Now, I am going to discuss the situational evidence that supports the photographic evidence that Oswald was in the doorway during the shooting. And it’s not that the photographic evidence needs help. The photographic evidence is conclusive. It’s like in fingerprint matching. Once they get up to, say, 14 matching points between two fingerprints, that’s it. It’s the same guy. And the matching points between Oswald and Doorman are easily that high.

But, I want you to understand the situational evidence because it will show you just how disingenuous and bankrupt the Lovelady talking heads are.

The first is that Oswald told investigators that he was out in front, and he named someone who was there: Bill Shelley. How did Oswald know that Shelley was there?  And of course, Shelley was there? Oswald knew it because he was also there. He even parsed it that way. He said that he was out in front with Bill Shelley. To me it implies that there was some interaction between the two of them; that they had an exchange. And I do believe they did. I believe that Shelley ordered Oswald to go to the lunchroom. And that’s why Oswald did it; not to get a Coke.

But, the bottom line is that the ONLY way Oswald could have known that Shelley was out in front was by being there himself.

The second point takes us to the 2^nd  floor lunchroom and what happened there. We know, for an absolute fact, that at 12:31, plus some seconds, Oswald was spotted by Officer Marrion Baker, and Oswald was on the move. Oswald was moving through the vestibule of the lunchroom and into the lunchroom. In other words, Oswald was just getting to the lunchroom. So, what does that mean?

Well, first, since he was just getting there at 12:31+, it means that he wasn’t there at 12:30. It means that he was somewhere else at 12:30. Is it possible that he was there at 12:30, but then got up and left, heading somewhere else for 30 seconds or so, and then changed his mind, and went back to the lunchroom? It was physically possible, theoretically, yes. But, no one has the right to assume it. It is not a card in anyone’s hand. There is no basis to go there, mentally. If it looked like Oswald was just getting to the lunchroom at 12:31+, then by all outward appearances, he came from somewhere else to get there. There is no reason, no basis, and no intellectual right to assume anything else. I am not making the rules here, but I am enforcing them.

So, where was Oswald before he went to the lunchroom? To answer that, you have to understand the mechanics of the maze. One thing is certain: Oswald got into the vestibule of the lunchroom either by going through the door on the office side, or by going through the door on the stairwell side, through which Baker was looking. We can answer that question. The vestibule was so small, that if Oswald had gone through the door on the stairwell side, then that door would have still been open. It was a spring door. When you let it go, it slowly closed. It didn’t slam shut. It had a spring that slowly closed it. It was such a tiny little room that there is no way that door could have closed at all if Oswald was still in the room-had he gone through it. But, he didn’t. Oswald went through the door on the office side, and that’s why there was no movement in the door through which Baker was looking. And when he say he was looking through the door, I mean through the glass in the door.

But, there’s more because Oswald and Baker got to the lunch room at essentially the same time. Oswald was a little bit ahead of him. When Baker saw Oswald in the vestibule, they were probably no more than 15 feet apart. Knowing how massive the building was, 15 feet wasn’t much.

So, if Oswald had come down from the 6^th floor, Baker would have seen him and heard him before he entered the vestibule. And forget about Baker because Truly was well ahead of Baker. Do you remember what I said about them looking for an armed killer, and Truly having no qualms about leading the way?

So, how could Oswald have come down from the 6^th floor without running into Truly? He couldn’t have because he surely would have. So, that is more proof that Oswald did not come down from the 6^th floor. So, how did he reach the office side of the vestibule?

There is only one way, and that is, that he climbed the one flight of stairs in the southeast corner of the building. There is simply no other way he could have gotten there. But, where was he before he got to the stairs? Well, the stairs were right next to the doorway. All you had to do was go through the double doors and then turn right. There was a stairwell there for that one flight of stairs. So, the situation proves that Oswald went from the doorway to the 2^nd floor lunch room.

And another thing that works is the timeline. I told you that Oswald’s departure from the doorway happened right when Dave Wiegman was passing the building. I told you that there must have been a commotion over it that caused Wiegman to do a second pan of the doorway- which he did. All you have to do is watch the Wiegman film, and you’ll see that Wiegman captured the doorway spontaneously the first time, but the second time, he did it deliberately. He actually swung around to his right to pan the doorway a second time. It is 2026, but we can see that in the film as through we were there in 1963. And then, as I told you, Oswald had gone, and so they replaced him with a still image, so that there would be a Doorman there.

But, think about the time. It was close to the time of the fatal head shot, but I think it was  a little bit before it.  Do you realize that Baker parked his bike right on the Elm Street island? In other words, he parked right directly across from the doorway. And all he had to do was run across that utility street in front of the building, and he was at the doorway. So, he did that, and Truly offered to help him. They ran to the back of the building. They tried to secure an elevator, but when they realized they were not working, they went to the stairs in the northwest corner, with Truly leading. And that is some weird shit, that Truly wanted to lead the way in search of a ruthless killer.

But, the difference was that Truly and Baker were scurrying. I don’t know that you could say they were running, but they were certainly moving fast.  But, Oswald who left the doorway before they did, was surely only walking. I assume he walked at his normal pace. So, Oswald started first, but he was just walking. Baker and Truly started some seconds later, but they were moving faster. And the result was that even though they covered the same distance going different paths, they got to the lunch room about the same time.

And actually, Truly was ahead of Oswald, because Truly would have seen him in the vestibule, just as Baker did, but he didn’t because Oswald hadn’t gotten there yet.

So, what we can conclude is that Truly got there first; Oswald got there second; and Baker got there third.

But, knowing the trek that Oswald took to get to the lunchroom tells us that his starting point must have been the doorway.

Remember too that Carolyn Arnold said that she saw Oswald at the doorway shortly before the shooting. She told that to FBI Agent Richard Emberling on Monday, November 26. By “at the doorway” I mean that the entrance to the building was glass: clear glass. The door and the whole wall were glass. So, she saw Oswald peering through the glass from the inside. So, he was at the doorway. She put the time at 12:25. Emberling wrote down 12:15, thinking that that would have left Oswald enough time to get upstairs to shoot Kennedy.  But, higher-ups at the FBI, upon seeing it, realized that it was no good. They stormed back there, like the Gestapo, in March and demanded that she sign a statement saying that she didn’t see Oswald at all that day.  And she did. She was a pregnant 19 year old girl. She wasn’t going to mess with the FBI.

Then, 15 years later, in 1978, the story got published that Carolyn Arnold had recently revised her story and said that she saw Oswald eating in the 2^nd floor lunch room at 12:25 when she was heading downstairs. You know that can’t be true from what I’ve told you. Since Oswald was just getting to the lunch room at 12:31, he could not have been there at 12:30.

I don't know what to make of the Carolyn Arnold revision. Was she threatened? Was she bribed? Was it even her? I'm not sure it was. The whole thing may have been a ruse.

The best treatment of the Carolyn Arnold affair was by Professor Gerald McKnight in Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission failed the nation and why.  I had the privilege of knowing him. I never met him in person, but I talked to him on the phone, quite a few times. He was on hospice at the time, but he was still mentally sound. And I really think he enjoyed our conversations. It was from Dr. McKnight that I learned that the Dallas Police weighed Oswald, and he was only 131 pounds, and he was 5’9”.  That is really skinny. I’m 5’6” and I weight 145.  Lovelady was 5’8” 170, but that was 3 months later. I’d bet you dimes to dollars he was more like 180 on 11/22/63. So, the claim that Oswald and Lovelady looked alike is poppycock.

Folks, there is no doubt that the Altgens Doorman was Oswald, and the fight over it is the Armageddon of the JFK world.  It is the ultimate battle between Good and Evil.

I have shown you that the situational evidence fully supports the photographic evidence for Oswald in the doorway.  There is going to be a reckoning.  I say we tear down the whole stinking edifice of lies, and we do it over this. Stop the lies. Oswald outside.

 Charles Cameron posted this collage of Billy Lovelady, except he used a blurred version of the Mark Lane photo of Lovelady, on the right, which is the only authentic image of him that we have.

Knowing his intention, he shouldn't have done it because all it does is show how much the FBI falsified the posed image of Lovelady on the left.

Read what I wrote next to the collage. They have been lying about this since Day 1. Our government created the Lovelady lie, and they forced him to go along with it, which he hated doing. But, they soon realized that he was no good at lying, so they kept him under wraps and wouldn't let anyone talk to him. It was our government that altered the Altgens photo. It was our government that concocted phony clips of Lovelady- in front of the TSBD and at the Dallas Police Department. And they did all this because it was our government that killed Kennedy in military-style ambush. It was a coup d'etat. And they killed Oswald too. Now, look at the collage.

I was a doctor my whole working life, and I know very well that the upper arm is longer than the forearm. It's one more thing that makes this headless guy, on the right, standing in the Altgens doorway, a freak. And I also know that the forearms are symmetrical in length. Nobody has one long one and one short one, except this guy. 

Nobody could duplicate his image. You couldn't even get close to duplicating it. It's just part of the freak world of JFK-land. 

He was Billy Lovelady, and since they were turning Oswald into Lovelady, they had to get rid of him. So, they blackened out his face, and they put arms atop his head to justify his facelessness. 

His short-sleeved shirt had alternating red and white vertical stripes, but the red was very faded. So, it was easy to white out his shirt. 

On the left is him too, Lovelady, less than a minute later. After the shots, he and Bill Shelley joined the throng of people who swarmed the railway yard.  I was not the first researcher to recognize him as Billy Lovelady. Gerda Dunkel was.  That is him, and it's where he said he was at the time. So, if that's not him, then he still has to be there. But, there is no other Billy Lovelady there. So, that means he is Billy Lovelady.

And in the center is Billy Lovelady on 2/29/64 at his FBI photo-shoot in Dallas. They had him unbutton his shirt and spread it apart, so that he would look like Doorman. But, he looks nothing like Doorman. But, those are the clothes he wore on 11/22/63. And they doctored that image a lot: his hair, his ears (because he had protruding ears) and more. 

Lovelady drew a little arrow on Black Hole Man to indicated himself in the Altgens photo. You can see part of Lovelady's arrow on the forearm of Black Hole Man in CE 369. 

Lovelady died a rich man when he had his "heart attack" at the age of 41 in 1979, if you're buying that. One marvels at his good fortune, considering that he was working for $1.11/hour at the TSBD.  But, if there was ever a case in which money didn't buy happiness, this was it. He was miserable. He knew the truth. He knew that Oswald was in the doorway because he was there himself, standing next to him. They weren't together, and they weren't friends. Oswald wasn't friends with anyone at the TSBD. He copped a ride with Frazier whenever he needed to, but they weren't friends either. It's not as though they ever did anything together apart from that.  

You'd think Lovelady would have written a book: "I was the guy mistaken for Oswald".  But, of course, he didn't. He couldn't even talk about it, let alone write about it.  He never claimed to be the Doorway Man. He never claimed to encounter Oswald at the Dallas Police Department on 11/22. He said, under oath, that the last time he saw Oswald was at the TSBD.  He never participated in any mock trials, though others, like Buell Frazier, made it into a cottage industry. 

The official story of the JFK assassination is a State lie of the United States. The Soviets had many State lies. They lied about the Katyn Forrest Massacre, which was a mass killing of Poles during World War 2. For decades, the Soviets said the Nazis did it. But they, the Soviets, did it. And even Putin admitted it and went to Poland to attend a mourning for the victims. The Soviets also slaughtered the Romanov family in a basement in Ekaterina in 1918, and their lies about it didn't collapse completely until the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989. 

The monstrousness of what the U.S. government did 11-22 to 11-24 1963 is staggering: killing John F. Kennedy, the father of two young children; killing Lee Harvey Oswald, also the father of two young children, and also killing Officer JD Tippitt, who was the father of several children. And that was just the beginning of their killing spree. 

But, just as the Soviet lies were doomed to fall apart, the same is true of U.S. government lies. The truth is going to prevail; it's inevitable. And Oswald's presence in the doorway during the shooting of JFK is going to be at the heart of the revision. 

 Do you see the guy in the center of this collage? That is Oswald, and that is how Doorman looked when they first developed the Altgens photo and looked at it.

So, upon seeing that, you'd think they would have said, "Oh shit! That's friggin' Oswald! We got to destroy this thing before it multiplies."

And maybe somebody did say that. But then, somebody else said: "Hey wait. Not so fast. Maybe we can turn him into somebody else. We got this great photo with Secret Service agents peering at the Book Depository. It's the source of the shots, right? Isn't that what we're selling? So, this is gold."

"Yeah, but people are going to recognize him. It only takes a few."

"What, are you paranoid? What, you think 62 years from now people are going to be deliberating whether it's Oswald in the doorway? Give me a break. I guarantee you that if we doctor him up and say he's someone else, the dumb Rubes will buy it."

So, they changed the top of his head, (using the image of Young Lovelady that I've shown you) and they stuck that weird freaky guy in next to him (overlapping him, gouging his face and taking out his left shoulder.) What you see in the center really is how Doorman looked originally.

And on the right, it shows you how unusual Oswald's Russian shirt was, the way it folded over into a long lapel. And then with the flat collar that lied flat, it looked more like a jacket than a shirt. And that's why Officer Baker described it as a "light brown jacket."

Those arrogant megalomaniacs actually thought they could get away with it. All they had to do was destroy the photo. Nobody would have missed it. The only one who knew about it was Altgens. And if they told him that the photo had to be destroyed "for national security reasons," he would have gone along with it. He was a team player. It wasn't going to affect his pay. He wouldn't have cared. It was nothing personal to him.

And I'd bet you anything that the guys who did this (who I'm sure are looking up from below; they ain't looking down from above) wish to God that they had just destroyed the photo. It would have been so easy. They would have dodged a bullet. But, what they did was the result of arrogance. And arrogance is what was driving the whole thing and has continued to do so.

And it's going to end with the whole world knowing that Oswald was innocent and standing in the doorway at the time JFK was slaughtered. The ones who did it were at the top of the power structure in the United States, who collectively were much more powerful than Kennedy. Their combined power, with their control of the Media, their control of the Military, plus the power that they knew LBJ would acquire the instant Kennedy took his last breath, meant that everything would fall into their hands if they could just get Kennedy dead. So, they got him dead.

So, why did Oswald go from the doorway to the 2nd floor lunchroom? It wasn't to get a Coke. And he didn't get one. Both Baker and Truly said that he had no Coke. And if you read the Hosty note, it says that Oswald got his Coke BEFORE he went to eat lunch in the 1st floor lunchroom. 

And it makes sense because he was eating cheese sandwiches, which is pretty dry food, and he needed something to wash it down. I'm not going to assume he drank a Coke between 12 and 12:20 and then got another one at 12:30. Are you? So, he just had the one Coke, with his lunch, and it was before the motorcade. He got no Coke at 12:31. Therefore, he didn't leave the doorway to get a Coke. So, why did he leave? The Dave Wiegman film tells us. 

Wiegman worked for NBC, and he was in the first camera car, which was a convertible. It was the 6th car behind the JFK limo. Wiegman panned the doorway as the car made the turn from Houston to Elm, and he captured Oswald. 

The guy boxed is Oswald. They deliberately blurred the film so that we couldn't see him well. Notice how bad the whole image is.  But, that's definitely him, Oswald. He was standing in the center of the doorway at the top level. 

Then the car completed the turn and was heading down Elm. But then, Wiegman spun around to his right to pan the doorway again. But, why?  There must have been some commotion in the doorway. He either saw something through the corner of his eye, or he heard something, or both.

This is his limit frame. if you think of Wiegman's motion as an arc, this was the limit of his arc. And, it's where they inserted a still image. 

The original Doorman was gone. This new Doorman wasn't Oswald or Lovelady. On the left is the first Doorman (Oswald),  and on the right is the second one, who was nobody. 

Of course, he wasn't the Altgens Doorman either. Why would anyone think that these two are the same man?

Bill Shelley must have ordered Oswald to go to the lunchroom. Oswald resisted, which caused a commotion, which triggered Wiegman to do his second pan. 

That's not speculation because we know that Oswald left, and his leaving must be connected to why Weigman did his second pan. And there is no one but Bill Shelley who could have ordered Oswald to go.  

William Weston in The Spider's Web established that the TSBD was a CIA front company that was doing espionage, gun running, and drug running under the guise of schoolbook distribution. Shelley liked to say that he was in Military intelligence during WW2, but actually, it was an ROTC program at Crozier Technical School, which was the high school he attended in Dallas. But, he actually did get training in military intelligence there. In 1947, he started working for the Hugh Perry Book Depository, which was the predecessor to the TSBD. 

Both Shelley and Oswald had been in the Civil Air Patrol as teenagers. It was founded and funded by David Byrd, the Texas Oilman and industrialist who was the owner of the TSBD building. Read this about the connection between Byrd and LBJ. 

"Byrd established a relationship with his fellow Texan Lyndon Johnson. He bragged in his autobiography that Johnson was "among the men I could go to at any time that I wanted action", Johnson in turn said that it was "wonderful" to have Byrd's friendship. As a senator, Johnson aided Byrd's aerospace endeavors by helping him secure government contracts, and Byrd in return made donations to LBJ's political campaigns. Throughout the 1950s and 60s they corresponded with one another, in 1965 Johnson wrote to Byrd that "You've done so much to be helpful to me. I can never thank you enough."

Shelley was one of the first to occupy the doorway. Why do you think he chose to watch the motorcade from there? I think it was to prevent Oswald from leaving the building. 

So, Shelley ordered Oswald to go to the lunchroom; Oswald put up resistance; and it created a scene that caught Dave Wiegman's attention. 

In a series of interviews in the 1970s, Shelley told the renowned journalist Elzie Dean Glaze (who was male) that he was briefly arrested on 11/22/63. Look at this image.

Look at that expression on Shelley's face. And notice how the cop to the left of him is leering at him with furious eyes. 

  So, Oswald went to the lunchroom because he was told to go there. Then, he went to the Texas Theater for the same reason. It's not like he had a hankering for a war movie. 

I don't know who told Oswald to go to the Texas Theater, but I agree with John Armstrong that he must have been driven there. Butch Burroughs told Jim Douglass author of JFK and the Unspeakable that he saw Oswald in the theater at 1:07. Oswald could not have gotten there that early by walking.  And John Armstrong points out that, had he walked, it's likely that someone would have seen him. John thinks that Oswald was driven to the theater, most likely by the cop who went to his boarding room and honked his horn. Who was that cop? It might have been Tippit, or maybe it was Captain Westbrook.

I would like to go further into this, but not right now. My point now is that Oswald did not leave the doorway to get a Coke. And that means he had no reason, on his account, to go there. Somebody must have ordered him to do it. And the only person who could have done that is Bill Shelley, his boss, who was definitely in the doorway.  

         

 

 Now, I am going to show you how the testimony of Officer Marrion Baker proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Oswald did not come down from the 6th floor, and he could not have come down from the 6th floor because it was physically impossible. 

But, I will point out to you that the people fighting me, on Facebook and elsewhere, are essentially working for JFK's killers. And who killed him? The U.S. government killed him. 

I don't mean that everyone in the U.S. government was in on it. Only a relatively small number were. But, they were powerful people, including Vice President Lyndon Johnson, and FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, and former CIA Director Allen Dulles. And although Dulles was out at the time because JFK fired him, he still had vast support at the CIA. The new Director, John McCone, was just a figurehead and had no experience at national intelligence. Loyalty at the CIA remained with Dulles. And when LBJ became President, he instantly acquired control of everything, and acceptance that Oswald did it alone became a litmus test for loyalty and patriotism.  

So, the same entity that killed Kennedy and Oswald (the U.S. government) was in charge of the investigation of JFK's murder. 

And we are in an interesting situation today because the current President, Donald Trump, seems to have no aversion to exposing the truth about the JFK assassination. He seems to have no loyalty whatsoever to the official story. But, there is a Deep State, unconnected to Trump, that is still vigorously defending the official story, and they are at war with me. And knowing, as I do, that many people were killed to suppress JFK truth, I worry about them killing again. and in particular, killing me. That's how serious this is. 

Now, with that said, on to Officer Baker. He said he had climbed the stairs and reached the landing on the 2nd floor, and on that landing was a door to the vestibule of the lunch room. The vestibule was a passageway room, about the size of a closet. It had 3 doors. One was the door that Baker saw, which had a pane of glass in it that he could see through. Another door entered on the other side of the vestibule, and it came from the office side of the 2nd floor. And between those two doors was a third door that went into the lunchroom.

This image shows two of the doors I mentioned: one is the door with the glass through which Baker saw Oswald in the vestibule, and the other is the door to the lunch room. The door we can't see is the door on the other side that came from the office area.

So, there you see the lunch room, and in the distance, the vestibule or anteroom. We are seeing the door through which Baker saw Oswald from the stairwell. And the door to the lunchroom had a spring, and it was propped open, just as you see there. So, we're seeing everything but the third door. 

Baker said that someone just flashed by, whom he saw through the glass. So, he followed him in there, and saw Oswald walking in the lunch room. He thought Oswald had gone about 20 feet before he ordered him to stop. 

So, the big question is: which door did Oswald use to enter the vestibule? Well, he didn't use the one on Baker's side because he, Oswald, was still in the vestibule, and that door would have still been in operation. You can see how small that vestibule was. If Oswald had just gone through that door to enter the vestibule, the door would have still been open. But, it wasn't open. It was still, stationary, and closed. And it means that Oswald must have come through the door on the other side, that we can't see. So, Oswald entered the vestibule from the office side. And the office side had no access to the 6th floor. There was a staircase, in the opposite corner of the building; so not the northwest corner, where this was, but the southeast corner. And that staircase only went one floor. It went from floor 1 to floor 2 and that was it. 

So, if Oswald entered from the office side, it means that he went up the one flight of stairs in the southeast corner and walked across the great expanse. And it means that there is NO CHANCE that he came down from the 6th floor; that it was physically impossible. 

It makes sense that Oswald did that because you know what else is in the southeast corner? - the doorway where Oswald was standing. 

So Oswald was standing in the doorway, and then he went back inside through the double doors, and then he turned right to enter the stairwell for the one flight of stairs. He went up the stairs, and then he walked across the vast 2nd floor, and then he entered the vestibule of the lunch room through the door on the office side. 

There is no doubt about it: Oswald did NOT come down from the 6th floor; he went up from the 1st floor.

And here's the kicker: You could say that Oswald and Baker got to the lunch room at about the same time; Oswald getting there slightly before Baker. But, Roy Truly was ahead of Baker. Truly was leading the way. WHAT THE MOTHER FOLK????  THEY WERE SEARCHING FOR A KILLER, AND THE UNARMED CIVILIAN LED THE WAY? WITH THE ARMED COP FOLLOWING?  There is no excuse for that, and don't anyone try to defend it. But, there is an explanation for it, and that is, that Roy Truly knew very well that there was no danger. Roy Truly was in on it. The TSBD was a CIA front company that did gun running, espionage, and even drug running under the guise of book distribution. Read The Spiders Web by William Weston. 

 https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/6017-spiders-web/

So, that's the reason Truly had no qualms about leading the way up to the roof, which is where they were going. But, since Truly was farther ahead of Baker than Oswald, relatively speaking, it means that if Oswald had come down from the 6th floor, he would surely have run into Truly. But, of course, that didn't happen. It means that as I have been saying for 3 decades, Oswald was standing in the doorway during the shooting, and he probably left before the final shot, which was the fatal head shot. Why did he leave the doorway to go to the 2nd floor lunch room? I am going to address that in my next post. But, in the meantime, share this one because it is important.  

 There are two separate and distinct elements in pondering the Doorman question: the man and the clothing. You know that the world of men is big, with each man having his own, unique genetic identity. Every man's DNA is unique to him, except in the case of identical twins. 

The world of clothes is big too. And any one of the men could be wearing any set of the clothes. 

So, when you have both the man and the clothes matching, That's like winning the lottery twice. 

And that's what we have between Oswald and Doorman because they match and their clothes match.

Notice first the unbuttoned, long-sleeved shirt that is sprawled open. There was a reason for it, and that was that Oswald's buttons were missing. There were a couple at the bottom, but that's all. All the rest were missing. 

I have circled the right collars of Oswald and Doorman to show you that they are identical, where the triangular collar is lying flat, and beneath it is a little furl. Professor David Wrone, who is a member of my organization The Oswald Innocence Campaign noted that in his book. 

The other side of the shirt had the margin folded over, going all the way down, giving it the appearance of a jacket.  And that is what Officer Marrion Baker said it was: a jacket. He said that when he saw Oswald in the lunch room 75 seconds after the last shot that he was wearing a "light brown jacket." It was actually that shirt. 

So, on Oswald's right (our left) the margin of the shirt looks thin, but on the other side, it looks thick because it's folded over. And you can see the same thing on Doorman: thin on his right and thick on his left. 

And on his left, our right, you see the flat collar, a button loop beneath it, and then a long lapel. American shirts don't do that, and neither do shirts that are made for the American market. That was a Russian shirt that Oswald brought back with him. Oswald beat his enemies just in getting dressed that morning. He foiled them just by wearing that distinctive Russian shirt. And it's because of the distinctive look of that shirt that they put that freaky guy in the tie in there, who is overlapping Doorman in an impossible way. You could never duplicate that image, and I went to Dealey Plaza and proved it. But, it was to cover up the unique construction and arrangement of Oswald's shirt that they had to plop that other guy in there. Who was he? Nobody. Don't waste your time trying to identify him. 

But, it gets worse. Look at the bottom of Oswald's shirt. It wasn't just a Russian shirt; it was an old, tattered Russian shirt. You've heard of Raggedy Ann. Well, he was Raggedy Lee. And just imagine if that showed. And that's why they put the head of Carl Jones in beneath him. Carl was there, standing in the corner, but he was out of view to Altgens' camera due to parallax. So, they took a photo taken by Congressman Phil Willis about 3 pm when the employees were leaving, which included this image of Carl, and they transferred it to the Altgens photo to hide the tattered condition of Oswald's shirt, and also to hide the fact that he was clasping his hands in front of his body, as he often did. So, both guys crowding Oswald in the Altgens photo are fake. 

Look: it isn't close. It is clearly Oswald in the doorway, in Oswald's clothes, and doing Oswald's stance. There is too much likeness of the man and the clothing here for it not to be him. And I mean way too much likeness. 

   

 Let's get something straight: There are no arguments left to claim that Billy Lovelady was Doorman. He NEVER said that he was. Not once in the 16 years that he lived past 1963. 

Lovelady was treated like kryptonite. In 1967, CBS paid him to return to Dallas to participate in their 4 hour JFK Special. They took his picture, and they interviewed him, and after doing that, they not only cancelled his involvement in the program, they also eliminated the whole Doorman segment. They didn't mention it at all. That's how they were affected by what Lovelady said. So, what do you think he told them?

When Josiah Thompson was researching SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS, he wanted to interview Lovelady but found out that he was inaccessible. Other authors found that out too.  

Then, in 1976, HSCA Lawyer Ken Brooten went to visit Lovelady in Colorado. Brooten was chief lawyer at the HSCA, and he was subpoenaing people left and right, and I mean for 6-7 hours of deposition.  But, after meeting with Lovelady, he not only made a firm decision not to subpoena him, he also decided to resign so that he could become Lovelady's lawyer so that he could protect him from any other summons he might get. He didn't want Lovelady talking, to anybody, ever. Period.  

But, consider this debauchery: When the story broke about a guy in the doorway looking and dressing like Oswald, the FBI went into action. They stormed Lovelady's house the evening of Saturday, November 23. And according to Patricia Lovelady (Lovelady's wife) they brought with them a blow-up of the doorway that was "as big as a desk." 

Sounds diligent, doesn't it? But, in that situation, why didn't they also storm Oswald's cell and ask him about it? He was alive and well that Saturday night. And I'm sure he wasn't doing anything. And he was the guy that people thought they recognized in the Altgens photo, both his person and his clothing. So, how could they only ask Lovelady about it and not Oswald? What would it have hurt to ask Oswald? Don't you think they would have done that if they were honest? 

There are no talking points for Lovelady as Doorman. He never said he was, and the very obvious action of calling him in to speak to reporters and to a sea of microphones and cameras, was never done. He did testify to the Warren Commission, but he never told them he was Doorman. 

And he did NOT look like Oswald. That was a lie. Oswald was 5'9" 131 pounds. That's skinny. I am 5'6" and weigh 143 pounds. And people tell me I'm skinny. Lovelady was weighed and measured by the FBI on February 29, 1964, and they said he was 5'8" and 170 pounds. But, that was over 3 months later, and  I think it is VERY likely that he lost weight because of all the stress he was under. So compared to Oswald, Lovelady was stocky. They were like Laurel and Hardy. 

And the fact is that Doorman looks skinny- like Oswald. 

Here is a collage of Lovelady, Doorman, and Oswald, all photographed the same day: 11/22/63. 

On the left is Lovelady from the Couch film. Billy is wearing the short-sleeved shirt that he told the FBI that he wore.  And they stated it in two reports. Then look how well the man and the clothing match between Doorman and Oswald. 

The Lovelady claim was never more than an elaborate lie, and not by Billy. It's very clear that he did not like being Doorman. It was a gig he didn't ask for or relish. It was something that was forced upon him, and it absolutely ruined his life. And it's very likely that he was killed in 1979. They said that he died of a fatal first heart attack at age 41. I know it happens, but, it's pretty damn rare at that age. And we know that they possessed the heart attack gun that could have induced a heart attack.  

We know that the supposed footage of Lovelady milling around in front of the TSBD 10 minutes after the shooting is fake and could not possibly be him.  That's because he wasn't there at the time. Lovelady left immediately with Billy Shelley to comb the railway yard. They joined the throng of people who did that. And then, they returned to work by going around to the back door. They never returned to the front again. That's in Lovelady's WC testimony- and also in Shelley's. But, the FBI apparently didn't read it. Also, they forgot to spread Gorilla Man's shirt open, the way Doorman's was.  

Likewise, the footage of Lovelady in the Squad room is fake. Lovelady testified under oath to the WC that the last time he saw Oswald was at the TSBD. He said nothing about seeing Oswald at the DPD.  So, who was the guy at the desk in the Squad Room? He was nobody. There was nobody sitting there. And it wasn't a desk; it was a supply table. The place where Lovelady was supposedly sitting was right in the traffic lane. That was a photographic trick in which they inserted the image of a man into the film. And it's the reason why no one in the film reacts to him. Nobody looks at him or acts like he's there. He wasn't there.

 Now, I don't want to hear another person claim that Lovelady identified himself as the Man in the Doorway because he did not. Other people did but not him. 

But, Lovelady did come into money after the assassination. He moved to Colorado and started his own freight company. He also became a major real estate holder in Colorado. At the time of the assassination, he worked at the TSBD for $1.11/hour and didn't have a pot to piss in. The JFK assassination was lucrative to others too, such as Marina Oswald. The money she got after the assassination was equivalent to millions today. 

It was Oswald in the doorway: same man, same clothes, same stare, same stance (with hands clasped in front of his body). Stop fighting it because it's hopeless.  

 

 I have pointed out that the Zapruder film shows us that JFK was shot in the back high on the hill. Here is frame 206 in which JFK's face was smudged out, and Jackie is turned and looking at him. Neither of them is waving. Supposedly, nothing has happened yet, but both of them have checked out. 

And just the fact that they shortened the distance from the intersection to the freeway sign tells you that something was happening in that space that they wanted to bury. 

In the Zapruder film, Kennedy gets to the freeway sign too fast, and for two reasons: because they shortened the distance and because they sped up the limo. And it was all to hide the fact that he was shot in the back high on the hill.

And, there is corroborating evidence that JFK was shot in the back high on the hill: the 3 photos that were taken on Elm Street: Croft, Betzner, and Willis. We'll start with Croft. 

'

What should jump out at you first about this Croft photo is Jackie's dour expression. Supposedly, nothing has happened yet, so why isn't she smiling and waving? Also, her hair in the Croft photo is wrong. Look at her on the right. Her hair was styled in a bouncy flip. It wasn't glued down. Her face in the Croft photo was taken from a tv broadcast she did in mid-January to thank the American people for their cards and letters. They horizontally flipped her image. And remember what Croft said, that the FBI took his photo on 11/22 and didn't return it until the end of January. So, why did they replace her head in the Croft photo? It was because she must have been turned and looking at him, knowing that something was wrong. And they extended her hair and sealed shut his eye and covered his mouth, all to hide the startled look on his face- from being shot in the back. And he is not waving. And because his jacket was disrupted by the shot, they put a rectangular panel over it. The white arrow is pointing to it. Fools said that that was his jacket "bunching up." It was not. If you look closely at it, you can see that it's panel.

In Betzner, what jumps out at you is the big obstruction of the man on the left. 

  Are you aware that Betzner denied that any such man existed? And he was looking through the viewfinder, so he ought to know. Why was the man put there? It was probably to hide Jackie still turned to her husband and showing concern for him. She knew that there was something wrong. And again, neither of them are waving. 

And by the way, most of those people at the freeway sign weren't there. How do I know? Look at the Bronson photo, where it's just Umbrella Man and Dark Complected Man close to the sign. It's the exact same time.

So, right about dead center you see the sign. You're only seeing the pole because the sign is in profile to us. But, it's just Umbrella Man and Dark Complected Man there. 

Then, the Willis photo is said to be the last image before JFK was shot. It is a weird image because it hardly looks photographic. It looks more like art. JFK's image looks like art, like it was done with paint. The people under the sign look like crude art and unphotographic. But JFK isn't waving, and neither are the people closest to him. Even Umbrella Man looks unphotographic. That is extremely crude imagery.  

JFK was shot in the back high on the hill, but it could not have been a regular bullet. If it were a regular bullet that, say, stopped short in his back, then his ride down the hill would have been very different. He would have known that he was shot, and there would have been nothing wrong with his mind. So, he would have taken action. And he would have spoken, since there would have been no reason why he couldn't. He would have been the sharp, quick-witted, fast-thinking guy that he normally was. He wouldn't have just ridden down the hill without saying anything or doing anything. But, that's what he did. He rode down the hill without saying anything or doing anything. 

So, it couldn't have been a regular bullet that hit him. And the fact is, a regular bullet couldn't have stopped that short anyway, because that would violate the laws of physics. However, an ice dart could, and an ice dart did. It was a toxin-laden ice dart. That is not far-fetched. It is the only plausible explanation for everything we see: JFK's mental vacancy and complete mental collapse, his spreading spastic dystonia and dyskinesia, and his complete aphasia (inability to speak). A metal bullet in the back that only went in an inch and a half, damaging only skin, fascia, and muscle, couldn't do that. It had to be what I'm telling you. 

 The one shot we got to see graphically in all the motorcade films is the fatal head shot in the Zapruder film. Some have tried to claim that we see it in the Muchmore film, but if that's true, why doesn't it look like the Zapruder film? There is no head-burst in the Muchmore film, and there is no violent "back and to the left" movement of JFK's head. There is no Jackie dodging JFK's head like it was a ballistic missile- like we see in the Zapruder film. So, if that's the fatal head shot in the Muchmore film, it is categorically different from the one in the Zapruder film, and that is a problem because there is no excuse for it. It's been sanitized. And the same goes for the Nix film. 

So, it's just the Zapruder film that shows it graphically. So, why did they let us see it there, when it appears that they made sure we didn't see it in the other films? 

First, their decision to let us to see it in the Z-film was not made at first. It was just the opposite; they kept it from us. Our first look at the Zapruder film was a week after the assassination in the November 29, 1963 LIFE magazine, which I possess. You can find it for sale online, on EBAY or ETSY, and it's not expensive. 

It's worth having because it includes an article about Oswald and Marina by Tommy Thompson, in which he didn't even mention that he and a LIFE photographer were the ones who transported Marina to the DPD on Saturday for her visit with Oswald, and then, instead of taking her back home to Irving, where she lived, they, inexplicably, checked her into a hotel on the outskirts of Dallas, the Executor Inn, where they plied her with cash, and then left her in the hands of the Secret Service, who started their "protective custody" of her immediately- before Oswald was killed. Do you think maybe they knew he was going to be killed? Damn straight they did. 

So, Tommy Thompason was responsible for manuvering Marina into the hands of the Secret Service before Oswald was killed, and that's why he didn't mention it. 

But, getting back to the 11/29 LIFE magazine, they published 31 frames from the Zapruder film, but it did not include 313- the fatal head shot. And they did not say there was a fatal head shot. They only mentioned two shots, one that hit JFK when he was behind the sign, resulting in him clutching his throat, starting at 225. Then, they claimed that Connally was hit separately, and their frame for that looks to be 239. 

Then, amazingly, they claimed the Jackie "suddenly" became aware of what was going on at frame 262, which is ridiculous. She was already turned and focused on her husband by frame 194, which was before they vanished behind the phony freeway sign. Then, they just said that he collapsed on his wife's shoulder, without mentioning that he was shot again. 

So, what were they thinking at that time? First, there were no plans at that time to ever show the Zapruder film to the public. They eventually did in 1975, so 12 years later. But, a tremendous amount of editing had to be done, and the technology for it didn't exist in 1963. The altering of the Zapruder film took not weeks or months but years. 

But, why were they unwilling to mention the fatal head shot? It may be because they were aware of James Tague getting grazed by a bullet or a fragment. So, they knew they had to save a bullet for him. They knew that they only had three bullets to work with. So, JFK, Connally, and Tague was their assignment of the three bullets at that time.  

But then, as you know, in April 1964, Arlen Specter put forward the Single Bullet Theory, which became doctrine. And in September 1964, the Warren Commission recognized the fatal head shot, and the next month, LIFE magazine did too in their October 1964 issue which returned to the Zapruder film, including their publication of frame 313, in all its gore-y. 

But, since they were claiming that all the shots came from the rear, why did they ever let us see the "back and to the left" motion of JFK's head? Are you like me in that you can still see and hear Kevin Costner as Jim Garrison telling the jury, "Back and to the left, back and to the left, back and to the left" ? 

So, why didn't they cut that out of the Zapruder film? Considering that they had 12 years to do it, they surely could have found a way to delete it. After all, they did delete the limo making the turn from Houston to Elm. Frame 132 shows the advance motorocycle cops; then in frame 133, it jumps to the limo suddenly being on Elm, having completed the turn. Here is the "dog ate my homework" excuse I found on Chat GPT:

• Zapruder initially aimed at the lead motorcycles and cars coming down Houston Street.

• As the motorcade turned left from Houston onto Elm, he momentarily lagged behind the limousine, which was not the very first vehicle of interest to him.

• When he caught up, he quickly panned right and re-centered the limo.

That rapid pan creates the impression of a “jump.”

I say "horse shit" to that, but what I don't know is what happened in the intersection to make them remove it. I know for sure that JFK was shot in the back high on the hill, which was the nerve agent shot, but I don't think it happened in the intersection. 

But, it's not just that they let us see the gore; I believe they enhanced it. This is what they published in LIFE magazine on October 2, 1964:

Other renderings of 313 don't look exactly like that. And if that's what the camera saw, why didn't spectators report seeing it, the bursting of the front of his head? Why didn't the Parkland doctors report seeing it? Why don't the autopsy photos show it? 

And what is wrong with Americans? Knowing what LIFE published in November 1963, why didn't Americans scream bloody murder in 1964? How dare LIFE not only withhold that frame but withhold even mentioning the shot in 1963?  That was deception. It was misinformation. It was lying. 

But, what was the reality? How did the frame really look? I have to think it showed the big blow-out wound in the back of his head, described by the Parkland doctors. You notice that this image looks more like a painting than a photograph. And I do believe that paint was involved.

But, the big question is: why were they intent on horrifying us with that image but sanitizing all the others? I think it's because they wanted your eyes and mind to fixate on that and ignore all the other things they did to the Zapruder film.  In other words, it's a distraction. 

By October 1964, the Single Bullet Theory was doctrine. So, the Zapruder film had to show JFK reaching the sign unharmed. Then, he and Connally are shot with one bullet behind the sign. Then, JFK is shot again at 313. And that leaves a bullet for Tague. Bingo, it's Kismet.  

But, that is not what happened. JFK was shot in the back high on the hill, which was the nerve agent shot, and he rode down the hill that way, reacting only to that. Then, he was shot in the throat, and that too was a dissolvable missile, although it wasn't a frozen dart. It was something else, and all we can do is go by what Charles Senseney told the Church Committee. Then Connally was shot, and I don't claim to know how many shots that entailed. 

Removing JFK's ride down the hill reacting only to the back shot was a gargantuan task. It involved removing a large swatch of the film. They also installed the large, phony freeway sign, and they shortened the distance between it and Houston St. The idea was to make it look like JFK was smiling and waving until he disappeared behind the sign, but they didn't entirely succeed at that.  Here is frame 206, which was before the vanishing act, and you can see that JFK's face is smudged out (no doubt because he looked distressed) and Jackie is turned and looking at him. 

So, the bottom line is that they let us see the fatal head shot, in plenty of gore but not the real gore, in the Zapruder film because they altered so much in that film that they didn't want us to discover. They gave us a very graphic fatal head shot to preoccupy us and to keep us busy, so that we wouldn't question other things in the film, starting with the phony freeway sign and the shortened distance to it. 

JFK was shot in the back high on the hill and before the Croft photo. He was definitely shot in the back prior to this photo, and they did a ton of stuff to this photo to hide that fact. The arrow points to where he was already hit. That is not Jackie's face from 11/22/63. Why would she look like that when, supposedly, nothing has happened yet? Shouldn't she have been smiling and waving? That image was taken from a television broadcast she did in January 1964 with Bobby and Teddy by her side. 

 

 

 

 Tonight, I got to record a song with legendary guitarist Rick McRae, who is George Strait's lead guitarist, and has been for decades. The song we did is STARS FELL ON ALABAMA from 1934, which is about the biggest and grandest meteor shower in recorded history, the Leonid Meteor Shower in Alabama.  It's a jazz standard from the Great American Songbook. 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckt7rozoRmM

The JFK motorcade films have something in common. The only one that shows JFK graphically being shot is the Zapruder film, and that shows only one shot, the fatal head shot; and not any of the other shots. The other films either don't show anything or they offer something very obscure.  

I find it strange that just one film displayed the true gore of the assassination. 

We'll start with the Zapruder film. The centerpiece of it is the freeway sign, and it isn't real. The real one is on the right.

So, in the Zapruder film, the sign is too big, and it is angled wrong. It is turned towards the road, instead of being perpendicular to it, as you can see on the right. But, that's not all. It's also too high on the hill. You can see that the fort across the street is closer to it than it should be. Those people lined up at the top of the image were on Houston Street, and the sign wasn't that close to Houston Street. I can explain what they did. They wanted to hide the fact that JFK was shot in the back high on the hill, and he rode down the hill that way, reacting to that one shot. They wanted to make it that he wasn't shot in the back until he reached the sign, and then he was shot in the back, and it exited his throat. That's not what happened. They were two separate shots, and the back shot came first. So, in order to tell their story, they had to shorten the distance, so that it seemed like he wasn't shot until he was behind the sign. 

However, if you look closely at the Zapruder film, you can see that JFK was shot before he got to the sign. 

 

You can see that Jackie is turned and looking at him. The back of her pill box hat is pointed to our right, and her bangs in front are left of that. So, she is looking at him. And his face is smudged out. It looks like he has his hand over his face. He didn't do that. They did that- with paint. He must have had a distraught look on his face, and that was from being shot in the back. And he really was shot with an ice flechette that contained a toxic payload, including a nerve agent. So, the story of the Zapruder film, that JFK reached the sign fine and dandy; and then bad things happened behind the sign, isn't even true. The film, itself, tells us that he was shot before he reached the sign. Still, they used the phony sign to hide what really happened.  

But, they went about it differently with the Nix film. First, the quality of it is so crude and so poor, even for 1963. The Elm Street part of it is so sparse with the head shot that it's very easy to miss it completely. He's sitting there, all contracted, and then his head moves, but not violently towards Jackie, like in the Zapruder film. It's more that the image of his head falls apart. Jackie never has to dodge his head, as she does in the Zapruder film. And then, she starts climbing on the back of the limo. If you want to say that this is the head shot, I can't stop you, but it's nothing like the Zapruder film. 

And why would Orville Nix start filming at that late point? Why wasn't he filming on Elm Street before that? And notice that you don't even see Mary Moorman in that frame. Supposedly, she didn't take her picture until AFTER the fatal head shot. But, why Why WHY would she wait so long when she was poised to take her picture when the limo was at the top of the hill?  Let's look at Muchmore. 

In Muchmore, there is a puff of smoke, but his head doesn't move. It's nothing like the Zapruder film. It's so meager and so subtle that it's more like a token head shot than a real one. 

Considering how graphic the head shot is in the Zapruder film, why would the same head shot be so diminished here? 

Bronson is a waste of time because you don't see anything. 

It's after all the shots, and there is nothing discernible. So, Bronson didn't start until after the shots either. Uh-huh. 

The most memorable thing about the Hughes film is the Girl in Blue on the pedestal, Toni Glover. I don't believe she did it. And the story is that both she and her frumpy, middle-aged mother did it.- climbed that pedestal. Supposedly, her mother is standing in front of her. Think about it. Her mother was taller and wider. So, how could Toni see anything with her mother in front of her on that pedestal? Wouldn't it have made more sense for Toni to be in front and her mother behind?

So, why did they come up with that? It was because Oswald was standing in the middle of the doorway, and they had to cover him up. And what they did was put the Doorman right above Carl Jones.

Look at this collage, and start on the right, which is the Wiegman film. Notice that Doorman is in the center of the doorway. On the left, which is Hughes, he is huddled with Carl. He wasn't. That's fake. 

Weigman and HUghes were taken at the same time shooting the same thing. They may have done that because in the Altgens photo, Oswald seems to be next to the white column. But, that was due to the parallax effect from Altgens' angle. The fact is that the Doorman (Oswald) stood in the center of the doorway.  

And when it came to Elm Street, Hughes captured nothing. It was completely over by the time he got to it, and we see nothing. 

The most significant thing about the Mark Bell film is that it also shows Toni Glover, and in it, you can see her Mom in front of her quite well.

Again, it makes no sense. Toni in front with her mother's arms around her, securing her from behind- that would have made sense. But, Bell didn't catch anything from the shooting. By the time his camera got to it, the cars were speeding away. Oh well, another miss. 

Elsie Dorman didn't catch anything of the shooting. She was on the 4th floor of the TSBD, so why after shooting the limo coming down Houston didn't she follow it down Elm? There's no answer. But, she did catch Toni and her mother.

Does it look to you that Toni and her mother were standing on the pedestal? It doesn't to me. And they were very boisterous, and one would not be boisterous on that pedestal. I know because I have stood on that pedestal; several times; and it's scary. It's high and it's narrow. You don't feel safe, and you don't want to move around. You're not going to be all worked up like Toni and her mother in the Dorman film. On the right, it's Toni standing on the pedestal years later. Notice how much higher she is than the man on the sidewalk. Now look left again, and notice that Toni and her mother don't look any higher than the people on the curb.

The Wiegman film shows Oswald in the doorway. That is the most important thing about it. But, it shows nothing of the shooting. Since the press car was the 7th car in the motorcade, it was a ways behind, so it's not surprising that nothing was captured. And the same goes for the Darnell and Couch films, which were taken from the second press car, even farther back. So, they have nothing of the shooting either. 

The Martin film shows nothing of the shooting, even though it could have. The only significant thing about the Martin film is that when they came up with the phony footage of Lovelady outside the TSBD ten minutes after the shooting, they claimed it was from the Martin film. It was not. Look at the qualitative difference. 

Why would anyone believe that those two very disparate images were taken by the same camera?

The Daniel film was taken from beyond the Triple Underpass, so he caught nothing of the shooting. 

The Paschal film starts on Houston Street and then goes to the Triple Underpass with nothing in-between. She was on the 3rd floor of the Courthouse, so she easily could have captured all the action on Elm Street; every bit of it. And she probably did. But, the FBI saw to it that she didn't.  

The Jefferies film was taken 90 seconds before the motorcade reached Dealey Plaza, so it is not a film of the assassination. 

So, those are all the motorcade films, and none of them show any shots except for the Z-film showing the fatal head shot.  So, the story is that all the filmers missed all the action on Elm Street, even though most of them started on Houston Street. Are you buying it? And every one of the films was handled by the FBI. We have never seen anything that the feds didn't handle first. 

So, why am I pointing this out to you now? It's because it shows that the feds did not want us see what happened to JFK. And that tells you why they couldn't let us see Mary Moorman's real photo either. She caught JFK being shot, and she said so. But, that was off-limits. This is her standing in the street demonstrating how she took her picture. 

This was a few months later, the Spring of 1964. I don't know what that white object is in her hands, but she was using it to represent her camera. She was showing how she stood in the street, facing east, and that she photographed the Kennedys as they approached her- which made sense. She said she was particularly interested in getting their faces- which also made sense. So, how could she have wound up with the image on the right? She couldn't have. 

We didn't get to see any carnage in any of the motorcade films (except Zapruder). They made sure of that. And they weren't going to let us see Mary's photo either. So, why did they let us see the fatal head shot in the Zapruder film? I'll get to that, but it's a topic for another discussion.