she made sure they were looking at her, and then she took her picture. And be aware that when she was saying that, she was in the street and turned and facing eastward. She wasn’t facing across Elm; she was facing up Elm. So, why does the Zapruder film show her back on the grass and shooting across Elm? Because: the Zapruder film is bogus.

If Mary had taken her picture under those conditions, it wouldn’t look like the Moorman photo because Jackie would have been blocking Mary's view of JFK. And they don’t claim that her picture was taken then. That is Z300, and they claim her photo was taken at Z315, after the fatal head shot. Yet, they use Z300 to show when she took her picture. I also have an audio file of Mary saying that she took her photo at the time of the first shot and that several shots followed.

Mary said that, following the assassination, the feds kept borrowing her photo. But why? Not only were many copies made on 11/22, but a negative of it was made, so that they could make unlimited copies. So, what did they need hers for?

So, first the FBI borrowed it; then the Secret Service; then the CIA, and then the FBI borrowed it a second time. When they returned it after borrowing it a second time, it had the infamous white thumbprint. She said they never told her how it happened.

So, they damaged her invaluable historical photo and just returned it without explaining?

“Here’s your photo back, Mary. It has a white thumbprint on it now. Have a nice day.”

No, no, no. Nobody would do that. Not even the feds.

And how exactly could a white thumbprint get on it? As I explained, there is no plausible, credible way that that could have happened by accident.

So, the FBI added the thumbprint, and there is no doubt about it.

And it was damage to her invaluable historical photo. When you damage someone’s property, you have to compensate them. The FBI knows that. Everyone in America knows it.

And we are talking about the U.S. government, which has unlimited money because it can print any amount of money for any reason whatsoever.

So, I tell you that they surely must have brought a check with them when they returned her photo damaged. Mary never said that, but I’m also sure they brought a non-disclosure agreement with them for her to sign before they gave her the check.

Now, I admit that I have no proof of this. What I’m saying is based entirely on supposition. But, we live in a country in which when you damage someone’s property, you have to pay them. And that is not a supposition.

And I strongly believe that, in this case, they made the check big and fat- that it was an eye-opening amount of money. Why? Because: they were returning to her a photo that was not only damaged, but its content was vastly different. Instead of showing their faces, like Mary’s photo of Officer Glenn McBride, it showed the backs of their heads. It is simply not plausible that Mary waited until the Kennedys passed her to take her picture.

Furthermore, the Moorman photo was taken at a diagonal angle from behind, and I have a Physics professor, with a specialty in Optics, who will testify to that in court, as my expert witness, if necessary. I won’t tell you his name, but I will tell you that he teaches at a college in Texas.

So, for Mary to have taken the Moorman photo, she would have had to turn past perpendicular. But, there are no images of her turned past perpendicular, and she never claimed to turn past perpendicular. Even though she originally said that she was facing the Kennedys and shooting their faces, she eventually started saying that they were directly across from her when she took the photo. But, that doesn’t cut it because if she had taken the picture then, they would have been centered in the photo, which they are not, and it would have looked very different. Whoever took the Moorman photo took it diagonally from behind.

I have multiple diagrams that were drawn by the Physics Professor. I am posting one of them here.

And he is a professor who lectures other Physics professors about Optics. And he insists that the content of the Moorman photo tells us that it was taken by someone who was diagonally behind the Kennedys on the south side of Elm.

I think Mary Moorman was played. I think all those visits by the feds had a dual purpose, one of which was to size her up; to find out how respectful she was of Authority; how compliant she was when told to believe something by Authority. I think Mary was MK-ULTRA’d. It was nothing heavy duty. I’m sure it didn’t involve drugs or sleep deprivation or subliminal messages or shock waves. (Read: Poisoner in Chief: Sidney Gottlieb and the CIA Search for Mind Control by Stephen Kinzer.) But, I think that with kind, gentle voices those feds prepped Mary to accept a photo that was taken by somebody else as her own.

It is simply impossible that Mary Mooman took the Moorman photo because Physics says so. And when the Professor told me that the Moorman photo was taken at a diagonal angle from behind, I showed him this frame of Babushka Lady in the Muchmore film, he said: “Bingo. That’s who took it.”

 Robert Groden has a video about the Dave Wiegman film. Never mind what that charleton says about it. The truth about it is that it shows Oswald in the doorway. But, only in the first pass. Wiegman did a second pan of the doorway. He turned around to shoot it again, and it must have been because there was a commotion there. And by the time his camera got there the second time, Oswald was gone., and they put in a still image of someone else. So, the first Wiegman Doorman is Oswald, and the second Wiegman Doorman is nobody.

This is the first Wiegman Doorman, and he is Oswald. However, the film was deliberately degraded and distorted to make him unrecognizable. But, to sell it, they had to distort the whole film. They couldn't just distort the doorway.

But, this issue reached national prominence. Congresswoman Luna went on national television and said that the Wiegman film showed Oswald (it did) and that NBC is hiding the original, undistored one.

I doubt that that's true. I assume the original was destroyed. But, I was alive then. I remember watching tv in the 1950s. The picture wasn't as good as we're used to today, but it was not as bad as the Wiegman film. The Wiegman film is grotesquely bad. AND THAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO REALIZE: THAT THE APPALLING QUALITY OF THE WIEGMAN FILM TELLS US THEY WERE OUT TO DECEIVE US.

So, here is the film about the 1936 Berlin Olympics shot by Leni Riefenstahl who was imprisoned for 4 years after WW2 for having made propaganda films for Hitler. Don't you think that by 1963 they should have had better movie cameras than they had in 1936? So, here is the 1936 film:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frVw5XQMCb0

And here is the Wiegman film from 1963, first at regular speed and then in slow-motion.

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

Toward the end of the film when it's shooting Newman and others on the Grassy Knoll, the images are sharper, but still not as good as the 1936 film.

So yes, the Wiegman film was degraded and distorted to obscure Oswald in the doorway. And personally, I doubt that the undistored original film still exists. It makes no sense for them to have kept it. What for? Only to have to guard it under lock and key for the rest of time? No, no, no; they must have destroyed it.

 Do you think that they were telling us the truth about the Midnight Press Conference? Then look at these conflicting images of Jack Ruby at the MPC. On the left, he is up against a table in the corner, which is about what he said he did. But, there are two images of him milling with reporters, as if he was a reporter. The two images are about the same, but in the bottom image, he looks thinner and younger. There is no excuse for both those images to exist. And there is no excuse for either one to exist if the first image is valid.

There is nothing about the official story of the MPC that makes sense. The very having of it makes no sense. Who gives a man considered to be a double murderer a press conference? And do you know how long it lasted? One minute, almost exactly. Who holds a press conferene for one minute? And you can see that it was suddenly and very abruptly aborted. Why? Beacuse Oswald was doing so much damage.

 A Nicholas Kilburn has contacted me to inform me about his project entitled: The People vs. Lee Harvey Oswald. It's to simulate Oswald's trial with the assumption that it happened no later than March 1, 1965. So, how would Oswald's trial have gone?

The answer is that Oswald could not be tried. There is no way the plotters could let that happen. It would have been a disaster for them, and they knew it. And it was worse than that because they couldn't even let Oswald see a lawyer: not even once.

Don't you find it strange that Ruby didn't even ask for a lawyer, but they got him one. Ruby was allowed to talk to a lawyer before he even spoke to Fritz. But, Oswald, who wailed about wanting a lawyer wasn't given one.

And what's really chilling is that on Sunday afternoon, Fritz was talking to reporters after Oswald had died, and he said that Jack Ruby was consulting with his lawyer, "which is his right." His right? What about Oswald's right?

And before you tell me that Oswald was offered a lawyer, which he turned down, I tell you that that never happened. The Oswald of fame never met with H. Louis Nichols. That was damage control- from Oswald's Midnight Press Conferrence where he wailed to the world about being denied a lawyer. They waited until Saturday evening when Oswald was taken to his evening interrogation to bring Nichols up to the Jail to visit with Oswald, but the man he saw and spoke with was an Oswald double.

They were never going to let Oswald talk to a lawyer. They were going to kill him before that happened. And they did; eventually. They hoped he would be killed in the Texas Theater, but that didn't work out. Then, they hoped they could kill him at the Midnight Press Conference, but they couldn't pull that off either. Then, after doing the damage control on Saturday evening, they finally succeeded at killing him on Sunday morning.

So, why couldn't they let Oswald talk to a lawyer? It's because the lawyer would surely learn from him that he was standing in the doorway during the motorcade. And then, the lawyer would have showed him the Altgens photo and asked, "Is that you?" And Oswald would have said "Yes, but they tampered with my image." But, he would have had no trouble convincing the lawyer that he was telling the truth.

Then, the lawyer would have asked him if he mail-ordered a rifle from Chicago, and Oswald would have said no. Then, the lawyer would have told him what the FBI was saying, and Oswald would have reacted aghast. And he would have had no trouble convincing the lawyer that there wasn't a word of truth to it.

Everything would have come out: the bogus Backyard photos, the reason he left the doorway to go to the 2nd floor lunch room (Bill Shelley ordered him to); how he he got to the lunch room (using the elegant stairs in the southeast corner and walking across the second floor) that he never ordered a pistol from Seagate Distributors, that he did not kill Tippit, that he never shot at General Walker, etc. And through it all, Oswald would have come across as lucid, sane, and not the least bit deranged. Oswald would have repeated to him, "Why would I shoot President Kennedy? I had no reason to do it. I had no desire to do it. And I had no thought to do it. It's insane."

And what the lawyer would have gotten from that first session was that the government was framing Oswald, which meant that the government must have killed Kennedy.

So, the answer is that there was zero chance that Oswald would be or could be tried. Oswald could die. That was the only thing he could do. And that was baked in the cake before 11/22/63.

So, don't waste time speculating about how the trial of Oswald would have gone. There was never going to be a trial. They had every intention of killing him the same day, before he ever talked to the Police, let alone a lawyer.

The problem with speculating about how the trial of Oswald would have gone is that the inquiry itself implies that there was some case against him. But, there wasn't. There wasn't a speck of evidence against Oswald.

You have to realize that for Oswald to have shot at Kennedy, he would have had to be insane. But, he was not insane, and he showed that to reporters at the MPC, where he was the most lucid person in the room. And it was because he was so lucid that they had to put that racket over his voice in the tapes, including a guy issuing a firing squad order, "At ease!"

So, I say: don't respect the killers by acting like there was a reasonable case they might have made against Oswald at trial. All we need say about it is that they knew they couldn't try Oswald. That is the truth, and it speaks volumes.

 There are several things I would like to point out about this plat of Dealey Plaza. I'll do them one at a time. The first one is to point out where Robert Croft and Tina Towner were. They were both at the top of the Plaza, close to the intersection of Houston and Elm. Tina was at the intersection, right at the corner. Coft was on Elm, a little down from the corner, but not much. So, they were close to each other.

And they both followed the limousine, Croft with his still camera, and Tina with her movie camera. But, Tina's film should have included Croft's photo. Croft's photo, or something very close to it, should have been a frame in Tina's film. But, it is not. We do not see the Croft Laides in the Towner film. And we don't even see the retaining wall in the Towner film. We see the TSBD, and then it gets to the obelisk, and then we see the pergola, but that whole area that Croft captured is not in the Towner film. So, why not?

Well, I don't assume the laws of physics and optics got violated that day. I assume they didn't want to show us what she captured of that, and so they got rid of it.

And the TSBD entrance looks very weird too. It's mostly black , and the figures in it aren't discernible.

Do you realize that there are no two images of the doorway that look the same or even similar, that every single one is distinctly different from the rest?

guess they never expected anyone to compare them. But, someone did.