I showed you how in the Zapruder film, JFK STOPPED WAVING BEFORE HE REACHED THE SIGN.  And that means that he was shot because there is absolutely no other reason why he would have stopped waving. Now, I am going to show the Betzner and Willis photos because they also show that he stopped waving.

But, they show a lot more than that. We'll start with Betzner. 

If you look closely, you can see JFK directly below the sign. His image is very dark, and it makes it hard to see him. His image is NOT photographic. By that I mean, it has a crudeness to it. and it could very easily been altered with paint. Let's look at it closer.

So, you see Zapruder atop his pedestal. You see the freeway sign, which is properly oriented and not freakishly big, as in the Zapruder film. 

And if you look closely, you can see an obfuscation at the top of JFK's back on his right side. It's like somebody took a Sharpie and rubbed over it. I can't explain the crown-like whiteness over JFK's head in Betzner. Is that something that they did too? But, the extreme darkness on the right side of him is definitely obfuscation. It is NOT, as the Idiot McAdams claims, his jacket bunching up. Let me explain something to that blithering idiot: the only way JFK's jacket could have "bunched up" is if his suit didn't fit him, and JFK had enough money to buy finely tailored suits that fit him. Just look at the image on the right below. How could his suit bunch up? And if it were going to bunch up, say because it was too big, it would bunch up on both sides. The idea that it could bunch up on just the right side is ridiculous and preposterous. 

So, what we are seeing on the left- that dark overlay- was added to the photo. Certainly if JFK's arm was up waving, we would be seeing it. So, JFK had stopped waving, even though, officially, he was not yet shot. I say he was. 

Now, let's look at Willis, which was taken after Betzner. It is considered to be the last image of JFK before he got shot. 

Again, if JFK were waving, we sould see his arm up. And here, as in Betzner, JFK's image is dark and crude and unphotographic.

What stands out to me here is weird shape of his head. You're seeing a lot more on the left than the right, and the implication of that is that he had his head turned to the right. At this point in the Z-film, he's got his hand over his face.

How could JFK's head be above the top of the freeway sign in the Zapruder film? Look how high the sign is in Willis.

He is sitting in the well of the back of the limo. That sign is towering above people standing on the sidewalk. So, how could his head be above the top of the sign in Zapruder?

But, don't believe he put his hand over his face because he didn't. That's more art. And notice that he does not have his head turned to the street. He was just looking straight ahead and undoubtedly with a disturbed, stressed look on his face, which they covered up with the hand. 

So, the hand in Zapruder is fake, and so is the implication that he had his head turned to the right in Willis. They used paint to accomplish that. 

By this point, JFK was already in a rattled state from having been shot with the dart and with the drug or drugs seeping into him. They covered his face in the Z-film because his face must have shown that he was stricken. 

JFK was shot in the back high on the hill, just a little past the Book Depository and before the Croft photo was taken since he was already hit in that photo. That may be the most profound thing you can say about the JFK assassination, after the fact that Oswald was standing in the doorway during the shooting. 

One cannot exaggerate the importance that the Stemmons freeway sign has in the Zapruder film. It is like the magician's curtain. It is the division between the "before" and "after." And I have no doubt that the sign was enlarged, manipulated and enhanced. 

Here is a comparison of the sign in Zapruder with the real sign.

In Zapruder, the sign is larger, and it is much more pervasive. It provides more coverage. And one way they got it to provide more coverage was to make the angle of it different. It faces the street more in Zapruder.

They wanted everything to happen behind that sign, and by everything I mean the action of the so-called Single Bullet that supposedly traversed Kennedy and Connally before settling in Connally's thigh before it "fell out" while he was on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital

In the Zapruder film, the story is that Kennedy reached the sign unharmed, however, it does contain a glitch because it shows Kennedy as having stopped waving before he reached the sign. 

Now, if he wasn't harmed, why would he do that, stop waving and put his hand over his face? He was a politician out in public, and this was a political trip. He wouldn't have done that. I suspect that hand over his face is fake, but, he did stop waving, as we can see in the Croft and other photos. And the reason he stopped waving is because he was shot. And notice how fake the hand looks. If he brought his right hand up to his face, the thumb would be on the outside. Try it yourself. 

You see? It's just another crude alteration. 

So, at what Zapruder film was JFK hit for the first time? I'm finding claims that are all over the place, but officially speaking, and in accordance with the official story, at what frame was he hit? Again, I'm not talking about reality; I am talking about dogma. 

The answer to that is pretty clear-cut, and it's just what I thought they were trying to claim: that JFK was hit behind the curtain of the Stemmons freeway sign.

Here's a quote from the website of John McAdams, and I presume you know who he is: the academic, professorial dean of JFK officialdom. 

"Most lone assassin theorists see John Connally's movements in the Zapruder film as showing that he was hit by a bullet at frame 223."

Do I agree with that? No, I do not, but that's not the issue because we knowthat the whole narrative is false. The question is not what happened but what they were trying to say with what they did to the Zapruder film. So, if they're claiming that Connally got hit there with the same bullet that hit Kennedy, then obviously, they're saying that Kennedy got hit there. Because: we can just disregard the time it took for the bullet to pass from Kennedy to Connally, had it done that. 

So they claim that JFK got hit at 223, and you will notice that at 223, JFK was completely out of view. And I say that was the whole purpose of developing the scenario this way. Because: how would a man react if a bullet tore through his neck from back to front, traversing him? It has never happened before or since, that I know of. And it didn't even happen then. 

But, it could happen. So, what would happen, what would be his reaction if it did happen? What would we see him do?

I suppose it's for educated guesses to say, but since I'm educated, I'll render a guess. I think the man would collapse, and I think there is a very good chance he would lose consciousness. 

But obviously, that didn't happen or anything close to it. So, they for sure did not want to show the impact. 

But, if JKF wasn't hit until 223, it means that he should not have exhibited any untoward behavior prior to 223. 

So why then, did he stop waving and put his hand over his face before passing behind the sign?

He was a politician, out in public. He was "on." He wouldn't have done that. He didn't do it. They did it. They did it to cover up his face because of the expression on his face; an expression that resulted from his having been shot. 

JFK was hit in the back rather high on the hill, just a little past the Depository, with a frozen projectile. That's what caused him to stop waving and show the quizzical look that Jackie talked about. He was showing that look here, and that's why they covered up his face.  Because: in their story, he wasn't hit yet. But in reality, he was.   

 

  

 

Another weird thing about the Zapruder film is that it shows Kennedy covering his face with his hand. So, he had his head turned towards the spectators on his right, and he was waving. 

 But then, 6 frames later:

After 8 more frames: 

Nobody reported Kennedy putting his hand over his face. Jackie never said he did either. She said that before he was shot he had a "quizzical" look on his face. Interesting choice of word, don't you think? Since when does a person get shot and look quizzical? But, if he was shot with an ice dart which he barely felt, he might feel like something just happened, but he's not sure what. And so, he would look quizzical. 

But, covering his face doesn't make sense whether he was hit with a dart or a bullet. And again, nobody said he did that. So, I assume he didn't do it, and they fabricated this. Why? I presume because they didn't want us to see the look on his face. 

He emerges from behind the sign in a panic. and I agree with those who say he was trying to dislodge something from his airway. It may not have been a bullet. It may have just been blood. But, that was very different from this. If he was already shot here, then something else must have happened later to cause him to react the way he does in 225 onward. So, if he was already shot here, there had to be a separate shot that came after. 

So, I really think that what they did here was try to use the sign to distinguish the "before" and "after".  No damage to him before the sign, and all the damage after the sign (except for the fatal head shot).  That's the story they were trying to tell in what they did to the Zapruder film. They wanted it to all happen behind the sign, except for the fatal head shot. 

  

I have the freeway sign circled in this aerial view of Dealey Plaza. You can see how far away it was from the top of the Plaza at the intersection of Elm and Houston. 

And you can visually estimate where Zapruder was, opposite the pedestal that is clearly in view. Now remember how slow the limo was going. So, how long would it have taken to reach that sign? A lot longer than it appears in the film. In the Z-film, you can see the sign at the top of the hill.

Do you see it in the lower right corner? What's it doing way up there? That is truly absurd. I keep telling you that they cut out a huge swath of the film to remove the part where JFK rode down the hill after being shot in the back.

And why is the sign at this angle when it was perpendicular to the road, as street signs always are?

See what I mean?

That sign would not appear the way it does in the Zapruder film. And it would not appear where it is in the Zapruder film. They decided to use that sign as the magician's curtain. 

"Look at President Kennedy. He seems fine when he disappears behind the freeway sign. Then, when he re-emerges, he is obviously in great trouble. So, everything happened behind the sign. Everything, that is, except the fatal head shot. But, nothing happened to him before he passed behind that sign. If you are wondering when the Magic Bullet struck him and traversed him, it was behind that sign. I'm sorry we don't have footage of it, but you see, he was behind the sign. Behind the sign, behind the sign, behind the sign. It all happened behind the sign."

We been played, folks, and they used the Zapruder film to play us. 

   

I am very pleased to announce that my next film project has been launched, The Pro Bono Watchman.  It will star Mike Gassaway, who is one of the most esteemed actors in the Austin film community. Mike is in the current blockbuster Greenland, which stars Gerard Butler. He recently starred in a British film called God 2 in which he played the leading role of God. Of course, Mike also played the flamboyant and bombastic Senator Harlan Cruthers in My Stretch of Texas Ground, who never met a war he didn't like.

In The Pro Bono Watchman, Mike will play a retired lawyer who is spending his time at home with his wife who is dying of cancer, but then a close friend asks him for a favor that concerns a 6 year old girl. That's all I can tell you.  

But, it is a very moving story, and I know that viewers will be affected emotionally. 

The film will be directed by Ray Spivey, who directed Mike in the award-winning film Writer's Block. Ray will also be producing, and he has already begun. The film is in pre-production now. 

It will also star George Cory Welder and Bobbie Grace from His Stretch of Texas Ground, and Jennifer Gunderson, who played the Security Officer who flirted with Abdul Latif Hassan in My Stretch of Texas Ground. It will also feature Carlton Caudle, who appeared in both My Stretch and His Stretch. There is still more casting to do, as there are 22 speaking roles. 

The film will be edited by Jeff Stolhand.

And there is another element of the film that I am very excited about, which is a song written by Roger Brown and sung by Christy Mims, called I've Had It With You. It is an absolutely gorgeous ballad, and Christy's voice in it soars. This song will play at a gripping point in the film, and I know it will be riveting.  

I wrote this screenplay for Mike Gassaway, and I know he is going to deliver a powerful performance as Hank Cassidy. 

My Stretch of Texas Ground has been added to the Filmocracy.com platform. It is a platform that specializes in award-winning films, ones that have done well at film festivals, as My Stretch of Texas Ground has. They came to me and asked me about adding it, and I agreed. I didn't know about Filmocracy, but, I feel honored and pleased, and I'll do everything I can to expose this very bold, original, and thought-provoking film to more people.

http://filmocracy.com

Here are the three ex-Presidents, celebrating the inauguration and the peaceful transfer of power. The guy in the middle, George W. Bush, killed well over a million people in two needless wars that were based on lies. One of those wars is still raging today, 20 years later. And Clinton and Obama didn't kill as many, but they still killed an awful lot- in Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, the Balkans, etc. Each one of these men killed a lot more people than Trump did. And, it's not that he didn't kill any. Just a few days into his term, he ordered the Raid on Yakla which killed 8 women and 7 children.  But, in sheer numbers, he killed fewer people than any of these three icons.  Call me weird, but I rate Presidents by how many people they kill, and the less the better. And by that standard, Trump has got them all beat.  

Trump mentioned in his farewell speech that he was the only   

 I've been asked to review the insights that came from my November 2012 Altgens reenactment in Dealey Plaza. It certainly was worthwhile.  We'll start with this photo.

 As in the Altgens photo, it appears that Doorman is standing next to the white column. I wasn't. I was standing in the middle of the doorway. That cinching up of me next to the column is the result of parallax. Altgens' angle cut his camera off from the west side of the doorway. So I, like Doorman, who was Oswald, stood in the center. 

This collage shows the likeness of the view, but keep in mind taht the Altgens photo is highly manipulated, and I'm not sure how they did it. Why, for instance, is the monument leaning in Altgens'? But, I am sure that nobody could duplicate the camera field better than we did.

This collage demonstrates that visoring one's eyes with one's hands cannot possibly blacken out the whole face. 

They blackened out his face on the left. Why? Because he was Lovelady. 

Here is another version of it, and again, it proves that you can't cast your whole face in deep black shadow by visoring your eyes with your hands. 

This next collage shows that if you're wearing a plaid shirt, as I was, it's no going to appear splotchy like Doorman's shirt.

That's not a shirt pattern we're seeing on Doorman. It's light reflection and distortion due to blowing up the picture so much. Plaid means horizontal and vertical lines crossing forming boxes. Think checkerboard. There isn't a single box on Doorman's shirt.

On the guy on the right below in the tie, I had him saluting with his right arm just to try to duplicate the action that some were claiming.

Really, it's ridiculous, and no one could duplicate what we see there on the left. It isn't real. That man in tie was crossing both arms across his chest. And you can see the point of his right shoulder where is right arm is coming down. I put an arrow there. So, what is that white thing? It's nothing. It's not his arm. It's not his elbow. It is nothing. It is just an obfuscation they added, along with the big tall hair on the AA woman. 

This collage reveals shows several things. It shows that Doorman's cuff could not possibly overlie the Blackman's neck, as we see in the Altgens photo. They stuck the Black Man in there. There was a black man there, Carl Jones, but he was mostly out of visibility to Altgens' camera. He was actually leaning against the wall. You can't do that today because there is a railing there that extends out quite a bit.

So, in Altgens', Doorman's cuff seems to be overlying the neck and upper chest of the Black Man, but it's impossible because Doorman is twelve feet away from him, as I was. And notice the anatomical completeness of both me and the man standing behind me. There is no weird melding and welding like we see in the juxtaposition of the two in Altgens. That is physically, photographically, and optically impossible in Altgens'. It was so badly and crudely altered, and probably because they were rushing like crazy. So, why did they put that guy in there? To cover up the uniqueness of Oswald's Russian shirt. 

I'll just share one more. 

Notice that both Doorman and I have vee-shaped t-shirts. Mine was store-bought. I went out and bought a pack of them. My t-shirt looks vee because it was vee. And likewise, Doorman's t-shirt looks vee because it was vee, except his wasn't store-bought. Oswald had the habit of stretching and deforming the collars of his t-shirts. It was a habit of his.

That is what we are seeing in the Altgens' photo.

Oswald really, truly was standing in the doorway during the shooting of JFK. Of course, admitting it destroys the entire official story of the JFK assassination. So, Government won't admit it; nor will Media or the Educational Establishment. But, it's OK because it isn't going away. The evidence is still going to be there 5, 10, 15, 20 or however many years it takes for the truth to prevail. This genie can't be put back into the bottle. It truly is over- for them, because people can look at this right now, and if they are intelligent and honest, they'll see that I'm right. Stop the lies; Oswald outside. 

 On the personal front, we had a meeting of the Politburo for His Stretch of Texas Ground, and it was to watch the rough cut together. It was at the home of our star, Jeff Weber, who is in the center of the photo. Next to me on the other side is George Welder. The female is Hailley Lauren, who, like Jeff, is an alumnus from the first film, My Stretch of Texas Ground. And, the big guy on the outside on the other side is Jeff Caperton. 

The new film is looking good. It's got a great arc, a fast pace, some cunning surprises, and even some cute humor. After collecting everyone's suggestions, I submitted guidance to our editor Jeff Stolhand, and he is now hard at work perfecting the film.

It's a great experience making a film with people because you get bonded; you stay bonded; and it's a lasting thing. These actors really did great by my characters and by me.  

We know very little about what Oswald told interrogators, and the holes in their reports are massive. For example, the only thing we know about their questioning him about the killing of JFK is that he denied doing it and that he was out with Bill Shelley in front during it. Did they ask him why he left the doorway and went to the 2nd floor lunch room? Because plenty of people since then have asked that question. And often they like to mock it, saying things like, "Nothing tops off an assassination better than a Coke." 

I don't think for one second that Oswald left the doorway to go to the lunch room to get a Coke. He did get one when he was there, and no, he did not get change from anyone. But, he got it after his encounter with Baker and Truly, not before. 

I can cite two pieces of evidence that there was some kind of commotion in the doorway. The first is the fact that Dave Wiegman, while riding in the press car, after passing the doorway, he swung around and shot it again. He did a second pan of the doorway. Why did he do that?  Something must have caught his attention. He either heard some commotion or saw some movement in his peripheral vision. The second thing is that Roy Schaefer, who did newspaper photo work for 35 years, said that there are signs of masking in the Altgens doorway that indicate severe alteration. 

So, what was the commotion? I suspect it was Bill Shelley telling Oswald to go inside. 

We know that Shelley was one of the first ones out there on the steps. He was out there before Lovelady. Shelley was there to make sure Oswald didn't wander into Dealey Plaza. Shelley was the sentry. And again, I will refer you to William Weston, The Sniper'sNest, so that you understand that the TSBD was a CIA operation.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/6017-spiders-web/

The 2nd floor lunch room was the first sighting of Oswald after the assassination, and inside the doorway was the last sighting of Oswald before the assassination, by Carolyn Arnold. And that is exactly what happened. He went to the doorway before the assassination and was there during the assassination, but he left early for the lunch room, and probably by order of Bill Shelley. 

What about the Tippit murder? What was said about it between Oswald and his interrogators? We don't know anything except that Oswald denied killing him. We don't know what Oswald said concerning why he went to the theater. We don't know what he said about how he got to the theater. We don't know if he said that he he knew Tippit, or knew of him, or had ever met him, ever. I presume that Oswald did not know Tippit, and that's because he referred to him as a policeman, and it isn't normal to refer to someone you know in such a generic way. Plus, Oswald's whole mannerism at the time exuded that he didn't know the officer.  

It is getting increasingly harder to find the entire Midnight Press Conference even though it was barely one minute long. Here it is in its entirety.

https://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/01/lee-harvey-oswald.html

The reason stated for holding the Midnight  Press Conference was to give the press a chance to question Oswald, but I don't buy it. Since when, on the night of a murder, does law enforcement care about doing that? Name one other time that law enforcement has done it? You can't. There has been no other time. And it was extremely risky. Oswald did help himself at the MPP. He certainly came across as mature, intelligent, and civilized. In a word, he came across as innocent. And that's probably why they aborted it so fast. 

But, let's get back to the Tippit murder. It appears that they didn't ask Oswald why he went to the theater, how he got to the theater, whether he was at 10th and Patton, whether he saw Tippit that day or had ever seen or known Tippit, why he had a gun on him, and where he intended to go after leaving the theater. 

Those are all questions that police interrogators would ask, and if you've ever watched Law and Order, you would know that. My favorite L&O detective, by the way, was Lenny Briscoe, played by Jerry Orbach.   

So, why didn't Captain Fritz ask Oswald those questions? I suspect it was because the FBI was there, and they were the ones who were really calling the shots. And when I say, "they" I mean James W. Bookhout. He was the top FBI liaison to the Dallas Police, and he attended every Oswald interrogation. He is the only one besides Fritz who attended every one of them.  

But, is it that they asked him, but they just didn't write it down or report it? I don't think so because at the MPP, Oswald said, "Nobody has said that to me yet." He said that only reporters in the hall asked him if he shot Kennedy. And when reporters told him that he had been charged with JFK's murder, he was truly surprised. 

So, how did they question Oswald without revealing to him that they suspected he shot JFK, and why did they question him that way?

It sounds like they asked him where he was during the motorcade, and he said he was out with Bill Shelley in front, and then they asked him about what he did afterwards, without even hinting that he was the one and only suspect. Why did they do that? They asked him if he owned a rifle, and he said no, but why didn't they pressure him with their so-called evidence to see if they could break him? 

Remember why Oswald came under suspicion. It's because he left work. Truly falsely reported that Oswald was the only worker unaccounted for. That wasn't true. For example, Charles Givens wasn't accounted for, and there were probably others. But, why would Oswald's mere absence on an afternoon in which work did  NOT resume trigger suspicion that he killed Kennedy? And if Truly could arose suspicion just from knowing that Oswald had left, why didn't Oswald's being on the 2nd floor arose suspicion in him? Why did he so quickly ease Baker's mind about Oswald? "I know this man; he works for me" and then, a little later, report to police that Oswald was missing? In other words, Truly must have had one attitude with Baker, and the exact opposite attitude with whomever he informed about Oswald leaving. It wasn't just the words but the attitude behind the words.   

The answer is that Truly was in on it. The TSBD was a CIA front company, and Truly was a lot more than the "superintendent" of the building. Truly did not want Oswald to be arrested by Baker because the plan was that Oswald would be sent to the theater, armed, where he would, hopefully, be shot by police. And that almost happened. Shooting Oswald in the basement was Plan B; and actually Plan  C, because I believe they planned to kill Oswald at the MPP. That was the real purpose of it. But, they just couldn't get their ducks in a row. We don't have any proven images of the real Jack Ruby at the MPP, while we do have fake ones. Ruby was definitely at the DPD that night, and there is this image of him in the hallway. But, we don't have an image of him in the room in which the MPP was held. 

They, reportedly, interviewed Oswald for 13 hours- over half a day. For most people, including me, if police were interviewing me about my whole life, I'd run out of things to say in less than half a day. 

 

 

 Covid Update:  January 16, 2021

A news piece was widely circulated a couple days ago that reportedly began when a Texas trauma surgeon tweeted that nearly all the Covid patients she's seen have wound up with severe scarring in their lungs, and that's true even among the asymptomatic. 

Her name is Dr. Brittany Bankhead-Kendall. She is obviously a young woman. She is an assistant professor of surgery at Texas Tech, and given that she was still a surgical resident in 2019, that's amazing.  

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-lungs-scarring-smokers-lungs/

So, she's claiming that people who have a positive Covid test but no symptoms- and there are a lot of people in that category- have lungs that look as bad on x-ray as those who get clinically ill. 

And she quantified it. She said that people who develop Covid symptoms have a severe x-ray "every time" while among those who don't get visibly ill but test positive, 70 to 80 percent have a severe x-ray.

I find that hard to believe, and therefore, I don't believe it. But, before we get to that, let's ponder some things. 

First, why are Covid patients going to a trauma surgeon? They don't need surgery, do they? Having Covid doesn't necessitate surgery, does it? 

But, the article states that she has treated thousands of Covid patients since March. Thousands? She's a surgeon, and I assume she spends most of her time operating, and operations take time. So, I find it hard to believe that she could have seen thousands of Covid patients since March,  and I don't understand why she would see any Covid patients at all. Obviously, a person who has Covid could also experience trauma and need surgery. But, in that case, she would not be treating them for Covid. It makes no sense that among trauma patients that such a high percentage would have Covid, and it makes no sense for a trauma surgeon to be treating anyone for Covid. 

But, what bothers me most is her claim that asymptomatic positives have lungs that look as bad on x-ray as the clinically sick. This graphic was published with the article:

So, on the left is a normal chest x-ray, although that's clearer than average, by far. That's idyllic. Then there's the smoker's lung and the Covid lung which looks much worse. So, she's claiming that people who test positive for Covid but have no symptoms have lungs that look like that on the right? I don't believe it. Not for a second. I don't believe that anyone could have lungs as bad as those on the right without having symptoms/complaints. But, how is it that she is x-raying asymptomatic people? If they are asymptomatic, surely they don't need to see a surgeon. Why are asymptomatic people going to a trauma surgeon in the first place? 

And where is she finding the time to x-ray asymptomatic people? And who is paying for it? Are insurance companies paying for that? Is the government? The medical system is under strain, right? Hospitals are full? Doctors are working overtime? So, where is the slack to start x-raying asymptomatic people? 

But, other medical sources have made claims that contradict what Dr. Bankhead-Kendall said. These sources have claimed that Covid patients, even symptomatic ones, often have healthy looking chest -rays. 

• A significant percentage of patients with COVID-19 have normal chest CTs or x-rays. For those patients, a normal imaging result could falsely convince them that they are healthy. If they believe they are healthy, they are at greater risk of spreading the virus to others.

https://blog.radiology.virginia.edu/covid-19-and-imaging/

Here's another one that starts with:

Patients presenting at urgent care centers with symptoms that warrant suspicion of COVID-19 may have normal chest X-rays yet still be infected with SARS-CoV-2, according to findings of a study published online April 13 in the Journal of Urgent Care Medicine (JUCM).

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/928946

Be aware that it's always been the case that people can test positive for a virus without being sick. Take Epstein-Barr. They say that half the population is infected with it, but only a small percentage have symptoms. And it's not just viruses. There are many people who test positive for tuberculosis without being sick; who have no clinical symptoms or impairments. Remember that hospital personnel are given TB skin tests routinely, and some have positive reactions, yet both they and their chest x-rays look fine.  

So, there is often discord between microbial test results and symptomatology. But when it comes to the presence of gross pathology and symptomatology, that's a different matter. You can't tell me that someone could have lungs like the ones on the right without feeling it; without being aware that they have a problem. How could lungs like that ventilate normally? 

So, never mind thousands, I would like to be shown even one person with a positive Covid test, who is walking around skipping and singing from not being sick, who, when you take their chest x-ray, it looks like the image on the right. 

What this is is a grossly exaggerated propaganda piece intended to frighten people into getting vaccinated. Here's Dr. BK's last word:

"There is no long-term implication of a vaccine that could ever be as bad as the long-term implications of COVID."

Oh really. Yet a borderline obese 74 year old, Donald Trump, got Covid and breezed through it in 3 days and was back to campaigning 16 hours a day. And note that there have been no reports of Trump being a "long-hauler."  His wife had it too, symptomatically.  His son had it too, but asymptomatically.. You figure they all have x-rays that look like the one on the right, Dr. BK? Because that is what your article not only implies but states outright, and I'm calling it what it is: bull shit. 

 

 

  

Ironically, there are more matching points between Oswald and Doorman than there are between these two figures. "They are two different women." You see how easy it is to deny reality? All you have to do is flap your lips or hit a few keys.  

 

It's very clear now that Robert Groden was hoaxed when he met with a woman who claimed to be Mrs. Jeraldean Reid who said that she was making change for Oswald during the shooting. Mrs. Jeraldean Reid testified to the Warren Commission as Mrs. Robert Reid, and she claimed that she, herself, was outside watching the motorcade with her boss, Mr. Campbell, and that right afterwards, she returned to her office, and she encountered Oswald on the 2nd floor. It was exactly 2 minutes after the shooting. They timed it afterwards, just as they did for Marrion Baker. She said, in her testimony, which was given under oath, that Oswald already had a Coke when she saw him, and that he said nothing to her at all when they passed.  Read it yourself: 

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/reid.htm 

Some have tried to claim that that was someone else, but no, that was Jeraldean Reid. Her husband's name was Robert, as you can see on their mutual gravestone. She died in 1973, just 10 years after the assassination. 

So, that's definitely her, and Groden's story is a pile of horse manure. But, I don't say he made it up. I believe that he met with somebody who claimed to be Mrs. Jeraldean Reid and that she told him that cockamamie story.

But, the reason I am telling you this is because I suspect it's not the only time such a thing happened. I have grave doubts about Earl Getz meeting with the real Carolyn Arnold in 1978. 

The Carolyn Arnold that Getz met with denied saying the things that were written up by FBI Agent Richard Emberley resulting from his interview of Carolyn Arnold on November 26, 1963 in which she said that she believed that she saw Oswald at the doorway shortly before the assassination.  She said he was at the doorway but inside the glass. Remember, the front entrance was all glass. 

So, she claimed that Oswald hadn't stepped out yet, that he was peering through the glass from the inside, and she saw him. She was in front of the steps, and you can see her in the Wiegman film. 

Now, Emberley put a time of 12:15 on that, but that can't possibly be true, and that's because Caroline was in the company of two other young secretaries, and they all reported not going outside until 12:25. Caroline Arnold was the pregnant one.

So, I and Professor Gerald McKnight believe that Emberley generated the time of 12:15 himself in order to, theoretically, leave Oswald enough time to get up to the 6th floor. And by the way, that came directly from the mouth of Dr. McKnight because I talked to him about it on the phone. 

But, higher-ups at the FBI were smarter than Emberley, and they realized that it still looked bad, real bad, for Oswald to be downstairs, milling around, and looking through the glass as late as 12:15. There was a Sniper's Nest to build, a rifle to assemble- and using a dime as a screwdriver, to boot. 

So, they went back to the TSBD in March 1964 and got a signed statement from Carolyn Arnold saying that she did not see Lee Harvey Oswald at all that day. And let her state the real time she went outside, which was 12:25.

But, the Carolyn Arnold that Getz met with in 1978 was apparently unaware that Carolyn Arnold had signed that statement in 1964 stating that she didn't see Oswald on 11/22/63.

And that's when the 1978 Carolyn Arnold went onandon about having seen Oswald eating in the 2nd floor lunch room as she was making her way downstairs at 12:25. She said that he was sitting alone at a table, apparently eating.

There isn't a snowball's chance in Hell that that is true. First, Oswald told investigators where he ate; the 1st floor lunch room. Now, why would he lie about where he ate? He wouldn't. He couldn't. He didn't. But second, he AlWAYS ate in the 21st floor lunch room, and for multiple reasons: That is where the warehouse workers AKA order-fillers, were supposed to eat. They had a shelf there where you could put your lunch until lunchtime, which he used and did use that day. That's where he put his cheese sandwich and apple which he brought from Mrs. Paine's house. Then, there was also the fact that there was usually a daily newspaper put there, which Oswald liked to read or browse through while he was eating. 

Furthermore, in his own statements, Oswald said that he ate early in the lunch break, that as soon as they broke for lunch that he went and ate. And they broke for lunch early that day because of the motorcade. It was at 11:45.

So, there is absolutely no chance that Oswald was sitting in the 2nd floor lunch room eating at 11:25. That story is a complete fabrication. 

So, why did they come up with it? They came up with it because the HSCA was going on, and Doorway Man was in the spotlight again.  And obviously, if Oswald was in the doorway during the shooting then he was completely exonerated. 

So, the purpose of this alternate story was to draw people away from accepting the doorway as being Oswald's alibi. It created a phony alibi for him that they knew could never stick because it's false. You should realize that the official story is a lie, but it will never be supplanted by another lie. So, they, the perpetrators and their allies, are safe telling alternate stories that are lies. And they know that. That's why they didn't hesitate to spread the phony story that Jack Ruby "watched the fireworks" with someone in Dealey Plaza.  As recently as 2017, the media was pushing that. They were pushing it like crazy. Why? Because the most important consideration that they have about Jack Ruby is that no one realize that he was completely and totally innocent. So, they want to heap  not just the Oswald assassination on him, but the JFK assassination too, so that his guilt is layers deep. In reality, he had no guilt at all. He was a very decent man. 

So, why would the real Carolyn Arnold, if she wanted to come clean over 5000 days after the assassination, go to Earl Getz? And why would she let him speak for her? Why wouldn't she go to her Congressman? Why wouldn't she write a book? Why wouldn't she speak for herself at a press conference? Why talk to him and then disappear into the shadows again? 

I am absolutely sure that Robert Groden did not speak to the real Jeraldean Reid, and I am almost as sure that Earl Getz did not speak to the real Carolyn Arnold. These are just lies. They are phony stories that are meant to mislead people, to lead them away from the truth. And the truth is that Lee Harvey Oswald was standing in the doorway during the assassination of John F. Kennedy. 

 

 

Wow. I just replaced the image on the OIC website with this close-up, and what it shows is not just the match of the man and the clothing, but the match of the eyes, the stare, the look. It is the stare of Lee Harvey Oswald, and it absolutely insane to deny it. 

 I have done a lot, and I've been involved in many things, but this is still the ultimate evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent. There is NOTHING more powerful than this in the whole catalog of evidence. This exonerates Oswald. 

Janet Boschock Groden

• Jason Trachtenburg

   Ralph is judge and jury. Ralph's errors and his knowledge of what Lee would or would not do must not be questioned. Some of his "knowledge", as demonstrated by his statements regarding Robert, border on slander. He does not know Judyth. He does not know my husband. His research skills, quite honestly, suck.

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 25m
• Ralph Cinque

  Janet Boschock Groden

   It isn't just me, Janet. There is a whole organization of researchers, including prominent researchers, such as Attorney Mark Lane, Attorney Vincent Salandria, Jim Marrs, Professor Gerald McKnight, Professor David Wrone, and more, who say that your husband was wrong; that Oswald was the Man in the Doorway. You can see them listed here: www.oswald-innocent.com What your husband did in the 1970s, supporting the lies, chicanery, and cover-up of the evil HSCA was a horrendous betrayal. I don't know how much they paid him, but he sold out. But, he's still alive, which means, that he can still go public and renounce what he did and what he said and admit that that figure in the doorway was Oswald. You might want to point out to him that if he waits until he's dead, it will be too late, and he will be on the wrong side of history for eternity.