Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

I was sent this view of Elm Street by the Wizard. You see the Obelisk. Note that the Croft ladies were down from the Obelisk. 

That's a nice clear shot, isn't it? So, the Croft Ladies were down the hill, a little past the Obelisk. 

So, there they are down by the retaining wall, and they are below the Obelisk. But, where are the Croft Ladies in the Zapruder film? Answer: they are close to the intersection of Elm and Houston.  But first, pick up their visual cues. 

So, you have a short, heavy set AA woman who is wearing a blue dress. Next to her is a tall, thin AA woman in a dark outfit. And further down, clapping, you have an AA couple who are both in white or at least light clothing. So, let's look for them in Zapruder. 

Do you see a short AA woman in a blue dress and next to her a taller woman in a dark outfit. And a little further down, you see an AA couple in white or light clothes, presumably the husband and wife. Let's add one more: Note that in both, on the other side of the AA man in the white shirt is an AA woman in red. 

So, that is a heck of a lot of confirmation that they are the same people. But, the question is, why are they so much higher on the hill in Zapruder? They are practically at the corner of Houston Street and Elm in Zapruder, while in Crofts, they are down below the Obelisk. How is that possible? It's not. So, what's the explanation? The explanation is that they cut out a large part of the Z-film that included the Croft area. But, they went ahead and moved the spectators from the part they cut out into the part that preceded it so that if anyone went looking for them, they would find them. It's like they slid them up. 

So, the Zapruder film wasn't just altered; it was scrambled. It was a very sophisticated job, especially for the time. It was very complicated what they did. It wasn't a simple alteration; it was more like something Dr. Frankenstein would have done if he disregarded anatomical correctness. It was much more extreme than most researchers ever considered or imagined. 

And I don't think it was done all at once. They had 12 years to get it "right." It wasn't until l975 that it was shown to the public, and that was on national television with Geraldo Rivera. 

I am going to give you the link to that presentation, but first let me point out that it included that great deceiver Robert Grodin, and no explanation was given as to how Grodin obtained the Z-film.  But second, it wasn't just the Z-film; it also included network footage of  the motorcade before it got to Dealey Plaza, and then pieces of the Muchmore, Nix, and Martin films which were spliced with the Zapruder film. How did Grodin obtain all that? It was 1975; there was no internet. Those films were all in government hands. I think we should stop thinking that this was "leaked." 

Also note that in showing the film they stated what it shows that JFK was fine, that he was smiling and waving, until he reached the freeway sign. Then he was shot behind the freeway sign, and when he emerged from it, he was reacting to being shot. 

So, it all happened behind the freeway sign. That is the story of the Zapruder film, but it is a grotesque lie.  It is not what really happened. What really happened is that he was first shot high on the hill, and he stopped smiling and waving long before he got to the freeway sign. 

So, showing the Zapruder film on national television was an act of propaganda. It's purpose was to sell the Single Bullet Theory. The ones discussing it all sounded skeptical of the Warren Commission, and I'm not saying they weren't, but it was a manipulation that included them.   

One guy, who was a researcher, brought up Jack Ruby, and he went full bore into making the claim that Ruby not only killed Oswald but was deeply involved in killing JFK.  And he quoted Ruby's doctor who claimed that Ruby admitted that he killed JFK.  He claimed that this doctor claimed that Ruby claimed that you might as well say that he, Ruby, killed JFK, not Lee Oswald. And that is ridiculous. It's ridiculous to claim it, and it's ridiculous to claim that Ruby ever said it.  Ruby absolutely loved JFK.  There is no doubt about that. The idea that he was involved in killing him is preposterous. 

The allusions that Ruby made to knowing something about the JFK assassination all came from a book he was given to read,  A Texan Looks at Lyndon by J. Evetts Haley.  

I keep telling you that the "alternative" story about Jack Ruby, that he was a Mafioso and a CIA operative and an insider in the whole operation, that he killed Oswald to silence him, was sown by the plotters. It was done to sway people to the extreme opposite of the truth, the truth being that Ruby did not kill Oswald at all, that he was set up and bamboozled into thinking that he did, as we all were. 

I am giving you the link now, and it is entirely a puppet piece. These guys were all puppets, perhaps unwittingly, and perhaps not. Throughout it, there is no disputing that Oswald acted to kill President Kennedy. It is only questioned whether he acted alone. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxCH1yhGG3Q

But, let's finish on the Zapruder film because that is what this post is mainly about. The Z-film was, essentially, in government hands. It was owned by LIFE magazine for a while, but you might as well think of them as an extension of the CIA. So, they had 12 years to alter the Zapruder film, and it probably underwent a series of alterations. Why did they wait 12 years to show it to the public? Because it took them 12 years to make it tell the right story, that JFK wasn't shot until he passed behind the freeway sign. It's not true. He was shot high on the hill. 

And I hope you believe me that they didn't mind one bit if you wanted to believe in conspiracy- so long as you kept Oswald as "a" shooter, and as long as you kept Ruby as Oswald's killer.  And it's still the case. It is a very safe counter-story that has been fostered from the very beginning. They knew there were going to be disputers, and that there would always be disputers. They wanted to wind those people up and point them in the direction they wanted them to go, which was far away from the truth, which is that both Oswald and Ruby were completely and totally innocent; as innocent as you and I.