Alen, I read your paper, and first, you are absolutely right that JFK was hit with a neurotoxin. The spastic paralysis he exhibited was pathognomonic of that, and there is no possibility it was caused by any physical trauma. And the fact is that, to that point, his physical trauma was minimal. The hole in his back was nothing. It was a deep scratch. And remember that they kept probing it with their fingers, and each time you do that, you make it bigger.

And as far as his neck goes, I don't assume his larynx was damaged. And it certainly wasn't the reason he didn't speak. If it was just that, then we would have seen him trying to speak and then trying to communicate non-verbally in lieu of speaking. But, he never made any attempt to speak, and it was clear that he wasn't up to it mentally. 

Now, as far as which neurotoxin he was hit with, I agree that it's very significant that William Colby mentioned shellfish toxin as being an intended weapon. I have no experience with anyone stricken with shellfish toxin, and I can't say whether JFK's clinical presentation conformed to it. Remember, he was not "paralyzed" due to denervation. It was just the opposite; he had uncontrolled and unrelenting innervation which froze his muscles in spasm. And I will say that I am extremely disappointed that more doctors haven't recognized the fact that JFK exhibits extreme muscular dyskinesia. Apparently, even doctors are affected by the "JFK-land" syndrome, where strange developments are brushed off because it's the JFK assassination where weird stuff happened. Well, we shouldn't do that. There is no JFK-land. It was the real world where the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology apply. And for a man to be riding down the road, in normal composure and consciousness, and then be hit and then manifesting the symptoms of a neuromuscular disorder plus a complete cognitive breakdown- there has to be a cause for that. 

So yes, the obvious patho-physiology of JFK being ignored by doctors is very frustrating to me. 

But, regarding the umbrella as a weapon, Cutler and Sprague were just speculating. They never built a functioning umbrella gun. Whether such a thing is even possible, remains to be seen. And your idea that the missile involved plastic and a feather, and these materials dissolved? How? I can't even imagine that happening. But, I do know that ice could vanish quickly, not just from melting, but because ice is inherently unstable and bursts easily. And by contaminating it with minerals which interfere with the delicate crystalline structure of widely spaced hydrogen and oxygen atoms in ice, you can make it burst even more easily.  

And realize that it could have been a cocktail of drugs. It wasn't necessarily just one. And when you recognize that possibility, then the sky is the limit. 

So, there is a lot we don't know. But, what we do know is that JFK went very quickly from normal awareness, cognition, and muscular control into a helpless, spasmodic state, accompanied by complete mental collapse. And since he suffered no physical trauma that could explain it, intoxication is the ONLY modality that can. It's not just a possibility. It's an absolute certainty. Thank you. 

Ralph    

"Ukrainian officials said today that Russia’s military had begun a 'massive missile attack' across the country. The deputy head of the president’s office said that two buildings had been hit in the southeastern city of Zaporizhzhia, killing two people and injuring three others, including a small child. Air raid sirens sounded in cities such as Kyiv, where locals were forced to take shelter in the underground subway system. Ukrenergo, Ukraine’s energy provider, said its facilities had been struck, causing blackouts amid 'the eighth massive missile attack by a terrorist country.'”

People are rightfully appalled by this, but why aren't they appalled by the vast, unlimited, unrestrained decimation of human beings that were the targets of British and American bombing campaigns in World War 2? We must stop calling it the Good War. 

 

  On the left is definitely Oswald and on the right is somebody else, who was stockier, had a shorter neck, a more box-shaped head, and look at his hair. It doesn't match Oswald's by a mile.  I'd call it a crude and lofty imitation of Oswald's recession. 

So, does that mean they didn't have Oswald in the garage? Not necessarily. I think the one on the right was a recreation. Why did they need a recreation? It was to validate the Jackson photo. It wasn't taken during the televised spectacle. It was taken earlier at their photo-shoot after Jack Ruby was already tucked away on the 5th floor.  Blurring it deliberately, they took it to this point:

And then they jumped to this:

That happens in a flash, but how can it be real when his arm is slapped to his chest? How did that happen so fast? First, no one slaps his arm to his chest in response to being shot. That was just a stupid dramatic gimmick they came up with to cover the area of impact, since Oswald wasn't actually shot. You see any trauma? Second, imagine the speed involved to get the arm slapping done that fast, in a small fraction of a second. He'd have to pound himself in the chest. How do you do that when your aorta and vena cava have been blown out? Both these frames occur at the 40 second mark in this video. 

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

I tell you, anyone who still believes that Ruby shot Oswald is a friggin' Pavlovian dog who is salivating to bells on cue. 

This is someone else's Altgens reenactment.

Then they put the core of the Altgens photo into it, trying to locate the limo as precisely as possible.

I don't have a problem with it, but look where the limo is. It hasn't reached the location of the Stemmons Freeway sign. Kennedy was not shot in the throat way up there. So, that imagery of him reacting to the throat shot in the Altgens photo is fake.

And I can prove it. Here's the Willis photo. It's universally accepted that JFK has not been hit in the throat yet. How could he be when he isn't reacting to it? 

Willis told the Warren Commission that the shot rang out a second after he took this picture. So, that's when JFK was shot in the throat. But, if the shot came after this, then it was practically at the sign. 

But, let's go back to the reenactment.

Now, let's look what came next as he panned his camera.

And then:

If you look on the right, you can still see the edge of the TSBD, but we still haven't gotten to where the sign was.

So finally, we're down to where the sign was, which I put in.

That is about where Kennedy was shot in the throat.

So obviously, he wasn't shot in the throat yet way up here.

So, Kennedy was not shot in the throat there, but he was shot in the back, and he rode down the hill that way, not doing anything to respond to the attack, even though his traumatic injury was minor and inconsequential at that point. So, why didn't he do something? And don't tell me his back brace prevented him. He got in the limo, didn't he? He didn't need help to do it, did he? And he was going to get out by himself too, wasn't he? So, his back brace wasn't preventing him from moving around. He wasn't damaged very much physically and not at all vitally, meaning that no vital tissue had been struck. So again, why didn't he do something? The answer is that he was incapacitated functionally and mentally by whatever they put into that ice bullet that struck him in the back. 

As strange as it is that Kanye West should become a fan of Hitler, there's something that I find even more strange: and that is the filing of a $250 million lawsuit against him for saying that he believes that George Floyd died of fentanyl poisoining. 

It's strange because in the United States, you can't defame the dead. Once a person dies, if you say something that defames them, their kids  or their estate can't sue you. So, I don't understand the basis of how he could be sued for saying it. 

But, in addition, the death of George Floyd was a public event. It was covered widely in the media, and it was discussed widely. So, why shouldn't Kanye West be able to say what he thinks about it? 

But then, the icing on the cake is that the involvement of fentanyl in the case is undisputed. This is what the famed Michael Baden said:

Medical examiner: George Floyd had 'fatal level of fentanyl' in his system, but is 'not saying this killed him'

Dr. Baden clarified that even though it was a potentially fatal dose, that people can build up a tolerance to it, if they take it a lot. So, it wasn't necessarily fatal, but for many people, it would be fatal. But, isn't that splitting hairs? In today's political and legal climate, I have to wonder if that clarification was made on the advice of his lawyers. But, the point is that since a high does of fentanyl in Floyd's system was undoubtedly a factor in the case, the idea that Kanye's statement should put him in legal and financial jeopardy is bizarre and freaky. 

What about the long tradition of freedom of speech that we have in this country? It's the first amendment of the Bill of Rights. 

And the truth is that, if it ever went to trial, I suspect that Kanye's lawyers would produce a medical doctor who would testify that he or she believes that Fentanyl poisoning was a causal factor in Floyd's death. And I have no doubt that they could find one. So, if it were going to come down to whose medical opinion is sacrosanct, the answer is: nobody's. And that means that even Kanye should be allowed to express his opinion. 

So, this is just one more way that things are going to Hell in America. 

John Armstrong has been saying for decades that Marguerite Oswald was not Oswald's mother, and it's true, but here's what I just noticed. In her Warren Commission testimony Marguerite Oswald referred to her supposed son Robert as "Robert Oswald." She was speaking of a meeting she had with the FBI after Oswald's death in which they showed her a picture of Jack Ruby. They asked her who was at the meeting.

Mrs. OSWALD. Mr. Mike Howard, Mr. Garry Seals--well, all of the agents there. The room was full. And Robert Oswald was there. The room was full.

No mother would refer to her son by his first and last name. She would either refer to him as "my son Robert" or she might just say "Robert" but she would never say "Robert Oswald" not in a million years.

Now, why am I so sure about this? It's because mothers are possessive about their children, and if they are talking about their son, their speech will always acknowledge the mother/son bond. Calling him "Robert Oswald" is tantamount to saying "he's not mine." So, unless she's disowned him or is in a court battle with him, she is not going to do that; she is not going to call him "Robert Oswald."

And you want to know what else a mother would never do in a million years? Put pictures of her battered son up on the wall.

The picture on our right is artork from the cover of TIME magazine. But, it's not the actual cover. So, how did she even get that? Don't tell me the magazine sent it to her with a message: "Here is a drawing of your son looking all deranged and demented. We're sorry for your loss. Signed, Time Magazine"

Read Harvey and Lee by John Armstrong, and let me tell you: The biggest secret of the JFK assassination is that Jack Ruby was innocent, that the guy in the films and photos shooting Oswald was FBI Agent James Bookhout. But, the second biggest secret is that there were two Lee Harvey Oswalds and the one who was really born in New Orleans was not the Oswald of fame.

This guy on the left was not Jack Ruby, nor was he James Bookhout. He wasn't real. He is a manipulated image. You may think he is wearing sunglasses, and that's probably what they intended. But then, they found out that Ruby's glasses were reading glasses, not sunglasses. So, then the story became that that's shadow around his eyes. But, from what? Shadows get cast by objects, so what is the object that cast that shadow? And how could it cast one so inky black? 

Don't you see it's just another tall tale, like the one about changing Ruby's underwear in order to worm their way out of the shoe and sock debacle.  

"Yeah, we got bins for everything here at the DPD. We got more shoes than a bowling alley. But, the important thing is that our prisoners be dressed right for their overnight stay- even though they get sent to the County Jail within 48 hours. Why didn't we do it for Oswald? No particular reason."

But, getting back to the other image, it isn't even anatomically correct. It isn't human. The narrow strip of bearded skin at the junction of the scalp and the face is right next to the ear, as you see on Ruby. The huge gap that you see on the other guy is impossible. And what is going on with his ear? What, did he spend 30 years as a boxer? And what is going on with his chin? Is that supposed to be a double chin or a triple chin? 

You only see that guy in the NBC footage. You don't see him at all in the KRLD. In it, we see Blackie Harrison and the Japanese journalist Sosa taking their positions.

But then, they had to scatter to let Lt. Rio "Sam" Pierce out in the squad car. 

That's Blackie's back to us. Is he holding a cigar there, or not? 

I still can't tell. And why is his pinkie so long and stubby? Why does his hand look so weird?

Now, the car is passing.

I still can't see a cigar, but I sure see that humongous pinkie. 

Then, Blackie retakes his position, but he's a restless dude. He keeps pacing around. Nervous, I guess. So, why didn't he take a puff of his cigar? If he's supposed to be holding a cigar there, he never brings it up to his mouth.

This is about 30 seconds out. That's Blackie peaking out on the right. We don't see Sosa. The guy with the cigarette was a reporter. Note that over the course of several  minutes, we never see Blackie smoke. 

Then, Blackie gets obscured but Sosa comes into view.

 Then the Shooter makes his move. 

UPI reporter Terrance McGarry said that a "short, balding man in a brown suit raced right past me." He was right about the short part, but how could he know anything about balding when the man was wearing a hat, and his hair below the hat was very thick and rug-like? 

Does this look like a badling man to you? To me, he looks like a man wearing a toupee. How could anyone describe him as balding? Do you see now why I have trouble with eye-witness testimonies? But, you can see how short he was. Look how much taller LC Graves was in front of him, and Graves wasn't that tall. 

The Shooter was the shortest man in the garage that we know of. 

But, what about the NBC man? He wasn't short.

That's Blackie on his right, who was very tall. And that's Sosa on his left who was taller than the shooter. Look below:

The shooter was shorter than Fritz, and Fritz was short. The NBC guy was much taller.

I don't know who that guy was, but he wasn't Ruby; he wasn't Bookhout; and they wildly manipulated and falsified his image. If you can't admit that after seeing this, then just stay the hell away from me because I want nothing to do with you.