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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 So, as his Secret Service agents had the door open on Elm Street, at the same time LBJ was scooting down his seat in the Veep car ahead of them. What I mean by that is that he scooted his butt forward in the seat and probably had his knees pressed against the seatback in front in order to get his head down. It shows in the Altgens photo.

I have what is probably the best version of the Altgens photo. I got it from Dr. Gerald McKnight. I was privileged to be able to connect with him near the end of his life. I never met him in person, but I had 5 or 6 long phone calls with him. He was bedridden at the time and within months of the end, but his mind was still sharp.

Notice that Lady Bird and Senator Yarborough look quite good, meaning high resolution. So, why don't we see LBJ? It's not because he was scooted down so low that he disappeared. I think that when the CIA photo-alterers saw it, they saw him scooted down, and they realized that that looked bad; real bad. So, they took him out.

The arrow that I put there is actually pointing to his Secret Service Agent Rufus Youngblood, who was Native American. LBJ actually had the nerve to claim that Rufus turned around, grabbed him, and threw him down to the floor of the car. Then, he climbed over the seatback and lied on top of him. Do you believe that? If you do, stop it because Senator Yarborough said it never happened. And the Laws of Physics say it never happened. That's beause the floor of the car was occupied by the legs and feet of Lady Bird and Senator Yarborough. So, how oculd even one man lie on the floor, let alone two?

And observe the expressions on the faces of Lady Bird and Senator Yarborough. They are not looking distressed. They both seem festive. And that is clear evidence that what I have told you about the Altgens photo is true, that the imagery of JFK and Jackie in it is bogus. The throat shot didn't happen yet. That happened later and lower on the hill. The Altgens photo was taken high on the hill right when JFK was shot in the back. But, that was practically silent, and it may have been completely silent to the occupants of the VEEP car. Those two don't look like they are aware of anything dire. Don't you agree? They look like happy campers to me. And that should tell you that this photo was taken early- long before JFK was shot in the throat.

LBJ actually gave an award to Youngblood for saving his life. They had a big ceremony for it at the White House, and Youngblood brought his wife and many kids. But, I bet he hated every second of it because he knew the truth, that it never happened.

Did you know that Ruby was put into Oswald's cell on 11/24? We have this statement from the Jailer Henry Ellison: 

“Oswald was in cell F-2 Friday, November 22nd, Saturday, November 23rd, and Sunday, November 24th, 1963, and after Oswald was shot by Jack Ruby,  Ruby was then placed in that same cell F-2 on Sunday, November 24, 1963.”

But, whether it was the same cell as Oswald or another one really doesn't matter because they were all the same. I have a picture of Oswald's cell. 

So, it had a sink and a commode but no mirror. And they all looked like that. Therefore, how did Ruby go from looking like he does on the left to looking like he does on the right?

 David Tarshis

 ·

Then why did Dorothy Kilgallen get murdered? She had an interview with Ruby, and she bragged about it. Big mistake. She was on What's My Line, and she was a journalist.

Reply

Share

Ralph Cinque

 ·

David Tarshis Dorothy Kilgallen had two private meetings with Ruby during recesses at the trial. The fact that there were two tells you that they must have gotten along. Nobody knows what was said. But, I tell you that she was definitely murdered, and it was because of those meetings. So, what did she glean from those meetings with Ruby? Being a smart woman, I think she gleaned several things; that he was not right in the head; that he had not the slightest bit of viciousness in him and did not seem capable of murder; and he may have said something that made her realize, or at least suspect, that he was innocent. And those who put the Dallas Police up to killing Oswald and framing Ruby for it (starting with LBJ) couldn't take the chance about what she learned and what she concluded. So, they killed her.