This was sent to me by someone who thinks that Doorman is Lovelady. But, it does not show that. You have to look closely, and you have to know what to look at. For instance, notice that both Doorman and Oswald have sunken t-shirts. The opening is sunken and v-like. Lovelady's t-shirt is high and round. Then, notice that Lovelady's outer shirt is covered with boxes, but there is not a single box on Doorman's shirt. It's "pattern" is just noise. And, the image is overly brightened which highlights the ridiculous arm and hand of the black man waving. Supposedly, he has his shirt rolled up to the elbow, and he is waving at someone right during the shooting. But, it's bull shit. Look at the color, that is, the greyscale, of the skin of his face. Why would the skin of his hand and his forearm look different? They were the same color, right? And why would his skin have the same greyscale as his shirt? Furthermore, his hand is turned the wrong way in the photo- it is anatomically impossible. Turn to your right and raise your right hand to wave. What side is your thumb on? Plus, that man was not turned that way, He was turned the other way. The whole image of him there is bogus. You're looking at crime here; obstruction of justice by tampering with evidence. Just watch the Weigman film and you'll see that the black guy was turned the other way the other time. He never did what he appears to be doing here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3xR0WBPo8I So, the whole image of the black man in the Altgens photo is BS. You just can't exaggerate the depth of the turpitude that was involved in this. But, getting back to the tri-collage, Doorman's shirt is not plaid. It is not checkered. The contrast that we're seeing is due to light reflection and distortion due to the gross enlargement of the image. The one thing that does match between Lovelady and Doorman is the shape of the top of the head, but that's because they moved it over. They had an image of Lovelady. Not that one because it wasn't taken until 1977. But, they had another one from about 1957, and that's what they used to create the very simian shape of Doorman's head. And don't act like it's far-fetched. Oswald himself said that they moved his face over in the Backyard Photos. And that was done BEFORE the assassination. So, they started altering and falsifying images before they even shot Kennedy. But, in this case, the just took the "crown" of his head and moved it over. And it was very clever because people look at images from the top down. This is what Doorman (Oswald) looked like when they first discovered him in the Altgens photo, before they did their devil work.

The most telling thing about Oswald being in the doorway is not just that he was there not shooting Kennedy at 12:30, but that a malicious campaign started immediately to hide the fact that he was there and delude people into thinking otherwise. The need to kill Oswald on Sunday, November 24 was predicated by the need to silence him before he could tell anyone that that's where he was at the time of the shooting. And remember that Oswald did not know about the Altgens photo. He was unaware that he was photographed during the shooting, and he never found out. But, as soon as he saw a lawyer, it would surely have come up, and Oswald would have confirmed that that was him. 

So, Oswald needed to be offed before his rock-solid alibi was confirmed by his lawyer, whoever that might have been. And no, the plotters didn't just get lucky that Jack Ruby came along and did it. Luck had nothing to do with it. It was all planned. And no, it was not a conspiracy between them and Jack Ruby to silence Oswald. That is absurd. No one would conspire on that basis. "OK, you kill the guy, and then we'll arrest you, prosecute you and have you put to death. Sound good?" Ruby, like Oswald, was a patsy, but he was a totally witless, helpless, hapless patsy- so much so that Dallas Police were able to convince him that he shot Oswald when he didn't. 

And the whole Lovelady story was concocted from the beginning as a ruse that involved phony images, phony film clips, and false testimonies. The point is that it was clearly and unequivocally a case of criminal obstruction of justice that went on for decades. It was a crime that followed the crime. 

My Stretch of Texas Ground is now an Official Selection of the Austria International Film Festival. Originally, there were going to be live screenings in Vienna, but now, because of Covid, the festival will be held online.  It's the same for many film festivals. What attracted me to this festival is what they wrote about it; "The jury of the festival are looking for filmmakers with a free spirit, new ideas, an independent point of view, and daring approaches to filmmaking." Check, check, check, check.

My Stretch of Texas Ground has won Best U.S. Drama at the Kiev Film Festival in Ukraine. It means a lot to me because Ukraine is a war-torn country, and ours is a film that laments the horrors of war. 

I haven't written about Afghanistan in a long time, but despite the fact that Trump signed a peace deal with the Taliban in February, the deadliest week in the 20 year war just occurred. 

In one week, 291 Afghan soldiers were killed, and 550 more were wounded. 148 civilians were killed. No Americans were among the casualties.  

Peace talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government have not happened yet, and no date has been set for them. But, there is a trend occurring, and I am referring to the attrition of Afghan government forces. You might say that a slow, protracted surrender is taking place in which Afghan soldiers are switching sides and joining the Taliban at a staggering rate. 

"The Islamic Emirate, which has already announced general amnesty to those who end their opposition, warmly welcomed a large number of troops, militia men, and other military workers from the puppet regime and treated them as brothers, showered them with flowers, overlooked all former enmity, provided everything at disposal for their honorable and secure return to normal lives in their homes, villages and regions."

That's from the Taliban website, and they give figures for each month. It may be that they will be able to absorb most of the Afghan government personnel. I don't think they are going to find a place for Ghani in the new government, but they'll let him live, which is more than they did for the Soviet puppet.  

I hope that the Taliban makes concessions about some things, such as allowing girls to go to school. But, the point is that when it's all said and done, the Taliban will be back in power, and the Afghanistan War will have been fought for nothing; absolutely nothing. Every death, on both sides, including every American death, will have been in vain. I am sorry if that is painful for some people to hear. But, the Afghanistan War was a futile war; as much so as the Vietnam War.  And the most maddening thing about it, to me, is that we are unlikely to bring the perpetrators of it, especially George W. Bush, to justice.  

It's very heartening that many people cite the TSBD doorway as Oswald's location during the assassination. The only other place that is commonly cited is the 2nd floor lunch room, but that is impossible. It's based on the reported interview of Carolyn Arnold by Earl Golz in 1978 in which she claimed to see Oswald eating in the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:25. But, Oswald always ate in the 1st floor lunch room, which he claimed to do that day. Why would he lie about where he ate lunch? He wouldn't. He couldn't. He didn't. 

So, either you think he ate two lunches that day, in rapid succession, or you reject Carolyn Arnold's 1978 revision of her story, as I do. 

19 year old Carolyn Arnold was interviewed by the FBI on November 26, 1963, and she said that she believed she saw Oswald at the doorway shortly before the assassination. The time stated was 12:15, but it wasn't written by her. It was written by FBI Agent Richard Emberley. And he went on to have a career as a public speaker on the JFK assassination in which he argued why the official story is true and should be believed. He did that for years.

So, I'm saying that Richard Emberley is the one who came up with the time of 12:15, thinking that it left Oswald enough time to get up to the 6th floor. But, wiser minds above him at the FBI  realized that that was way too close for comfort, so they got Carolyn Arnold to retract it and say that she never saw Oswald at all. That was in March 1964. 

Besides, Carolyn Arnold was in a group of three secretaries, and they came down together, and the other two said they never saw Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room.

That is Carolyn Arnold in the middle. I forget the names of the other two ladies. 

And we have an image of Carolyn Arnold turning around looking at Oswald. This is from the Wiegman film.

That is most certainly Oswald at the top-center of the steps. And Carolyn Arnold, in black and white, is turned around looking up at him. This was during the shooting but before the fatal head shot.

But just think: if not for Carolyn Arnold coming forward 5000+ days after the assassination to change her story, there would be no place else but the doorway to place Oswald. And I mean, of course, other than the 6th floor, and he certainly wasn't there.

So, the 1978 revision by Carolyn Arnold was terribly convenient because the HSCA was going on, and they were examining the Doorman question. This story acted like a decoy and diverter.  I don't know who conjured it up, but somebody did. How they got Carolyn Arnold to say it I do not know, but it is preposterous to think that she lied to the FBI on November 26, 1963. 

Miami, Florida. 

This is really good eating: homegrown blackeyed peas. I grew them in my backyard. And I eat the whole thing: pod and all. It's all edible. I just steam them for about 8 minutes and then add a sprinkle of pink Himalayan rock salt and some extra-virgin olive oil. Here's the before and after. Ah, life is good.

AE911Truth has demanded that NIST retract it's claim that Building 7 collapsed due to fires in light of Professor Hulsey's 3 year study, out of the University of Alaska Fairbanks Enginneering School, proving that fires could not have done it. NIST has now responded claiming that they usually respond to such requests within 60 days, but in this case, they will need more time. Read all about it:

https://www.ae911truth.org/news/695-nist-issues-update-on-pending-request-for-correction-to-building-7-report

I've got to get my MD and chiropractor friends to look at this image because it doesn't make sense. He's kneeling on the man's neck, and I have drawn a line to represent the line of his thigh. To my eyes, his thigh looks too long in relation to his leg. The thigh is longer than the leg, typically a ratio of 56 to 48. But, the difference here looks greater than that to my eyes. 

The knee is a hinge joint. It opens and closes. Or, you could say that it flexes or extends the leg. But, it's a very unidimensional movement. There's not much play in it, and the less the better from an orthopedic standpoint. But, I drew a shorter line to indicate the plane of the lower leg, and I don't see how that leg could be going to that knee. Look how far down the knee dips. Look where the patella is. It's much lower than his leg. This is a doctored image. 

And why would the foot be turned out the way it is? When you kneel, and remember that it's the word "knee" with an "l" added on, the natural tendency is to leave the foot neutral. Say you were kneeling in a pew in church, that's what you would do. You wouldn't twist your ankle like that. There would be no reason to do it, and it would uncomfortable to do it. It would be hard to do it, meaning that you would have to strain to do it. 

But, I tried to do it. First, this is me using a book as a surrogate for a neck. 

So, I just knelt without thinking about it. Notice that my foot is in neutral position, it is not rotated at all. Notice the perfect correlation between my thigh and my lower leg. You know that they're connected. And notice that the lengths are more appropriate. You get the sense that my femur is longer but not a heck of a lot longer. 

But then, I did it again and purposefully twisted my foot, trying to duplicate what Chauven appears to be doing.

So, you can see my foot turned out. It was a strain for me to do that. And I can tell you that one effect that it had was to lift my body weight off my knee some.  So, I was not pressing into the book as hard any more. In other words, it shifted my weight. But, why if someone was kneeling for any purpose would they turn their foot out like that? It makes no sense. 

So, as I look at Chauven, I wonder why his thigh is so long compared to his leg; why the plane of his leg doesn't match up with where his thigh ends, and why his foot is twisted; turned out; and I mean a lot. 

Let's look at some other men kneeling.

I found another image of Chauven doing it, and this one is even worse. This is absolutely impossible. No one could rotate their foot this much in this position without breaking their ankle. The ankle joint doesn't twist this far. It would surely snap. 

He's got his foot turned there all the way: 90 degrees. His foot is turned completely sideways, but he himself is kneeling straight down. It's impossible. The body doesn't work like that. It doesn't have that capacity. If you tried to do it, as a feat, you'd have to start by twisting at the top, at your hip joint. You could never get that much rotation at the ankle. But, he is not turning his hip out; he is just kneeling. He appears to be kneeling straight down, and then his leg goes back, and remember: there is no rotation at the knee. Then, for some reason, his foot is abruptly rotated a full 90 degrees, where it is lying sideways. That is impossible! 

What is going on here? Is Derek Chauven being railroaded with phony images? Is he the latest Lee Harvey Oswald?  What, are they trying to start a race war in the United States? 

This image does not ring true to me. I don't know what really happened. But, alarm bells go off for me when I look at this. 

First, what preceded this in the video was Floyd being led across the street. We don't have any video  of how he wound up on the ground and partly underneath a police car. 

But, kneeling on someone's neck? They don't even allow that in the UFC, and they allow a lot of brutal stuff there. The neck is one of the most delicate parts of the body, full of vital organs with very little protection. So, I don't know how Derek Chauvin could have done this, and once he started doing it, I don't know how he could look away. How do you take your eyes off the guy knowing that the slightest bit too much pressure and he's a goner?

But, I don't get George Floyd either. Why would he lie there and let it happen? I understand that  you are supposed to obey police, but not when they do something that is clearly illegal  like this. Your instinct to survive would kick in. Nobody would just lie there and take that. But, I realize that his eyes appear to be closed, so maybe he was already out of it; incapacitated. But, how did it get to this point? Because George was a big, muscular man; a giant. We're told that the kneeling went on for 8 minutes. So why didn't he resist before this? The whole image is too docile and too relaxed for what it purports. 

Again, I don't know what happened. I only know that they were walking George across the street, and then it cuts to this.  What happened in-between, and how did it get to this? Because: this image, by itself, does not ring true to me. It is not credible. 

Now, please consider what I am about to say very carefully. I have been saying for years that they could not let Lee Harvey Oswald go to trial, that he would have crucified them, and by them, I mean the Dallas PD and the FBI. And not only could they not let him go to trial: they couldn't even let him speak to a lawyer, and he asked for one 13 times in public that we know of. And then, lo and behold, Jack Ruby came along and saved the Dallas PD and the FBI from a fate worth than death. Or did he? Maybe that was them acting, saving themselves. 

Fast forward to 2019 and Jeffrey Epstein. They couldn't let him go to trial either. He could have done damage, severe damage, to famous people, important persons of respectability and leadership in our society. That could not be allowed. So even though people were predicting it and making jokes about it before it happened, he conveniently hung himself in prison. And I haven't conducted a poll, but I suspect that the suicide of Jeffrey Epstein is the most categorically ridiculed and rejected news story of all time. Tens of millions don't believe it in this country alone. Maybe over 100 million. Worldwide, it may be over a billion.

But, getting back to JFK and Oswald, I am honored to be friends with the great truth-speaking attorney Vincent Salandria, and Vince has stated many times that when he started suspecting that the story being spewed about JFK's death was a croft of crap, his very next thought was that Oswald's life was in danger- that they couldn't let him live. And Vince told people in his life that if Oswald dies in custody, then all bets are off, that we need to run for the hills because his death will mean that the sons of bitches are lying to us. Now, that's my wording, not his, but it's the gist of what Vince said.

So, following Vince's lead, and knowing what happened to Oswald and what happened to Epstein, the question is: can they allow Derek Chauvin to go to trial? And, I'm not defending him. I don't know what happened.  I'm just saying that there are some very baffling things about what they claim happened, and the picture doesn't help. And if anything were to happen to Derek Chauvin in custody, such as, that he died in a fight with another inmate, or he died trying to escape, or he hung himself in jail, then all bets are off, and we need to run to the hills because the sons of bitches are lying to us. The story they are telling us so far should not be settling to anybody. Not to anybody, and no matter what their skin color. At the very least, we are not being told the complete story, and I don't know how anyone can argue with that. And please know that when it comes to race, I am not against anybody.  I am not the least bit racist, and I recoil at the idea. 

On the left is the real Oswald, and on the right is the Oswald who was led into the Garage. Same guy or different men? 

The property invoice for Jack Ruby really is ridiculous, laughably funny. For a long time, I have noted the silly entry of "1 set underwear" as if they kept all sizes of men's underwear there. But wait. What about the ladies? If they felt it necessary to replace the men's underwear, then why should it have been any different for the women? So, what, they had an assortment of panties there too, did they? 

And then the shoes they took from him. It means that they must have had men's shoes there in every size from 7 to 13. But again, what about the ladies? If men couldn't wear their own shoes, then they couldn't let the ladies do it. 

Then, they took his belt from him and listed it twice on the invoice. But, the pants they gave him looked to be regular cotton trousers. His shirt was out, but didn't he need a belt? It's not like he was wearing suspenders. And you'll notice that the shirr they gave him was ironed at the collar, and maybe even starched. I don't iron my shirts. However they are when they come out of the dryer, that's how I wear them, and they don't look like this:

They, apparently, thought that a flat collar would look more like a uniform than a normal collar, so they ironed it down. But, the rest of the shirt doesn't look ironed, and the pants don't look ironed at all. They look like the most wrinkled pants there ever was. 

In fact, those pants look too wrinkled. They look more wrinkled than pants tend to get. They were freshly laundered pants, right? They had to be, right? So, why would they be so wrinkled like that? And how could  they be that wrinkled but the top of the shirt be so ironed?

This is like a movie, and remember: I made a movie. I was on the set. They have a Costume Designer who orders all the outfits that the actors wear, and they have a Costumer who does the last minute adjusting of and fussing with the clothes to make sure that they look right for the particular scene. In this case, they had a lousy Costumer. 

It was all staged. Do you understand that? It was all theater. Nothing about the Oswald shooting was real. Absolutely nothing. Jack Ruby did NOT shoot Oswald. I've been telling you that for years. You really need to start believing me. 

This property invoice of Jack Ruby's, I have to wonder if it's legit or if it's something that they just whipped up. Let's take it from the top. It says Police Department and then in small letters below it City of Dallas. But why not just say Dallas Police Department? Or at least make "Dallas" as big? For the date, it says the 25th, but Ruby's things were taken from him on the 24th, and by 11 AM on the 25th, he was gone to the County Jail. So, how could they compile this invoice on the 25th? Then, it says "Received of" and for that it says "Jail." But, shouldn't Ruby's name have gone there?

Then it says "Evidence in Offense number" but a person's clothes and personal affects aren't necessarily evidence. Evidence refers to things that are going to be presented at trial to convict someone. Then it refers to Arrest number, so there was an Offense number and an Arrest number, but neither one are provided. And then for charge it says "inv. murder".  What does that mean? Involuntary murder? But how on November 25 could they claim to know that? Furthermore, we have it from Fritz on video that in Texas, it was just murder, that they didn't even have a designation of first degree murder.

Then, there are vertical columns for quantity, article, and bin number.  G-25, N30, etc. I found a similar one for Oswald's address book that said it was put in Bin F23. So, presumably, they had all these lettered bins, and as you know, there are 26 letters. But, numbers are infinite. So, how high did the numbers go for each letter? If there was a bin N30, doesn't that imply that there were bins N1 thru N29? And so on for all the other letters? But, that is ridiculous. Then, there was $2015.33 in cash which they put in Safe Dr 9. What could that mean? Then, his expensive Couture wrist-watch they put in Safe Bin 7'9, as best as I can read the cursive. Then, 3 Amer.Exp. travelers checks. Then, they claimed an envelope with his glasses, but we see his glasses in the Jackson photo in the external jacket chest pocket. So, they decided to put them in an envelope? And they put them in Bin G-25? Why that bin? And why not just keep all his stuff together in the same bin? He was only going to be there overnight. Then, there were other things including a black leather belt which they listed twice. They claimed he had 2 address books. Then, his black leather shoes they put in Bin N30. Then, his white dress shirt, his one set of underwear (and think very carefully about why they thought it was necessary for him to wear regulation underwear overnight). Then, a brown suit and a grey felt hat. Then, it says its tag dated 11-24. 

And then at the very bottom it says Jack Leon Ruby and gives his address as 3939 Rawlins, but that was not his address. His address was 223. S. Ewing. Then, there is some other vague handwriting. "Hold. Case filed 12/3/62 Leavelle", Then it says  "No  11109  G" . What can that mean? The G isn't even part of the number. It's off by itself. So, what does it mean?

I propose that this whole form is just a prop, like they have in movies. In my movie, we made a prop for the FBI All Points Bulletin to law enforcement concerning Abdul Latif Hassan, and I guarantee you it was more credible than this.  

Tink Thompson did a video on the Umbrella Man in which he ridicules the idea that he was an operative because of the story that came out during the HSCA that the Umbrella Man was a guy who was protesting Joseph P. Kennedy's actions in the 1930s in the run-up to World War 2 in which he met secretly with the German ambassador to the UK to seek a way to prevent another war.  

Kennedy, as U.S. ambassador to the UK, made public statements trying to avert war. But, nobody wanted the war to be averted, and least of all FDR and his inner circle. They wanted war. So, Kennedy was asked to resign, and he did, and the war, of course, happened. 

To me, Joseph P. Kennedy Sr. was a hero for trying to prevent a war that killed 65 million people. 

Here is Tink's video. Go ahead and watch it. He's got that folksy way about him. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuoZWb9gqv0&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR3ZxEpm5ZCfJF-LMBuANt3QzJ8Cg3KX_GwGatnHSLYLxqhFS1DwdaqGIKw

But, fast forward now to 1963 when WW2 was long over, and the Nazis were long defeated, and not just defeated but eliminated- except for the 2400 of them that were given visas to the U.S.because they had valuable skills that we needed, such as in chemical weapons. And, a new enemy grew out of WW2: the Soviet Union, and that was the big concern in 1963, not the Nazis. 

So, what reason was there, mentally, to go back to what Joseph P. Kennedy did in the 1930s? And why would anyone think that JFK would see an open umbrella and think, "Oh! He must be protesting what my father did in the 1930s." Why would Kennedy's mind even go there? Don't you think he had other things on his mind? And I mean current things; things that he had to deal with; things that were on his plate. 

And there is no reason to think that an open umbrella would bring up thoughts of Neville Chamberlain. There are numerous images of Hitler and Chamberlain shaking hands, but there is no umbrella involved.

There are lots of pictures of Chamberlain with an umbrella, but mostly not open. He used it like a cane, and it was like a fashion accessory for him. 

So, why should JFK, upon seeing this guy, have any thought about his father's actions in the run-up to World War 2?

It's ridiculous. The whole story is ridiculous. The man who came forward claiming to be Umbrella Man was Louis Stephen Witt who was born in 1924 in Rockwall, Texas. In the late 1930s, he was still a teenager, so why, at that young age, would he have been so enthralled with this? Or, did he become a WW2 buff later in life? And why not consider the possibility that he was an actor and a liar? In other words, what reason is there to believe him any more than there is to believe Judyth Baker that she was Oswald's lover as they trapsed around Louisiana trying to develop a bio-weapon to kill Castro? Why believe that Beverly Oliver at age 17 was the matronly, frumpy, overweight Babushka Lady? And the same goes for Louis Witt claiming to be Umbrella Man. Why believe any of these people who inserted themselves into the JFK story years later? 

Why be so gullible? I'm asking you, Tink: Why are you so gullible?  Why do you believe Louis Witt? Where is your natural-born skepticism? Where is your natural-born cynicism? If you don't have it, then get some. And grow up, would ya?  Stop being so childishly gullible. When you hear a preposterous story, assume that the lipflapper is lying, would you? Is that too much to ask? It's the year 2020, for goodness sake. STOP BEING SO GULLIBLE! 

You know that it is my contention that President Kennedy was shot with a nerve agent in the first shot that hit him. That was the back shot, which occurred in isolation when the limo was still high on the hill, before he entered the Kill Zone. It was a primer shot, and it took a tremendous amount of editing of the Zapruder film to hide that fact- far more than has ever been recognized before.  They cookie-cut that film to an incredible degree. 

But alas, all we have in regard to the capability of doing it is the 1975 Church Committee investigation of the CIA heart attack gun. Note that it was admitted that the "heart attack gun" was also capable of delivering nerve agents. CIA Director William Colby testified abundantly, and remember what ultimately happened to him. In 1996, he died under very suspicious circumstances in a boating incident that had all the earmarks of a hit. I put the chances of him having been assassinated at 100%. 

There was great concern in high places about Colby testifying to the Church Committee. President Gerald Ford personally prepped Colby before he testified. Stop and think about that. The President of the United States, with all he had to do, and with all the matters being brought to his attention and concern, took the time to advise Colby about his upcoming testimony to the Church Committee. What was Ford afraid of? And why did it matter so much to him when it involved a time period that preceded him? 

"On May 9, 1975, the Church Committee decided to call acting CIA director William Colby. That same day Ford's top advisers (Henry Kissinger, Donald Rumsfeld, Philip W. Buchen, and John Marsh) drafted a recommendation that Colby be authorized to brief only rather than testify, and that he would be told to discuss only the general subject, with details of specific covert actions to be avoided except for realistic hypotheticals. But the Church Committee had full authority to call a hearing and require Colby's testimony. Ford and his top advisers met with Colby to prepare him for the hearing.^[13] Colby testified, "These last two months have placed American intelligence in danger. The almost hysterical excitement surrounding any news story mentioning CIA or referring even to a perfectly legitimate activity of CIA has raised a question whether secret intelligence operations can be conducted by the United States."

But alas again, I don't think I am ever going to learn any more about this, and I'd like to tell you why. 

The development of a gun that could deliver drugs via frozen darts was something that only the CIA, or other such intelligence agency, could do. Private enterprise couldn't do it. Private enterprise can only afford to develop products that can be marketed, and there is no market for this. Even criminal enterprises such as the Mafia couldn't do it. The economics wouldn't work for them either. We're talking about a program which had a name: MK-Naomi, and it went on for 18 years, from 1950 to 1968. Only the government could do such a thing. And I suspect that it was done at Edgewood Arsenal, the clandestine research laboratory where the Nazi chemical weapons experts, who were spared the fate of Nuremberg and brought over here and given new lives, were engaged in their secret, nefarious work. 

No one except  a government intelligence agency or some secret wing of the Military could research the development of such a gun. But, even though William Colby spoke of it in the past tense in 1975, it was in 1979 that Billy Lovelady died suddenly of a "heart attack", and he's not the only one. David Sanchez Morales, the CIA assassin, also reportedly died of a heart attack in 1978. And there were others. John Armstrong says that 7 FBI agents who were around in 1963 died mysteriously during the HSCA, some from heart attacks, and were thus unable to testify for being dead. You would think that the HSCA would have investigated the deaths of any scheduled witnesses who died before they could testify, but they didn't. They shrugged them off.

It's very unlikely that I am going to learn any more about this. Yet, the conclusion that JFK was hit with a nerve agent is very solid, in my opinion, and here's why:

1. JFK was hit with a missile that barely pierced him, and it is untenable that regular ammunition could do that. A regular bullet could not stop that fast. Some of said that it was a sabotted round, but that just means that a smaller bullet was adapted for us with a higher caliber gun where it was fitted with extra housing that would fall off in flight. But, it wouldn't affect what the bullet did on contact. The shallowness of penetration defies that it could have been a regular solid bullet. And if you don't accept that, then start citing other cases of victims who were shot from a substantial distance with a bullet that was stopped by their soft tissue within an inch.   

Note that, officially, the story is that the bullet traversed Kennedy and then Connally- the opposite extreme of far-fetched ballistic nonsense. But once you realize that that bullet effectively just scratched Kennedy, then you know that it was not a regular bullet. 

2. The whole idea of shooting Kennedy at that location on his body makes no sense if you presume that they were trying to kill him with the shot. Why shoot him there when he had this big thing called a head sitting like a melon on top if his shoulders? That's what you shoot. You don't shoot him in the back, not if you're trying to kill him. And the idea that it was a miss, that the shooter aimed for his head but hit his back isn't tenable either.  

So, the question becomes: why would they just want to wound Kennedy?

3. Moving on, there is the undeniable fact that JFK seems drugged after he was shot. I am talking about his behavior, his countenance, and his whole presentation in the Zapruder film. He was a completely different man and obviously highly incapacitated mentally, unable to grasp what was going on, and unable to respond to it in any way. He seems very childlike in the Zapruder film. He was unable to think or act. He was mentally dazed and incapacitated, but shallow wounds to his back and throat could not have done that to him. They could not have done anything to his mind. 

4. But, it wasn't just his bizarre child-like behavior and complete mental helplessness, there was also his bizarre muscular activity, raising his arms like a marionette, and then being completely unable to let them go, to release the contractions. Nerve agents like strychnine work by inactivating an enzyme called cholinesterase which breaks down acetylcholine, which is the neurotransmitter that works at the junction between nerves and muscles. Acetylcholine tells the muscle to contract, and it will keep contracting until the acetylcholine is deactivated. If it's not, you can't turn off your muscles. And that's what we see on Kennedy: continuous muscle spasm. 


Now, if you disagree with me, fine. But, if so, you have to provide an alternate explanation for all we see. And it can't be the Single Bullet Theory because if you believe in that, then I don't want to talk to you at all. Just go away. But, if you realize that that's lunacy, that Kennedy received a shallow shot to his back, and a shallow shot to his throat, and that's all the trauma he received prior to the fatal head shot which killed him instantly (although it took him about 30 minutes to completely shut down) then I do want us to reason about this. 

What else besides something chemical could have caused the bizarre changes we see in Kennedy? The trauma alone can't explain it. It doesn't account for it. Kennedy was a changed man from before the sign to after the sign. And forget the timing of that because they used that freeway sign like a magician's curtain. But, the before and after is so bizarre that something has to account for it. If not a chemical, then what? This is the Before and After I am talking about. 

Besides honoring our two stars and the film itself, the Accolade Global Film Competition also gave me the Award of Recognition for the song I wrote for the Closing Credits of My Stretch of Texas Ground, Do No Harm. I figured that after telling a story in which 12 people get brutally murdered it would be nice to end it with a call for non-violence. The expression DO NO HARM is actually from Medicine. It's the first principle of Medicine, set down by Hippocrates thousands of years ago.

And Do No Harm is followed by another song I wrote, He Didn't Do It which is about Lee Harvey Oswald. It's performed by my very talented cousin Tony Longo and his band Pacific Coast Blues. Tony does vocals and plays harmonica, and he is 10x the musician I am. See if you can sit still when you hear it because it won't be easy.

https://soundcloud.com/ralphcinque/do-no-harm

I have some stunning news. The results of the Accolade Global Film Competition are in. I paid extra to have both Jeff Weber and Junes Zahdi considered for Best Actor. I had to pay twice because they appoint a specific judge to evaluate a specific actor's work. I certainly was not going to choose which one to enter; thus, I entered both. So, they were competing against each other, as well as all the other lead actors from all the other films.

And the result is that the Award of Merit for a Leading Actor was given to Jeff Weber for playing Sheriff Joe Haladin. But, they also issued a Leading Actor Special Mention Award to Junes Zahdi for playing Abdul Latif Hassan.

And, My Stretch of Texas Ground won the Award of Recognition for Best Feature Film.

I spoke to Jeff about this, and he expressed his great appreciation to everyone who was involved, our very talented actors and our very supportive crew. And he thanks Junes Zahdi for bringing out the best in him, as actors playing off each other can do. It is one more confirmation that, despite the handicap of a small budget, we made a great film.

"The best laid plans of mice and men...." I think it's one of the most profound phrases ever written. It's not even a sentence. It is not even the whole statement. It doesn't even include a verb. But, that phrase alone sends a powerful message.  

John Steinbeck was so moved by it, he entitled his famous novella, Of Mice and Men. And I was so moved by it, I created a situation about it in My Stretch of Texas Ground. 

That phrase has wit, wisdom, and sarcasm. So, the next time someone comes to you with a grandiose scheme that he's certain can't go wrong, all you have to tell him is, "the best laid plans of mice and men..."

And, there are no grandiose schemes more grandiose than the grandiose schemes about war. Think back to 2002-2003 in the buildup to the Iraq War: the predictions about the ease of victory; about the length and the cost; about how the Iraqi people would view us as liberators, etc. And less than two months after the start of the war, George W. Bush held a televised spectacle aboard an aircraft carrier to celebrate the end of major combat. A big banner saying "Mission Accomplished" was strewn behind him forming the backdrop to his televised speech, which has become known as the Mission Accomplished speech. The worst fighting and dying lied ahead and for many years. 

And it was much the same in Afghanistan. Very quickly, the Taliban government fled Kabul. It seemed like the mighty U.S. had made quick work of them. But really, it was just the beginning of 19 years of war, through the administrations of three Presidents, in which thousands of Americans would die, and hundreds of thousands of Afghans.  

And even today, the war continues. The U.S. has stepped back to supporting the Afghan government, rather than engaging the Taliban directly, but still, the fighting goes on, and there is no basis to think that peace is imminent or even on the horizon. 

And Libya. Oh My God, Libya. What an absolutely nightmarish hell-hole it is, when it used to be the garden spot of Africa with the highest standard of living. Gaddafi was a dictator, but he was a rather benevolent one. The wealthiest country in Africa has been reduced to rank poverty and perpetual war. And our media doesn't even cover the disastrous consequences of Obama and Clinton's war. 

No mouse would be stupid enough to start mouse wars that are comparable to U.S. wars. I'm afraid that Robert Burns owes an apology to the rodent community.  

Obama is trying to be the Voice of Reason to quell the protests. He sympathizes with their cause and their outrage but wants them to channel it into constructive channels. It's all well and good. But, have you been following the conditions in Libya since Obama's freed the Libyans of Gaddafi with war? They ain't so free, not unless you consider perpetual war freedom. Our media doesn't report on it because all U.S. wars lead to Hell, and they don't want you to know that. But, this website has all the latest headlines out of Libya, and as you can see, it is Hell.

htps://www.newsnow.co.uk/h/World+News/Africa/Libya

Under Gaddafi, Libya had the highest standard of living in all of Africa, and by far. It was cradle to grave welfare. Now, forget welfare. Now, it's nightmare. And it's on you, Barry.

Ralph Cinque Here is actually what happened. Oswald was in the doorway during the motorcade. Then, he left for the lunch room. Why is uncertain, but there is reason to believe that there was some kind of commotion in the doorway. The reason I say that is because Dave Weigman did a second pass of the doorway. He filmed it as he was rounding the corner, and then after he was on Elm, he turned to his right and panned the doorway again. Something must have spurred him to do that, and I think that the most likely thing is that Bill Shelley told Oswald to go there. Recall that when Oswald gave his alibi to police, he said that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front." Why did he name Shelley? It was because Shelley was his boss, but he may also have interacted with Shelley in the doorway. This shows Oswald's route to the doorway. He went up the stairs in the southeast corner which were close to the doorway, and he walked across the second floor to get to the lunch room in the northwest corner. He was just getting there at the time Baker arrived, and we know that because Baker reported that Oswald was moving through the anteroom into the lunch room when he first saw him. So, there is no chance that Oswald was in the lunch room 90 seconds before because if he was, Baker would not have seen him in the anteroom. One can't be in two places at once, right? He could not have been in the lunch room and in the anteroom at the same time. And note that the route that I'm saying he took going up is the same route that he definitely took to go down because he walked through the office area, and that's where he encountered Mrs. Reid who reported it. So, when the shots rang out, Oswald was definitely in the doorway. He left early. And this is the route he took to get there. Oswald did not have a Coke when Baker saw him. And could he since  he hadn't reached the lunch room yet? You have to get to the lunch room and be in it before you can do something in it. Right? So, Oswald did not get his Coke until after Truly and Baker left. 

My Stretch of Texas Ground is an Official Selection of the Kiev International Film Festival in Ukraine. They were going to have theatrical screenings, but because of Covid-19, their theaters are closed, and the screenings will be held online in late June. It's an honor to be selected, and I thank them, And I thank our great cast, led by Jeff Weber, Junes Zahdi, Mike Gassaway, and Hailley Lauren, who made it possible.