Mark Javitch is a lawyer and an author, and he wrote a book called Zapruder Frame-Up: Lies told about the Zapruder film to frame Oswald. The second subtitle is: How the Sixth Floor Museum and the National Archives continue the coverup.

https://www.amazon.com/Zapruder-Frame-Up-National-Archives-Continue-ebook/dp/B0HNZ9ZZJJ

I communicated directly with the Chief Archivist of the United States, Dr. Colleen Shogan. She no longer has that position, but she did until August 7 of this year. I could tell you what we discussed, but that would be a tangent.

Mark cites frames from the Zapruder film that he thinks were altered. I'm not opposed to doing that, but I think the most important thing is to have a global perspective about what was done to the Zapruder film.

But first, I want to say that the Zapruder film does not frame Oswald. Oswald said that he was standing out in front with Bill Shelley during the motorcade and that he did not own a rifle. That being the case, how could anything in the Zapruder film frame him? Oswald's lawyer at trial wouldn't even bring up the Zapruder film. Why should he? He would just say that his client was standing outside and that he didn't own a rifle, and therefore nothing in the Zapruder film could have any bearing on him, Oswald.

So, I want to give Mark my perspective on the Zapruder film. The first thing to realize is that we have something that is very valuable. It is Dan Rather's description of the Zapruder film given on November 25, 1963. Even though I'm sure he was prepped by his handlers, the fact is that the "story" of the Zapruder film, and the "story" of the assassination hadn't been written yet. The Single Bullet Theory wasn't introduced until April 1964. So, everything was very raw at that point. BUT STILL, HE HAD HIS EYES ON THE ORIGINAL FILM. So, we should pay close attention to him.

So, what did Dan Rather say that the Zapruder film showed?

He said that just when the President put his hand up to the side of his head, that he suddenly lurched forward. '"The first shot had hit him." He said Mrs. Kennedy was looking another direction.

Does that describe what we see in the Zapruder film today? No, it does not. And Rather didn't say that the President sprung his arms up with his elbows out and brought his hands to his throat.

Anyone who watched the Zapruder film that we have today would describe it in terms of the freeway sign. They would say that after the President disappeared behind the freeway sign briefly, he emerged from it like he was struggling, like something was wrong with his throat. He yanked on his tie with his left hand, and he put his right hand over his mouth, and it looks like he tried to cough to clear a respiratory obstruction.

But, Rather didn't say anything about that. He just said that the President lurched because he had been hit with the first shot. And he mimicked the lurching. But, after that, he went on to Connally, saying that Connally had spun around, clockwise, facing the President, and then he, Connally, was shot in the front.

What's weird about this is that this was Monday November 25, and Connally's wounds were well known at that point. He was shot in his right posterior back, close to his armpit, and the bullet exited below his right nipple.

Rather described the third shot as one that hit the President in the head and caused his head to move violently forward. Rather said nothing about the back and to the left motion that we see today in the Zapruder film and that Kevin Costner made famous in Oliver Stone's JFK.

No one can make sense of the discrepancies between what Rather said and what we see in the film. Rather is still alive, and he has never explained the discrepancies. But, I'll tell you what I think it means.

They did know, at that point, that they were limited to three bullets for Oswald, and this story that they had Rather tell, accounted for the three bullets. Later, when it was found out that James Tague was grazed, they realized that they had to save a bullet for him, and that's why they came up with the Single Bullet Theory.

But, on November 25, they still thought they had 3 bullets play with. And that's how they played with them, attributing one bullet that hit JFK in the back, not claiming that it exited his throat. And then they spent one bullet on Connally. And the third bullet they assigned to the head shot, but they had him describe it as a shot from the rear that caused him to lurch forward.

I don't think Rather ever said the name Oswald, but the story he told was based on the idea that Oswald was on the 6th floor and that he fired 3 shots.

It looks like Rather had frames in front of him that he was describing. So, here's what probably happened:

The first shot was the shot that hit JFK in the back high on the hill. It's interesting that Rather said that JFK was shot, but he didn't describe the consequences of it. He moved on to Connally right away. So, why didn't Rather have more to say about the first shot?

It's because the first shot didn't do much physical damage to Kennedy. It was just an ice dart that penetrated very shallow. The harm was from the chemicals that were in it, the nerve agent, and perhaps other drugs. But, Rather didn't describe them because he was told not to. I think they must have had a frame in front of him that showed JFK right when he was shot in the back. But, they didn't want him to say any more about it.

So, what frame am I refferring to? None that we have. By the time they made the film public, the story was that JFK was shot with one bullet that entered his back and exited his throat. Of course, they couldn't show us that since it didn't happen. So, they put the phony freeway sign in the Zapruder film and said that it happened behind the sign.

What the original Zapruder film must have shown was JFK being shot in the back high on the hill, and after that, he started getting weird. He stopped smiling and waving. Jackie became aware that something was wrong; so she started focusing on him and stopping all smiling and waving. The limo was being slowed and just when it got to Umbrella Man, it stopped, and he delivered the dart that entered JFK's throat, using the umbrella gun that Charles Senseney invented for the CIA.

After that, JFK, who was no longer in his right mind, panicked. Either the dart itself or a bolus of blood caused an obstruction in his airway. So, he raised his hands in a panic to deal with it. He pulled on his tie with his left hand, and he put his right hand over his mouth and coughed to clear the obstruction. And it worked. He could breathe all right after that.

But, his mind was gone at that point. He couldn't speak, and it wasn't because of what happened to his throat. It was because of what happened to his mind. And he just sat there and did nothing. He did nothing to protect himself or his wife. It seems that he was incapable of understanding what was going on.

Remember that the Zapruder film had no sound. So, we don't have the advantage of hearing gunshots. As for what Rather said about Connally, I suspect that it looked to him like Connally was shot in the chest right before he fell back on his wife.

But now, I'll give you the bottom line. What the original Zapruder film showed was JFK being shot in the back high on the hill. It was a shot that did very little physical damage to him. But, it had bizarre effects right away; he stopped smiling and waving. And very quickly his wife realized that something was wrong with him. According to shills Gerald Posner and Dale Myers, the "Single Bullet" struck Kennedy at 224. Oh really? Then why did Jackie become turned and focused on her husband in the 180s? And why did she never turn away from him again and resume politicking if he wasn't hit until 224?

The real Zapruder film must have shown Kennedy being hit the first time in the back with the poison ice dart. Then, it showed him riding down the steepest part of the hill reacting to that and getting sicker by the second? Then it showed him getting shot by Umbrella Man, but it may have looked very subtle. It was designed to look subtle. And they covered it up completely with the phony freeway sign.

The biggest alteration that was done to the Zapruder film was cutting out JFK's trek from when he was shot in the back until when he was shot in the throat. They had to make it go away. And they did it be removing as many frames as they could. But, they had to leave some in of him reacting to the poisonous back shot, so they smudged his face out, so that we can't see that he was in turmoil.

And then, it showed the fatal head shot with the back and to the left motion of the head. So, why did Rather say that the final shot showed his head going violently forward? They were lying about it, and maybe they had a prop that Rather was looking at it that looked like what he described.

I think they made a big mistake on November 25 having Rather do that. It's not like they had to. And they should have realized that the story might get changed, which it did. It changed drastically.

You should watch this repeatedly because it is evidence that the Zapruder film was drastically and draconianlly altered. And I mean way beyond stripes and splices. It was altered to a Frankensteinian extent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUp3-FhlBeA

During the last mock trial of Oswald, which was in Houston, I was kinda involved. Larry Rivera and I were both in communication with the two lawyers who were assigned to defend Oswald, and we interacted a lot. I urged them to push the fact that Oswald was in the doorway during the shooting, and therefore, he could not have been on the 6th floor. And Larry was saying the same. We both provided them with images. It seemed like they were going to do it.

But, somebody got to them, and instead, they went with the claim that Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shooting. And that is what Oliver Stone went with in his movie JFK, where they showed Oswald eating alone in the 2nd floor lunch room.

Even then, there was Oswald's statement that he ate in the first floor lunch room early in the lunch break. FBI Agent James Hosty wrote it down in his own handwriting, which we still have today.

There is no chance that Oswald was eating in the 2nd floor lunch room during the motorcade. For one thing, he NEVER ate in that lunch room. That lunch room was for the office workers who worked on the 2nd floor. Oswald used that lunch room for one thing only, and that was to buy a Coke. So, read Hosty's note because that is what Oswald said, and it is what he did.

But, there is another way to prove that Oswald wasn't in the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:30. And that is that he only got to the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:31.5. Remember that Officer Marrion Baker saw Oswald moving from the vestibule into the lunch room. Oswald was in motion. He had just gotten there.

So, if Oswald was just getting to the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:31.5, how could he have been there at 12:30? Why would he leave and come back? Did he leave something there? No. There is no basis to jump to that conclusion. Did he lreturn to buy a Coke? That makes no sense either because if he ate there, he surely would have bought a Coke to have with his lunch. He was eating dry cheese sandwiches., and the Coke machine was right there. If he was going to get a Coke, he would have got it then.

Hosty wrote that Oswald said that he went to the 2nd floor lunch room to get a Coke before he ate lunch, and after he got it, he went down to the 1st floor lunch room eat and drink. So, why was he partial to the first floor lunch room? I can think of three reasons. First, it was considered the lunch room for the warehouse workers and order-fillers, which is what he was. Second, there was a shelf there where you could store your lunch, and it is well established that Oswald routinely brought his lunch and stored it there on that shelf And third, there was usually a newspaper there that Oswald liked to read while he was eating.

There is some irony in this because it's assumed that Oswald found out about the motorcade route from seeing it in the newspaper. But, Oswald didn't subscribe to any newspaper. And he never bought one, that we know of. The newspaper that was routinely placed in the 1st lunch room is the only newspaper that can be connected to Oswald. That is where Oswald, ate, drank, and read the newspaper.

And why would Oswald be eating at 12:30? They were released from work at 11:45. Oswald brought his lunch. And he had nothing else to do. He had no calls to make. There was no one he needed to talk to. He had no book to read. By that time, he knew about the motorcade, which was expected to reach Dealey Plaza at 12:25, though it was 5 minutes late. So surely, Oswald would have gotten his eating done in the interval between 11:45 and 12:25. Why would he do nothing for 40 minutes and then start eating? And we learned from Ruth Paine and Marina that he ate nothing at Ruth Paine's house that morning. He drank some coffee, but that was it. He worked all morning. So, don't you think he would have been ready to eat at Noon?

It made perfect sense for him to eat early in the lunch break. He said that he did that, and there is absolutely no reason to doubt him.

And why wouldn't he want to go outside to see the President? JFK had, single-handedly, avoided war with the Soviet Union. Oswald's wife was Soviet. Her family was Soviet. And they both had many friends in the Soviet Union. So, it must have been a big relief to them that there was no war. And they knew who to thank for it: John F. Kennedy.

So, why would Oswald do nothing for 40 minutes, and then go eat in the 2nd floor lunch room and miss the motorcade? He wouldn't. He couldn't. He didn't.

The story that Oswald was eating in the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:30 was invented in 1978 during the HSCA. It was created as an alternative to Oswald in the doorway. The idea was: that for people who refuse to accept that he was up on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy at 12:30, they needed someplace else to put him. So, they concocted that story then, over 5000 days after the assassination.

Oswald just got to the 2nd floor lunch a few seconds before Marrion Baker got there. There is no plausible, logical, or rational reason to think he was there a minute and a half before and came back. There is no evidence for it either. It is simply unsupported by the evidence.

Oswald went from the doorway to the 2nd floor by way of the elegant stairs in the southeast corner that were next to the doorway. Then, he walked across the great expanse of the 2nd floor to get to the lunch room in the northwest corner. That appears to be what happened, and there is nothing with more plausibility than that.

So, the 2nd floor lunch room must be eliminated as a possible place that Oswald was during the motorcade. It is not possible. Do you realize what it means? It means that if Oswald was not on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy at 12:30, then he must have been in the doorway. There is simply no other place he could have been.

Read Hosty's note because it is what Oswald said he did. And there is no reason to doubt him. The note makes perfect sense. And by itself, it is a distillation of Oswald's innocence.

 

The innocence of Lee Harvey Oswald is known beyond doubt, and it is confirmed by multiple  strains of evidence. First, there is the imagery proving that he was standing in the doorway during the shooting (Altgens and Wiegman). In Altgens, the match is to his person and his clothing, where you can recognize his unique, grainy Russian shirt and his stretched tattered t-shirt. In a word, the likeness of the man and his clothing to Oswald are too great for it not to be him.  

But, even if we didn’t have the Altgens photo, there are other ways to prove Oswald’s innocence. First, he didn’t own a rifle, and the entire story of how he came to mail-order one from Chicago is preposterous. He was working at Jaggars/Chiles/Stovall, the CIA/DOD image processor in Dallas, when, supposedly, he decided to vanish. It was 11 blocks from his workplace to the downtown Dallas post office where he allegedly purchased the postal money order on the morning of March 12, 1963. Yet, Oswald’s work records show him continuously occupied that morning, completing 9 printing projects.

Who would assume that he could just vanish from his job one morning and not get in trouble?

Then, the envelope was postmarked in postal zone 12, which was on the other side of the Trinity River. So, why would Oswald have walked over there just to mail the letter?

Then, the letter, reportedly, arrived at Klein’s the very next day, March 13. Keep in mind that Overnight Delivery didn’t even exist at that time- not at any price.

There is much more to John Armstrong’s destruction of the FBI’s story, and you should read it. Here is the link:

https://harveyandlee.net/Guns/Guns.html

Then, there is the fact that Oswald did not know that Kennedy would be passing the building. About 9 AM, he asked James Jarman why people were gathering on the sidewalk outside, and Jarman told him about the motorcade route. That’s in Jarman’s WC testimony. And there is no basis to claim that Oswald was putting on an act for Jarman because Oswald never used it. The story came from Jarman, not Oswald. Oswald never mentioned it to anyone.

Then, there is the fact that Oswald told Police that he was out in front, and he cited someone who was there: Bill Shelley. How could Oswald know that Shelley was there, in the doorway, unless he was there himself?  He couldn’t.

Then, there is the whole ridiculous paper bag story, starting with Detective Montgomery marching around with the bag that was found. Supposedly, Oswald made that bag out of paper and tape, but anyone with sense knows that no one could turn paper and tape into something that good. Could you?

And let’s be realistic. Supposedly, Oswald got up in the middle of the night, left Marina’s bed, went into the garage, sought and found the rifle, which was wrapped in a blanket. He then built the bag. Then, he removed the rifle parts from the blanket and put them in the bag he made. But, no one would do that. No one would make a bag. No one would presume that they could make a bag.

If all they had was paper and tape, they would just wrap the rifle in the paper. They would spread out the paper; put the rifle parts on the paper; and then fold the paper around them, taping it up as they proceeded.  

In other words, they would wrap it similar to the wrapping of presents. But, when you wrap a Xmas gift, no one ever says that you made a bag. And it doesn’t look like a bag; it looks like a wrapped object. It is covered with paper, but it isn’t in a bag.

And then, after walking around with it, including a 4 block walk from the parking lot to the TSBD, in which the jagged rifle parts never tore the bag, that Oswald accessed the rifle not by tearing through the paper, but by carefully emptying the rifle parts from the bag.

And after all that, the bag, which was just paper and tape, was still completely intact.

And be aware that this bag that Montgomery marched around with was quickly retired from the case and replaced with something narrow and oblong and very different. It wasn’t credible either, but at least it looked homemade, which this doesn’t. This does not. This was obviously a real manufactured bag.  It’s not just paper and tape.

The point is that the bag is part of the story, and there is nothing credible about any aspect of the bag story. Why didn’t Frazier, and Marina, and Ruth Paine report seeing the paper on Oswald on Thursday night?  What, did he have it stuffed in his pants?

But, let’s keep going. Bonnie Ray Williams said he ate his lunch on the 6^th floor during the lunch break, and we have a photograph of his basket of chicken and his bottle of Dr. Pepper left on the 6^th floor.  So, if Oswald was up there, assembling his rifle using a dime as a screwdriver (which is what the WC assumed since no screwdriver was found) and then, supposedly, building the Sniper’s Nest, how come Williams didn’t see him and hear him doing all that?

Like his friend James Jarman, Bonnie Ray Williams completely exonerated Oswald.

But, let’s move on to Officer Marrion Baker. He saw Oswald in the vestibule of the 2^nd floor lunch-room. The vestibule was a little passageway room that had three doors: one from the office side, one from the stairwell side, and one that went into the lunch-room. The one from the stairwell side had a pane of glass in the door, through which Baker saw Oswald.

But, it was a very small room, not much bigger than a closet. If Oswald had just gone through the door from the stairwell side, having come down from the 6^th floor, then that door would still have been in motion.  But, it was not in motion; it was stationary. And that means that Oswald must have entered the vestibule from the office side, using that door.

And there is more proof that Oswald got to the lunch-room from the office side and did not come down from the 6^th floor. Roy Truly was ahead of Baker. Even though they were looking for an armed killer, Truly led the way.  You would think that he would have let the armed cop lead the way, but no. But, since Oswald got to the lunch room just a few seconds before Baker, how could he have come down from the 6^th floor without running into Truly? And these were noisy, squeaking wooden stairs. And presumably, Oswald bounded down those stairs, right? So, why didn’t Baker and Truly both hear Oswald coming down as soon as they got on the stairs? Oswald didn’t tip-toe down the stairs, did he?

The fact is that Oswald went from the doorway to the 2^nd floor lunch room. He used the elegant one-flight of stairs from the 1^st floor to the 2^nd floor that were in the southeast corner of the building, next to the doorway, and then, he walked across the great expanse of the 2^nd floor to get to the northwest corner where the lunch room was.

Jack Dougherty saw Oswald at 8 AM right when he entered the building, and he insisted that he did not have a long bag. Joseph Ball tried to hammer him about it, but Dougherty held his ground that Oswald didn’t have it.

Marina Oswald, when first asked if Oswald owned a rifle, said that he used to, but it got sold. She was referring to the shotgun he owned in Russia to go rabbit-hunting. If she knew that he currently owned a rifle, why would she bring that up?

And if you think Oswald was storing a rifle in Ruth Paine’s garage, you should realize that there is no path to get it there.  We have testimony from Marina and Ruth Paine that when they all drove Oswald to the bus station when he moved to New Orleans, that there was no rifle among his belongings. Ruth Paine was actually hammered about it, but she insisted that there was no rifle.

And then, the story of how the rifle got from N.O. back to Irving is also preposterous. Supposedly, Oswald wrapped it in the blanket and snuck it into Ruth Paine’s station wagon and just hoped that it would get moved into her garage without being identified. And supposedly, Michael Paine came across it in the garage several times, and wondered what it was, but refrained from looking inside it, because that would have infringed on the Oswald’s privacy. But, he did enjoy speculating: was it tent poles for camping? Was it a military shovel? Those thoughts entered his mind.

Then, Frazier said that the bag Oswald had on Saturday morning could not have been more than 2 feet long, which was a foot too short to be the rifle.  But, the WC, both leaned on Frazier’s testimony and assumed he was wrong AT THE SAME TIME.

I could keep going because there’s more. There’s the whole bit about Truly being dismissive about Oswald to Baker, and then 20 minutes later, going to Police in a panic because Oswald was missing. Supposedly, Truly saw the warehouse workers milling around and suddenly had the thought: “Where’s Oswald? He’s not here. He must have killed Kennedy!” By the way, there never was a roll call.

It’s all just a big lie; a State lie. The State, meaning a cabal within the U.S. government that included the Vice President, who instantly became President as soon as JFK stopped breathing, killed Kennedy and framed Oswald. Their case against Oswald does not have credibility, and it never did have credibility.

There is absolutely no chance that Oswald did it. It is just a lie of the Leviathan State.

 

 

 

 

 

 Roy Truly led the way up the stairs in search of an armed killer. Would you please think about that? What was he going to do if he ran into the guy? Use Karate on him? Dodge the bullets? Why didn't he let Officer Marrion Baker lead the way? It's because he knew there was no danger. He wasn't the least bit afraid.

Then, he was so dismissive about Oswald to Baker that he got him to move on without Oswald having said a word. Truly must have really shown the attitude: "This guy? No way was it him. He couldn't hurt a fly."

But then, just 20 minutes later, because he didn't see Oswald milling around with the other warehouse workers, he went to the cops in a tizzy about Oswald being missing.

There never was a roll call. David Von Pein has often referred to the "roll call" but it's fiction.; it never happened. We are supposed to believe that Truly, after brushing off Oswald to Baker, upon seeing warehouse workers milling around or answering questions to Police, started thinking about Oswald again and noticed that he wasn't there. He could have been in the bathroom; he could have been on the phone; he could have been talking to somone somewhere else. But, Truly jumped to the conclusion that Oswald had left and reported it to the Police.

But, if Truly wasn't alarmed that Oswald was on the second floor when most people were outside, why would he be alarmed that Oswald wasn't in view with the other employees? If Truly was willing to dismiss any and all suspicion about Oswald, even though he was found alone on the second floor so soon after the shooting, why would his attitude towards Oswald turn into suspicion that he shot the President just because he wasn't with the other workers?

And we know for a fact that Oswald was not the only one who wasn't there. Charles Givens wasn't there. He left right away. And I don't think Frazier was there either because he said that after the shooting, what he did was go down to the basement to eat his lunch. Why didn't Frazier eat during the lunch break? He didn't say, and I don't claim to know. But, if he was down in the basement eating, he could not have been in the warehouse with the warehouse workers.

The point is that that this situation being a cause for Truly to suspect that Oswald shot the President is NOT credible.

And remember that most people aren't murderers, and they aren't capable of murder. Truly had no reason to think that Oswald was capable of murder- or that he even owned a gun. There simply was no reason and no rational for him to get worked up over Oswald not being seen there with the other workers. It was nothing to go to the cops about. It was all preconceived, preplanned, and preplotted.

Truly did not want Oswald to be arrested at the TSBD by Baker or anyone else. That's why he brushed him off to Baker. Truly waited until Oswald left and then reported him to Police, and it's because the showdown at the theater was planned in advnace. Someone must have told Oswald to go there. We don't know who that was. It could have been someone like Shelley, but it might have been someone we can't name. The TSBD was a CIA front company, and they moved into that building that August just to frame Oswald.

But, if you read Truly's testimony, you'll see that he spoke highly of Oswald from having known him. He said he was orderly and well-mannered and a hard worker and very devoted to his family. He said only positives; no negatives. So, why would he go from that attitude to suspecting him of killing the President just from him not being there milling around with the workers. It does not make sense, and it is not credible.

Roy Truly was a bad man, and he was involved in killing JFK.

 Let's talk about how Frazier wound up where he was in Irving. It sure filled a need in the story. Was it just chance? I doubt it.

So, he was living with his mother and stepfather in Huntsville. Then he goes to Irving and moves in with his sister, Linnie Mae Randle.

Now, I know sisters will do things for their brothers, but Linnie Mae had her own family, a husband and 3 daughters. And they lived in a house with just 2 bedrooms. She and her husband had one, and the three daughers were in the other. There was no bedroom for Wesley; he had to sleep on the couch. The point is that he couldn't do that without inconveniencing everyone else. Would his sister do that while burdening her own family? And what about her husband? He was the breadwinner. Linnie May was a nurse, but she wasn't working outside the home.

We are already supposed to believe Michael Payne was some kind of saint, letting his estranged wife move a pregnant woman and her daughter in, at his expense, including feeding them. So, Bill Randle was also a saint? Ralph Kramden would not have allowed it; I guarantee you that.

But, it gets even stranger because right after Wesley moved in, his mother and stepfather also moved in. Where did they sleep? Who knows? In the garage? On the roof? Then, his step-father got sick and had to go to Parkland Hospital and then into a convalescent center in Irving. Supposedly, Frazier disappeared for a few hours on Friday afternoon, when he went to visit him. Somehow, Dallas Police found Frazier at a medical facility in Irving visiting his step-father, and they took him back to Dallas to question him.

But, that's not what interests me. What I care about is how Frazier wound up living across the street from Ruth Paine. So, he showed up on September 1. He began looking for work himself. When that didn't land him a job, he registered at several employment agencies in Irving. One of them, the Massey Agency, informed him about the job at the TSBD. He went and got interviewed by Roy Truly. And then he started working there.

How long do you think all that would take? It happened in just 12 days. He arrived in Irving on September 1, and he started working at the TSBD on September 13. But, here's the kicker: It's weird enough that Linnie Mae would have signed up for this, considering that she had a husband and 3 kids. But, you know the car that Frazier drove to work? That was Linnie Mae's car. So, 5 days a week, he was monopolizing her car, leaving her stranded. Think of all the food shopping for a family of 6, and make that 8 when you include the mother and step-father. But, Frazier had her car all day at the TSBD.

I'm not buying it. It takes sisterly love too far. People have their own lives. They have their own families. And what was so special about Irving? Since Frazier was uneducated and unskilled and could only do grunt labor, why not just look for a job in Huntsville?

And again, Bill Randall was the breadwinner, and the head of the family. I don't want to sound chauvinistic, but he was the man of the house. How could he put up with that? And why should he put up with it?

It is all so improbable, and so contrary to normal social behavior, that I have to think that there was more to it.

Somehow, Bill Randall and his wife Linnie Mae were put to doing it. Maybe they were paid. We know they didn't own the house on 5th Street. His father owned it. His name was Alfred Randle.

Bill Randle was employed by his brother Marvin, who owned a countertop company in Irving. Marvin was younger than Bill, and Marvin lived all the way to 2025. Marvin became a prominent figure in the Irving community. He served as Mayor of Irving from 1977 to 1981.

Frazier was off his rocker a little. He said at a mock trial that Billy Lovelady was 5'2" when he was 5'8". He said in one breath that Billy was the Man in the Doorway, and he said in another breath, that, on his advice, short Billy went down to watch the motorcade from the sidewalk. So, how could he be on the sidewalk and at the top of the doorway at the same time?

I think they needed a highly manipulatable person for the story they concocted of Oswald transporting his non-existent rifle, that never made the bus ride from Irving to New Orleans, and never made the station wagon ride from New Orleans back to Irving, but somehow wound up in Ruth Paine's garage and was transported to the TSBD in Linnie Mae's car driven by Buell Wesley Frazier. And I think Frazier was their patsy for that role. Somebody must have had a CIA connection, and most likely, it was Bill's brother Marvin. That's Mayor Marvin.

 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.