Phillip Nelson has written an article about the suspicious death of Adlai Stevenson, an avid and vigorous tennis player, by heart attack in 1965, and Phil suggests that the CIA "heart attack gun" the one exposed at the Church Committee hearing in 1975, was put to use. 

I wrote a comment to the article which follows, and then you can read it yourself:

This is to Phillip Nelson. Your article is very plausible. I agree that Stevenson's death by heart attack is very suspicious, and there are quite a few others who are equally suspicious of having been victims of the "heart attack gun." And one of them is John F. Kennedy. However, in his case, the gun was armed with a nerve agent. In the Zapruder film, JFK exhibits two behaviors which must be explained: his bizarre dyskinesia and his very crippled and incapacitated mental state. These cannot be explained by the trauma he received up to that point, which was a superficial back wound and a superficial throat wound. If the "heart attack gun" could have been used against Stevenson in 1965, then it could have been used against JFK in 1963. It went into development in 1952. William Colby admitted it at the Church hearing. I have written extensively about my belief that JFK was hit with a nerve agent, and this is my latest:   http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2020/04/i-have-been-in-touch-some-researchers.html

https://lbjthemasterofdeceit.com/2018/10/23/the-curious-circumstances-of-adlai-stevensons-1965-death-was-he-the-victim-of-lbjs-manipulations/

CENTURY MOST FOUL

1. A concise, conversational history of the 20th century

by Ralph C. Cinque

 1

This is a booklet on the 20th century with the goal of demonstrating the paradox between the tremendous and unprecedented advances of that century which occurred right alongside the most brutal and savage atrocities.

We tend to think that technological and scientific advances will supplant savagery in the world, that as humans become more knowledgeable and scientific, as they understand better the workings of the natural world, leading to unceasing progress in the ability to manipulate materials to fulfill human needs, that barbarity and brutality will naturally fade away.  

In a word, technological and scientific advances- the hallmark of the 20th century-represented the forward march of civilization, and as people became more civilized, they should have become more civil to each other, where violence and inhumanity just disappeared. But, it didn't work out that way. 

The 20th century was the most savage, brutal and murderous century ever. And if we are going to talk about "Man's inhumanity to Man" the most inhumane thing is to kill people, right? The 20th century was marked by not only the most killing, but the most wholesale killing, the most high-tech killing, the most industrial-strength killing. Really, it was a century of slaughter. 

The largest part of that slaughter was enveloped in the two world wars, and for that reason, this booklet will focus a great deal on those wars. I am calling it a "booklet" because I don't know how long it is going to be, and I don't have any length in mind. I am just going to let it flow. And it doesn't matter because this is not a commercial endeavor. I'm not selling it. Whoever wants to read it will read it. I know there will be a few, and the number doesn't matter. I'm doing this mainly to sort out my own thinking.  

But, I want to acknowledge that history books are expected to be referenced and footnoted, and this one won' be. And that's what I mean by saying it's "conversational." I will refer to some works and sources, as I am inclined to, but I won't feel obligated to. To be blunt: I am not being paid to do this, and I am only going to do it to the extent that it is enjoyable and fun to do. I'm not going to make it irksome for myself. Why should I?

But, I will tell you that I am going to talk about what happened as truthfully as I can, expressing what I know to be incontrovertibly true about the events of the 20th century. And I am going to write it as if we were conversing about it. I realize that it's not really a conversation since I am the only one talking. But still, I am going to write it in a relaxed, informal way, as if we were talking. 

So, to begin, the 20th century, as you know, was a century of assassinations. There were a lot of them. And it started with an assassination, that of President William McKinley. He was assassinated in 1901 in Buffalo, New York. An "anarchist" of Polish extraction, Leon Czolgosz, shot him twice at close range. McKinley underwent surgery and seemed to be recovering but died after 8 days. 

Czolgosz was said to be a "lone nut"  but, he was a follower of a woman named Emma Goldman who held "anarchist" meetings in New York City. I put "anarchist" in quotes because Anarchism was closely related to Communism. She was investigated for complicity in McKinley's murder but was never charged. However, she was ultimately deported to Russia, and she was there participating in the Bolshevik revolution. The fact is that a great many New Yorkers went to Russia to participate in the Bolshevik Revolution. Leon Trotsky took an army of New Yorkers with him. 

But, the question is: was there a conspiracy to kill McKinley? I don't have any solid evidence for it, but my go-to person on this is Professor Murray Rothbard, and he thought so. Obviously, in a book with the scope intended for this one, I am not going to dive deeply into this murder. But, I want to point out how politics is very much a "What have you done for me lately?" affair because McKinley had given the Establishment what it wanted, which was the war on Spain, which of course, was just a land grab. It's ironic that McKinley pined about freeing the poor Cubans, but once we got control of the Philippines, there was no freedom for them. Do you know how long the Filipino insurrection lasted and how many Filipinos we killed? It began with a full-blown war that lasted for 3 years, which the U.S. supposedly won, after killing 200,000 Filipinos. But, we won it the way we won against the Taliban in 2001. And, it was followed by the same thing: a guerrilla war that went on for decades. Do you know how long it took us to grant independence to the Philippines? Until 1946, with lethal conflict throughout. But, I digress. 

The main thing I want to say about McKinley is that he had something in common with JFK, and that is: they were both forced to accept Vice Presidents whom they didn't like; didn't get along with; and didn't agree with. For JFK, it was LBJ, who threatened to go public with JFK's terrible health status and drug addictions unless he was put on the ticket. For McKinley, it was Teddy Roosevelt. But wait a second: let's throw in a third: Ronald Reagan who was pressured to accept George HW Bush as his Veep after a nasty primary campaign. And then what happened? Another lone nut, John Hinckley, the deranged son of a close friend of Bush, shot Reagan. Or did he? Was it perhaps a Sirhan Sirhan situation? Then again, maybe it was exactly what they said it was, but you can't blame me for being suspicious. But again, I digress. 

McKinley was a Rockefeller Republican. Teddy Roosevelt was a Morgan Republican, as in JP Morgan. So, what was the difference between what Rockefeller wanted and what J P Morgan and other Wall Street bankers wanted? The difference was: Rockefeller wanted rapprochement with Germany, while Morgan wanted rapprochement with the UK. Which country were we going to be best friends with? Well, obviously, sharing the same language with the UK was a significant bond. But, at the turn of the century, the busiest and most economically robust shipping lane in the world was the one between Germany and the U.S. Do you see where this is going? The fact is, and it is undisputed: the build-up to World War 1 started very early. The UK had it in for Germany. And if you really want to date it, you have to go back to the Franco-Prussian War in the 1870s, which Germany won. Prior to that war, Germany wasn't even a cohesive country. There was Saxony, Bavaria, Prussia, etc.,- which were German-speaking independent states. And just as in the U.S. where the Revolutionary War caused the uniting of the colonies, the same thing happened in Germany. The modern German state was born out of that war, and it took off (economically) like a bat out of hell. And the UK was left breathless. And the Brits started plotting to provoke a war with Germany by the 1890s. It took them until 1914 to pull it off, but it shows you how diligent they were. Stiff upper lip. But, I'm getting ahead of myself. 

So, installing Teddy Roosevelt succeeded at cementing the "Great Rapprochement" between the US and the UK.  It was something very much desired by the British for a long time. And it paid off right away because when they launched their Boar Wars against the Africaners in South Africa, which they arguably won, Teddy was kind enough to send them a lot of material support, and I mean shiploads of guns, ammunition, bombs, etc. With all that help, the British won, but it still wasn't easy. The Boars, who were descendants of the Dutch, put up a hell of a fight. Ultimately, it took 500,000 British boots on the ground to defeat them. They also put thousands of Boar men, women, and children in concentration camps where they died wholesale of exposure, starvation, and disease.  

And by the way, if you haven't seen the movie Breaker Morant which is about the Boar Wars, you really should. It's a great film and one of the best courtroom dramas ever.  

But, let's move on to 1905 to the second 20th century assassination, that of Jane Stanford. She and her wealthy husband Leland, a former governor and senator,  and before that a lawyer and railroad tycoon, had founded Stanford University, which was named after their deceased son Leland Jr., who died of an infection in Italy at the age of 15. And Stanford Univeristy was tuition-free: it was a gift to the young people of California. Of course, that didn't last, and, neither did Jane. She was murdered by strychnine poisoning. First, they tried to kill her in Palo Alto, but she tasted it in the water and spit it out. But, then they got her in Hawaii where she went for sanctuary. 

The first book about her murder was The Mysterious Death of Jane Stanford by Robert Cutler MD, a neurologist who taught at Stanford. That was followed by Calling All Angels by Stephen Requa. Both are very good. 

So, who killed her? The strychnine was mixed into some baking soda that was brought to her for indigestion. It was her maid who brought it to her: Bertha Berner. And Bertha was having an affair with the President of Stanford University, whom Jane Stanford was about to fire, David Starr Jordan. And David Starr Jordan was one of the leading and most vocal Eugencists in this country. 

Eugenics, the belief in white race superiority and the need to limit the reproduction of other races, was big: both here and in the UK. It was big in those two countries long before it was big in Germany during the Nazi era. Theodore Roosevelt was an outspoken eugenicist. Here is a quote by him:

“Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce. It is really extraordinary that our people refuse to apply to human beings such elementary knowledge as every successful farmer is obliged to apply to his own stock breeding . . . We fail to understand that such conduct is rational compared to the conduct of a nation which permits unlimited breeding from the worst stocks, physically and morally . . . Some day we will realize that the prime duty—the inescapable duty—of the good citizen of the right type is to leave his or her blood behind him in the world; and that we have no business to permit the perpetuation of citizens of the wrong type.”

Eugenicists sought and practiced involuntary sterilization. Winston Churchill, Oliver Wendell Holmes, and Alexander Graham Bell were eugenicists. Charles Darwin's grandson led the Eugenics Society in the UK.

But, the worst thing about the murder of Jane Stanford is the way the entire U.S. press supported the phony story that she died of a heart attack. Even then, in 1905, there was complete control, and it's scary to contemplate. You know how the whole U.S. media fell in line to support the phony story that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK in 1963, but the same monolithic media compliance and control occurred in 1905. And in that case, a medical board in Hawaii had determined that she died of strychnine poisoning, and it wasn't suicide but murder. But, that was not going to be the official story; no way, no how. 

Why was Jane going to fire David Starr Jordan? She was opposed to Eugenics, for one thing. But, I think there was more to it than that. The Establishment realized that Stanford U. was destined to be the leading university in California. It was going to be California's answer to the Ivy League colleges of the East. And they knew how important universities are in shaping public opinion and determining what gets accepted as true, as per history, science, and many other things. Jane Stanford was a firebrand. They couldn't trust her.  She wasn't a team player. They didn't want an independent Stanford University. They wanted a Stanford University that would support their values, about Eugenics, about past and future wars, and more. So, she had to go. But again, it's scary that the whole U.S. media was in lock-step in support of the false narrative. It's scary because it was before the FBI and the CIA. When we talk about it in relation to the Kennedy assassination, it's linked to the way those intelligence services had infiltrated the media: through and through, organization by organization.  But, how was it accomplished in 1905? Well, basically, we are talking about newspapers, and there was William Randolph Hearst who owned a hell of a lot of them across the country. He just had to snap his fingers, and his papers were going to spew whatever he wanted. And he had a longstanding feud with Leland Stanford that went way back. They were California tycoons who did not get along. But, what about the non-Hearst papers? They all went along with the white-wash too- every single one of them. And that, to me, is scary. 

OK, let's leave it at that for now. This first chapter has gotten me through the first 5 years of the century most foul. And by the way: the title is a paraphrasing of the new Bob Dylan song about the Deep State murder of JFK: Murder Most Foul. 
  

   

   

I have been in touch with some researchers about the back shot and the throat shot. If you reject the SBT, then you must posit alternate theories for those two shots. It's not enough to say that each was a separate shot. The back shot only penetrated an inch, according to the autopsy doctors. How can you account for that? If you assume that it was shot from one of the buildings, and when you consider the power and velocity it had to have JUST TO TRAVEL IN A STRAIGHT LINE for that distance, considering that gravity starts affecting it immediately, then how could JFK's soft tissues stop such a bullet practically on impact? And if it was a bullet, what happened to it? You can't just say it fell out. And if it did, surely it would have gotten tangled in his clothes and then found. It wasn't going to go out the same way it came in, right?  

And please consider that if you shoot a bullet into a tree of VERY hard wood, the tree may stop the bullet within a very short distance. Perhaps just an inch or two. But, if that happens, then the bullet is always highly deformed. It doesn't just stop unscathed. And it's because of Newton's Laws of Motion, that for the tree to stop the bullet, it is acting on the bullet- as much so as the bullet is acting on the tree.  In other words, if the true tissue is strong enough to stop the bullet, it is going to damage that bullet. And the quicker it stops the bullet, the more damage it is going to do to it. But, as you know, the Magic Bullet found on the stretcher was practically pristine. 

One researcher suggested that the back shot was an artifact, a fragment of a bullet that rickshayed off the street. But, that is totally presumptuous.  Unless there was a mark, a defect, in the street, indicating that a bullet struck it and went somewhere, why even go there mentally? It is so unsubstantiated, so totally hypothetical, it's very brazen to claim it.  

I refer you now to a piece by Dr. Gary Aguilar, an M.D. He correctly states that the back wound was JFK's FIRST wound. Damn straight it was. I am so glad to see him say that because I recently saw a piece on a prominent JFK website that said that the throat wound came before the back wound.  For goodness sake, we can see JFK reacting to the throat wound as soon as he emerges from from behind the sign in the Zapruder film. And what we are seeing there is an instantaneous reaction. He could only have been shot in the throat a split-second before because he was reacting to a blocked airway, and that is something you react to fast. Then our eyes are on him constantly for the remainder of the shooting spree. Can anyone seriously claim that JFK appears to be shot in the back after re-emerging from behind the sign? THAT IS RIDICULOUS! The back shot had to come before the throat shot. 

Dr. Aguilar reasons that both the back wound and throat wound were entrance wounds, and since the bullets did not remain in the body, since extensive x-rays were taken, then perhaps they were extracted before the autopsy. Then, he says:

"No autopsy  witnesses noted any wound in JFK’s body through which such a technically difficult retrieval could have been performed." 

RC: I agree that extracting a bullet would disrupt the tissue and very likely leave visible damage. 

"Alternatively, if very improbably, the bullet(s) might have been some sort of self-dissolving missile(s), such as the “ice bullet” Dr. Humes speculated about during the autopsy."

RC: Why is it so improbable when the Church Committee disclosed the existence of the CIA's heart attack gun which fired a frozen dart and was in development since 1952? Doesn't that have a bearing on the probability? The Church Committee members handled the gun and sighted down the muzzle of it. And since they had it in their possession, why didn't they put it through tests? And since they had CIA Director William Colby right there in front of them, and he was being very cooperative and forthcoming, why didn't they ask him, point blank, if it was ever used? And it's not that I think there is any chance he would have said, "Oh yeah, we used it on Kennedy," But,  it still would have been interesting and pertinent to solicit his response to that question. So, why didn't they ask it? 

Dr. Aguilar goes on to demolish the Single Bullet Theory. For instance, he points out that the track the bullet would have had to take to get from the location of the back wound to the midline of the throat would surely have struck a vertebral body, and that would have deformed the bullet (on the same basis as the example I gave of the hardwood tree). I agree, but to me, it's rather superfluous at this point because only an idiot could believe in the Single Bullet Theory. 

Note that Dr. Aguilar doesn't begin to lay out alternative explanations for the back and neck shots, and nobody has. No researcher has laid out a comprehensive scenario for those shots that accounts for all the known elements, including JFK's bizarre dyskinesia and his obvious mental impairment.  And you need to listen to me when I tell you that JFK's bizarre dyskinesia and his obvious mental impairment HAD to be the result of those shots.  


https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm

This is in response to a prominent researcher who inquired as to how they came up with images of Billy Lovelady in a plaid shirt.

I'll tell you how they did it, but first, please don't react as many do and be dismissive of it because you're not prepared to hear it. It is NOT far-fetched.

What happened is that the FBI went into the movie business. They started creating fake footages of "Lovelady" in a long-sleeved plaid shirt on 11/22. The first came out in 1966, so three years later. It was during Harold Weisberg 's booktour for Photographic Whitewash when, lo and behold, the second footage of John Martin was discovered, that was totally inconsistent qualitatively with his main footage,  which shows Lovelady lingering outside 10 minutes after the shooting. Keep in mind that Lovelady wasn't even there at the time. He left immediately with Shelley for the railroad yard and then reentered the building through the back door. 

So that's supposed to be Lovelady who is smoking in the red plaid shirt. The tall slender black man in the brown shirt is supposed to be Bonnie Ray Williams, but he's fake too. And Williams, like Lovelady, was not there at the time. This is fake footage. The man on the left in the fedora hat was put in to represent the comparable man in the Altgens photo, but that man was standing by the obelisk and was not in the doorway. And for some reason, the film starts with an Oswald-like figure being allowed to enter. This is fake footage that they came up with to counter Harold Weisberg. And note that Doorman's shirt is NOT plaid. It is amorphously varied but not plaid. Plaid means horizontal and vertical lines crisscrossing forming boxes. There is not a single box on Doorman's shirt.

So, why do they call it plaid on the left? Because they are stupid. What we are seeing on Doorman is a combination of Oswald's grainy pattern plus light reflection plus distrotion from the extreme blow-up that it is. Doorman's shirt is not plaid. It is no more plaid than it is striped. 

But, that wasn't enough for them. Next, they inserted a Lovelady figure, a different Lovelady figure, into some footage of Oswald being taken to Fritz' office at 2 PM. 

That is from the David Wolper film, and the guy seated at the desk is supposed to be Lovelady. In truth, no one was there. It was not the kind of desk at which anyone would sit. It was just a supply table, with forms and whatnot. They dropped him in t here. 

But, it is rather shabby, so years later, they replaced it with a whole new production and a whole new Lovelady; this time a real muscular guy. This is in slow-motion. It's also out of focus until the end when it focuses sharply on "Lovelady." 

But afterwards, they realized that they made that Lovelady too buff, so they adjusted the aspect ratio to slim him down, but they got carried away with that too.

All of this frantic phony  movie-making because two stupid FBI agents too pictures of the real Lovelady wearing the shirt he wore on 11/22/63 and didn't realize that, being short-sleeved, it could not possibly be the one worn by the Man in the Doorway. They even tried to re-create the spread in Doorman's shirt by unbuttoning Lovelady's shirt and nudging it open.  

I'll leave you with a piece of irony. I've pointed out how Oswald had the habit of clasping his hands in front, which he did in the doorway and at other times that weekend. But, look at Lovelady who is clasping his hands in back. So, his habit was to do it the opposite way. To each his own. 

Here is the comparison of Billy Lovelady to his doppelganger, and Bill Shelley to his doppelganger in the Couch film. Notice the likeness of the men and the clothing; also Shelley's pompadour hair. But, do you think it's just a coincidence? That these are not Shelley and Lovelady but two random guys from the public who happened to be there? If that's the case, then why don't we see Shelley and Lovelady in addition to these two guys? Because they both said that they were there at that time, and that's why Gerda Dunkel went looking for them there. So, we should see Shelley and Lovelady in the film plus these two guys.

So, there's a guy named Ken Lee who says that when he compares the images in the top collage, that he can't see the likeness of the man and the clothing. But, when he looks at the bottom collage, comparing the hair and the nape of the neck, he has no problem equating the two and saying that they are the same guy on the same day. 

Ken Lee Sorry but I can't see how you can compare the two photos tbh , sometimes this stuff smacks of desperation to me

• Like
•  · Reply
•  · 28m

• 

  Ralph Cinque Notice that both shirts are short sleeved, with the sleeve reaching the same spot on the arm. On the left, we see the pattern of alternating vertical stripes. On the right, it's more vague, but we do get a similar sense of contrast, and I have designated R for red, W for white, and R for red again. And even though it's not 100% conclusive, you need to remember that there is a big wide world of clothes out there, and it's a lot of likeness. That it even comes close is amazing, again, because there is so much variety in clothes. The size, thickness, and shape of the arm is a very good match. The overall build matches too. And Lovelady said that he was there at that time. So, even if you think, by amazing coincidence, that someone who looked this much like him and dressed this much like him was also there, where is he? He should be there in addition to this guy, if you think this guy is someone else. You also need to consider that that the quality of the image on the right is very poor. It's not my fault that it's poor, but it is poor. If we had something better, we would use it. But, we don't. But, we are still going to do the best we can with this. And remember that there is another guy, Bill Sheley, who was about the same height, with a slender build, and high pompadour hair. That matches pretty darn well too. You've got to remember that this is an either/or situation. Either this was Shelley and Lovelady OR they were just two random guys from the public. So, what are the odds of two random guys from the public looking this much like Shelley and Lovelady and dressing that much like them? And again: if this is just two random guys from the public, where are Shelley and Lovelady because they said they were there. We should them in addition to these two guys.

It was the JFK researcher Gerda Dunkel who first identified Shelley and Lovelady in the Couch film. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SOfZzI9gkQ

That was a very big find of hers. And when we compare this Lovelady to the image of Lovelady when he posed for the FBI wearing the shirt he wore on 11/23, it's bingo.

So, that's what Lovelady wore on 11/22/63. He did not wear a long-sleeved shirt. Therefore, he could not possibly have been the Man in the Doorway of the Altgens photo.

Was Oswald an idiot? Would he really have turned down a lawyer after, not just pleading for one but wailing for one to the entire world? He did not know John Abt. He never had contact with John Abt. He had no reason to think that John Abt could, or would, drop everything he was doing to come to Texas to defend him. And, he had no knowledge that Abt could practice law in the state of Texas. 

Oswald had no reason to think that John Abt was licensed to practice in Texas, and Abt was NOT licensed to practice in Texas. So, the only way Abt could have been involved was as an adviser and consultant to a Texas lawyer or lawyers who were representing Oswald. The court may have let Abt sit with the defense team and whisper to them. But, Abt was not going to be able to get up and examine or cross-examine witnesses and make motions to the court. He wasn't licensed in the state of Texas. So, even with Abt, Oswald would have needed a Texas lawyer. That's why the idea that he would have turned one down is preposterous. 

Do you know how many times Oswald complained in public about not having a lawyer? I counted them, and it's at least 13 times that you can hear Oswald, with your own ears, decrying his being denied an attorney. And none of those times, did he say a word about John Abt. 

In all probability, H. Louis Nichols was just bamboozled. He didn't know he was talking to an Oswald double. They had a very good one in terms of likeness. Can you tell which one of these is the double?

The real Oswald is on the left. The one on the right had shorter and more receding hair. He also had a smaller nose and smaller ears. Still, it's an amazing likeness. And if they put that guy on the right in a cell with H. Louis Nichols, I have no doubt that he would have accepted him as Oswald. And remember that we have had years and decades to look at and study Osswald's face and features. And we also have the advantage of looking at them side by side. If you didn't have that; if you were only seeing the guy on the right; you probably would think he was Oswald. 

Do you know where the image of that Oswald double is from? It's from Dallas the weekend of the assassination. You can see it in the footage when Oswald is being led out of the elevator on his way to the garage. So, they had an Oswald double in Dallas that weekend. The real Oswald never met with H. Louis Nichols. 

Author

Oswald Innocence Campaign That's right, Paul. And they couldn't put off letting Oswald see a lawyer much longer without it being blatantly obvious that they were denying him one. So then what happened? Did they just get lucky that Jack Ruby came along and saved their wicked asses? Luck had nothing to do with it. They got Ruby to do it, but what I really mean is that they just got Ruby to think that he did it, to accept that he did it. The whole recruitment of Jack Ruby was nothing like what most conspiracy theorists want to think. And please know that I consider "conspiracy theorist" a slur, a CIA slur. But, in this case, I am willing to use it to describe people who think that Jack Ruby was in with the Mafia and in with the Dallas Police, where someone opened a door for him and let him in, and someone cued him about when to come, that Leavelle wore an Easter suit so that he would stand out to Ruby. It was nothing like that. It was not that kind of conspiracy. It was more like what happened to Sirhan Sirhan. Did Sirhan conspire with anyone to shoot RFK? No one has ever suggested that. What is said is that Sirhan was drugged and subjected to mind control to get him to the Ambassador Hotel and to get him to believe and accept that he shot Robert Kennedy. Well, it's very similar for Jack Ruby, except that in his case, he got to the garage much earlier than 11:18, and he was put through his own private scuffle with the Dallas Police and dragged up to the 5th floor, and in his drugged and manipulated state of mind, he accepted what he was told, that it was him at the garage spectacle. Ruby was so impaired mentally on 11/24/63 that he easily lost track of an hour of time, such that even though it was about an hour earlier that he got to the garage, it just vanished. Consider that they got him up to the 5th floor about 10:20, and they kept him there until 3:00. That's 4 hours and 40 minutes. But, they made him believe that it was just 3 hours and 40 minutes.But, it was a block of time in which he was standing around in his underwear talking to the police, and he was high as a kite. It was easy as pie for him to lose an hour. And the fact is: he would have believed the Dallas Police if they told him his eyes were green. 

If someone does not believe in Oswald's innocence, I can understand that when I tell them that Oswald, the real Oswald, never met with H. Louis Nichols, that that had to be an Oswald double, that they will reject it out of hand. But, I am not really interested in talking to them. I'm interested in talking to the people who believe that Oswald was innocent. So, if you don't believe that he was innocent, then do me a favor and go away. I'm not interested you; you're not interested in me; so let's leave it like that. 

But, if you do believe in Oswald's innocence, then stick around. I want to ask you: How much do you believe in his innocence? Enough to think that he was sincere in everything he said? Take the Midnight Press Conference. Do you think he was sincere then? The main thing he said at the MPC was that Dallas Police were denying him an attorney, and he was asking the public to come forward to provide him with legal assistance. 

Notice that he did not ask the public to contact John Abt for him. He just asked for legal assistance. We need to take that at face value, that he was asking for "a" lawyer; not any particular one.

So, after doing that, do you think that hours later when someone came right into his cell and offered to get him a criminal defense lawyer, that after imploring the whole world on national and international television for that very thing, that he actually said no? 

Why would he do that? And why would you believe that he did it? You can hear him directly with your own ears. You can judge his earnestness, his seriousness, his resolve- to have an attorney.  Again: not any particular attorney but an attorney. Why would you think, for one second, that hours later, when offered it, that he would shrug his shoulders and say, "nah"? 

The idea that H. Louis Nichols never really talked to Oswald is not so far-fetched. For one thing, that they had Oswald doubles in Dallas is beyond doubt. Oswald never went into a car dealer and tried out a new car. He didn't even have a driver's license. He never went to a shooting range and shot diagonally at other people's targets. And there are even lone-nutters that agree that that never happened. Just think about it: the rifle was stored in a blanket in the Paine garage. Ruth didn't even know it was there. She was a Quaker and didn't allow guns in the house. So, Oswald who had no car, would have had to find a way to get to Irving, sneak into her garage and retrieve the rifle; find a way to get to the shooting range because he had no car and he had no friends; no friends, no friends, no friends, no friends, no friends; then get the rifle back to the Paine house and sneak it in the garage again; and then find a way back to his boarding room on Beckley. Did I mention that he had no car and no friends? So, do you really think he did all that? Of course, he didn't. So, they had Oswald doubles in Dallas. There is also the story about Oswald hitchhiking. Have you heard that one? It's another real doozey. 

So, they had Oswald doubles. There is no doubt about it. I mean in Dallas at the time of the JFK assassination. So, it is very plausible that they used one on Saturday evening as damage control to offset what Oswald said at the Midnight Press Conference. It is not far-fetched at all. 

Again, if you defend Oswald, how much do you defend him? Do you believe him when he said that he never posed for the Backyard photos? Do you believe him when he said that he didn't own or order a rifle? Do you believe him when he said that he never said anything to Frazier about curtain rods? Do you believe him when he said that the only thing he brought with him to work was his lunch? 

If you believe Oswald, and I do believe him, then you will believe what he said at the Midnight Press Conference, and you will realize that he never turned down a lawyer. That is just one more lie in an ocean of lies that they told about him.   

   

We have been saying for years that in the Altgens photo, none of the spectators, NOT ONE, shows any awareness that Kennedy has been shot or is in trouble. How likely is that if he was already hit in the back and in the throat, and that there were also other shots, that they wouldn't be aware of something? That's a hell of a lot of shooting to have occurred for people not to be aware of. 

So, in the Altgens photo, the spectators seem to be out of time and tune with the Kennedys. There is still all the gaiety going on, while there he is, in an open limo, in a panic, struggling to breathe, his wife incapable of helping him but trying to attend to him, yet no one has the slightest awareness? 

The Altgens photo was early. Look how close the limo is to the Dal-Tex building, and that building was on the other side of wide Houston Street. 

How could so much have happened by this point? It's impossible. The Kill Zone was lower Dealey Plaza, not upper Dealey Plaza. It was lower Dealey Plaza that they cleared out so that there would be few up-close spectators. It was their plan all along to kill him the grassy area. 

Altgens was sitting on a big secret. The secret was that he lied for them. He said that he zoomed-in get the camera field of the Altgens6 photo, but he didn't. They cropped it. It was zoomed-in by cropping, not by anything he did. And it explains why the resolution is so poor because after cropping it, they made a new negative, but they had to stretch what remained, and that means stretching pixels. 

Altgens said that his assignment was to capture, not the limo and not the President, but the "caravan" against the "skyline" of Dallas, which means the tops of buildings. He explicitly said that that was his purpose in shooting the Altgens6 photo. He said he had intended to take the shot from the Triple Overpass. What does that tell you? It should tell you that he wasn't looking for a close-up. He was looking for a panoramic kind of shot; a "big picture" kind of shot. And by that, I mean the big picture of what was going on. 

He had to go out into the street to take that picture, and I guarantee you that he didn't do it when the motorcade of the President of United States was bearing down on him. We're talking about a limo and four motorcycles. How far do you think BJ Martin was from the curb? It wasn't that far. Even stepping 1 or 2 feet out into the street, as Altgens had to do to capture the angle that he caught, would have caused Martin to have to brake. Altgens wasn't going to do that. He went out into the street as soon as the two lead cars passed. The limo was still high on the hill. It was far enough away that he felt sure that he wasn't interfering or posing a hazard. Yet, time was of the essence. He wasn't going to dally. He wasn't going to fool with his f-stop in the street. He didn't have that kind of time. And again, it wasn't that kind of shot. 

But, the point is that what we see inside the limo is not real. Kennedy wasn't hit in the throat yet. That happened lower on the hill. He may have just received the shot in the back. But, he definitely was not shot in the throat yet; not up there. How could he be? I ask because in the Zapruder film, we can see everything that happened after he was shot in the throat, and we can see where the limo was during that time. And it was down low in the grassy area. There is no way Kennedy was shot in the throat high up on the hill, and in the Altgens6 photo, the limo is definitely high up on the hill. 

Then, there is there is the fact that Emory Roberts is on the phone in the Altgens photo. 

It looks bad, doesn't it, for him to be on the phone during the shooting of the President? But, he wasn't an idiot. He had to know that it would look bad. So, we need to take this as evidence that the photo was taken before the real turkey shoot began. 

Altgens said, repeatedly, that he pressed the shutter at the same time that the very first shot was heard. But remember that he knew what the photo showed. To support the photo's content, he had to say that a shot got off in time for the result to be captured in the photo.  

It's widely accepted that the first shot was the shot that missed JFK and hit James Tague, indirectly. But, that's not what Tague thought. 

  

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any idea which bullet might have made that mark?
Mr. TAGUE. I would guess it was either the second or third. I wouldn't say definitely on which one.

But regardless, was the Altgens photo taken at Z-255?

No. That was taken down in the grassy area. And notice that it is far from a perfect match to what we see in Altgens6. In the Z-255, Jackie has her hands together. Her two thumbs are practically touching. There may have been a little bit of distance between them, but not much. In the Altgens photo, we see her left thumb prominently (and note that she had large hands for a woman) but we don't see her right thumb at all. You can't grab something without using your thumb. Where is her right thumb? And why does JFK's forearm go on forever? It's like a vacuum wand. The image below is not a legitimate image, and it certainly does not correspond to Z-255, unless you are going to be extremely obtuse about it. 

 Look at Connally. 

Look at his hair, swept back, Fonzerelli style. It's like he had long hair even at his sideburn. Well, he did have longish hair that he swept back, but not at his sideburn. His sideburn still looked tapered and short. 

That looks more like strokes of paint. 

And I dare say they got carried away with the paint.

That hair definitely got doctored. So, if they were messing with Connally's hair, what else were they messing with inside the limo in the Altgens photo?

They messed with everything. JFK may have been shot in the back already, but that's it. He was definitely not shot in the throat. The limo was way too high on the hill for that to have happened. 

So, let's take Altgens at his word that he pressed the shutter as he heard the first shot, and let's assume it was the shot that hit Kennedy in the back. 

Notice that the rear view mirror is covering JFK's eyes. That's convenient. Notice that the angle captured none of Connally's facial features, such as his eyes and nose. That's convenient. JFK's fist is way too big. Stand in front of a mirror and hold your fist in front of your throat. See how big it is compared to your head. It's not as big as this. And then, his forearm just goes on forever. However, JFK does seem to be hunching. He's raising his shoulders, which is a startle reaction. He seems tensed up. So, perhaps he was hit in the back here. That's very possible. But nothing more than that. He definitely, absolutely and positively was not yet shot in the throat at the time this photo was taken.   

Besides the pcr test being bogus, the antibody test is no better. George Stephanopolous claims that he had the antibody test and it shows that he had the Corona virus but got rid of it without ever manifesting the slightest symptoms. No cytokine storm for him, no-sir-ee. Like Superman, he crushed the Corona virus without missing a beat.  I'm telling you, we are in an epidemic of testing. 

On Tuesday, the Good Morning America personality shared the “good news” on Twitter, writing, “Last week I tested positive for COVID antibodies, confirming I cleared the virus after weeks with no symptoms.” He added that he has since signed up for a clinical trial to donate his plasma to be studied.

You realize that they were really worried that Oswald's hand-clasping in the doorway was going to give it away that it was him. So, they came up with the idea that Oswald's arm coming down was really the black guy's arm going up hailing a tamale vendor. That scratching of a hand that you see on the right is not real, and it is laughable. For one, the hand is rotated the wrong way; the thumb is on the wrong side. For two, the elevation of the arm is too steep, too close to vertical. For three, the rolled-up sleeve of his shirt is the exact same greyscale as his naked skin. The Idiot Sprague actually bought that shit, and other idiots followed, but fortunately, not too many. 

But, it goes to show you how concerned they were that Oswald's habit of clasping his hands in front was going to unravel the whole wicked scheme. Force of habit is a powerful thing. 

This is nuts. We are living in the Twilight Zone. This is an interview of a female ER doctor in Atlanta who has the "Corona virus." She and her husband, who is also an ER doctor, were vacationing in Vail CO, and upon returning, they heard that Vail had become a "hot spot." A day or so later, she came down with sore throat, congestion, dry cough (mild), body aches, and fatigue. And her husband came down with the same thing. So, they presumed it was Corona, and partly because they had had their flu shots. So of course, it couldn't have been the flu because everyone knows that flu shots work like a charm. So, they sent off for some test kits and self-swabbed at home, and sent them in. Guess what the results were? Hers came back positive, while his were negative. But, their exposures had been identical; their symptoms were the same; timing was the same; and presumably both had been protected by the flu shot from the flu. 

So, she assumes that his negative is a false negative. But, in that situation, I should think she would question the validity of the whole test. Authorities have been saying that if you test too early in the infection that you may not have replicated enough virus to test positive. But, in his case, he contracted it presumably at the same time she did, and he came down with symptoms at the same time she did. So, if she tested positive, he should have tested positive. 

Nobody wants to question the validity of this test. They're saying now that people who test positive and then negative can go back to testing positive again. And they're just assuming that it's all valid, that the person is "re-infected" even if he or she has no symptoms.

I'm telling you: we are living in a world of medical religion, where the tenets of Medicine are accepted and never questioned, and they will assume whatever's necessary to avoid questioning the validity of a sacred test. Here is the video. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fLTVOxFlHo

Note that there is absolutely nothing about this woman's symptoms that can be considered "novel." She had practically no fever, and what little fever she had was very mild, and she had no shortness of breath except when climbing a flight of stairs, and that happens to millions of people every day- even on their good days. 

Why shoot JFK in the throat from the front if the plan was to attribute all the shots to a lone gunman in the rear? And how did they intend to get away with it?

But, what if the plan all along was to go with the Single Bullet Theory, to shoot him shallowly in the back, and shallowly in the throat, and say that they were one continuous shot from the rear?

And we can be absolutely sure that both shots were shallow and did only minor damage because once JFK cleared the airway obstruction that panicked him, he was stable physically. He had that weird dyskinesia and muscle spasming going on, and he was mentally deranged, but otherwise, he was stable. He wasn't bleeding to death. He didn't suffer a collapse of his vital organs or vital signs. 

But, why hit him with two shallow shots at all? Why direct any shots at him that weren't lethal? Some have tried to say that the purpose of the back shot was to establish a shot from the rear, but if they had shot him in the head, that would have done the same thing, and it would also have killed him, which is what they wanted. 

I don't think we should assume there was anything accidental about the back shot or the throat shot. I think it's clear that they were not trying to kill him with those shots. So, what were they trying to do? The shot to his throat may have been intended to take out his voice box, so that he couldn't speak. 

But, if you believe, as I do, that the back shot was deliberate, you need to proffer a reason for it.  Why shoot JFK shallowly in the back? You know why I think he was shot in the back: to deliver a nerve agent to produce the effects that we see in the Zapruder film.