This is the Willis photo which shows us Zapruder on his pedestal in relation to the freeway sign. At the time, JFK was down the hill a ways, and Zapruder had turned with him because he was tracking him. But, just imagine that it was at the beginning when Zapruder was pointing his camera at the top of Dealey Plaza, shooting the start of the Zapruder film.

I have drawn a white ling to represent the center of his field of view. Now remember that that field of view is shaped like a cone. and it involves an angle of view that is constant. So, from that pedestal, when shooting the top of Dealey Plaza, as we see it at the start of the Zapruder film, if he had captured that freeway sign, even a little, it would have comprised an angle that is represented by the second white line that goes through the sign. And that line would have to continue all the way to the top,. Imagine how wide it would be when it got there. Yet, Zapruder's field was pretty narrow.

I'm also attaching Z-88 which captured some of the sign. Notice how narrow the camera field is. It consists of the street and the sidewalk, and that's about it. So, how could he have captured the sign? He wouldn't have. And he didn't. And I didn't either when I went there and tried it with a sign in place.

But, here is something that I think is universal: Without knowing a thing about physics, intuitively, just from our experience of taking photos all our lives, we know that standing on that pedestal and shooting the top of Dealey Plaza, he was not going to capture that sign, that his camera field could not have been that wide so close to his camera when his area of interest was so far away. No way was that sign going to get in the way of his shooting when he was starting out. He would have had to turn quite a bit before it would intrude on his image. And I proved it in Dealey Plaza.

Many people don't realize that there is a hierarchy when it comes to evidence- that some evidence trumps other evidence. In the case of Doorman, it's the photographic evidence that is supreme. And it says that Doorman was Oswald. 

It's not just the likeness of the man to Oswald, it's the likeness of their clothes. For Doorman to be Lovelady, he would have had to not only look like Oswald, but be dressed like him. And the fact is that the likeness of the man and the clothing to Oswald is so great, it makes it impossible for him not to be Oswald. You just can't have this much likeness between two unrelated men.   

And, you shouldn't fall for distracting noise. The likeness of the Doorman's hairline to that of Young Lovelady from 1957 is a sign of malfeasance. You know how variable hair is. It is constantly growing and being cut. It is being combed and styled and treated and slept on and affected by weather. So, what are the chances that someone's hair would look exactly the same over a 6 year time span? The same length, the same cut, the same degree of recession, etc. Yet, the hair of Doorman and Young Lovelady is EXACTLY the same, and it tells us that they replaced Doorman's "crown" with that of Young Lovelady. So, this wasn't about people making a mistake. It was about them deliberately altering and falsifying evidence and obstructing justice in knowingly advancing the lie that Doorman was Lovelady.

The fact is that EVERY image of Billy Lovelady was corrupted, and the only one that is uncorrupted is the one taken by Mark Lane, which is the one on the right below. All the other images of Lovelady came from Kennedy's killers. 

And when you compare the one authentic image of Billy Lovelady to Doorman, you realize that no way can they be the same man. It is the two internal images in this collage that show the same man wearing the same clothes. And the realization of that is final. Nothing can challenge it. Nothing can refute it. You are left realizing that our own government killed Kennedy. And they've been killing him every day ever since with their lies. Just as Laura was the face in the misty light, Lee Harvey Oswald was the man standing in the doorway, and that is as certain as Christ on the Cross. 

I have the November 29, 1963 LIFE magazine with frames from the Zapruder film. It came out exactly a week after the assassination and 6 days after LIFE took possession of the film from Zapruder. 

The frames they published were black and white, even though the Zapruder film was in color. And they are also very blurry, more so than the film. I am going to discuss what they published and what they didn't publish, and the latter will surprise you.  

So, their spread started with the lone motorcycle cop, and then it cut to the limo, just as it does today.  And it features the sign that we know so well. But, realize how the Zapruder film is divided and the story it tells. It's divided into two parts: before the sign and after the sign, and the story it tells is that JFK was OK until he disappeared behind the scene. Then, behind the sign, he was shot in ways we can't see, and he emerges from behind the sign stricken. 

So, that was their story, and to tell it, they quit showing JFK at frame 166. This is the last you see of him until he emerges from behind the freeway sign. I realize it is very blurry. 

Here it is from the Costella frame.

I cut that frame because they cut their frame. I cut it to match what they did. They cut it right behind JFK, and so did I. Notice that Jackie is not looking at JFK. Rather, she is working her side of the street, like a good political wife. 

So, why didn't they show any more of him unstricken? The answer is that there was no more of him unstricken. He was shot in the back right after that, and no doubt it showed. So, they weren't going to feature it. Here, for example, is frame 200. Notice that Jackie is turned and looking at JFK now, and that's because she knows that something is wrong. And he seems to be covering his face with his hand.  He didn't do that. That isn't a hand. It is paint. 

But, that is doctoring that came later. I can only guess how it originally looked. I'm sure it took years to get the Zapruder film in the shape it is today. 

So, the next thing they showed of him in LIFE magazine was him emerging from behind the sign. You see an array of frames that pretty much capture the narrative that we are familiar with, but you don't see the spectators. You don't see Babushka Lady or Charles Brehm and his son or Jean Hill and Mary Moorman. So, they omitted all those frames. Why? Well, they occur when Zapruder, apparently, failed at centering the Kennedys. This is frame 291.

 Do you think Zapruder screwed up? I don't think so. I have no reason to think he would have had any difficulty centering them at that point, since he did so before and afterwards. I know that a lot of doctoring was done to Mary Moorman. They used a still image of her and repeated it. Here is 312, in which the Kennedys have passed her, yet she is still posing to shoot. 

Notice that she is not pointing her camera at them; she's pointing it straight ahead. It's a still image. They had huge problems with Mary Moorman, and as I have been saying for years, they wound up ditching her photo and replacing it with one taken by Babushka Lady. Apparently, Mary captured something that they did not want us to see. And they eventually made it that Mary didn't take her photo until after the fatal head shot. Mary said, at the time and all along, that she took her photo at the time of the first shot, but they changed it to her not taking it until after the last shot. 

I spent over a year studying the Moorman photo and her whole saga, and I am as sure as ever that she did not take it. Here is one of my posts about it, if you're interested. 

https://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2021/08/this-rendering-of-moorman-photo-shows.html

But, moving on, LIFE magazine omitted 313, when his head exploded from the fatal head  shot. And they didn't mention the fatal head shot. They made it that he was shot behind the sign, and that was it. They didn't say he was shot again. They just said that he collapsed into Jackie, and they showed a frame of it. I think it was 321. 

On the right, they actually painted in eyes on Jackie. If you look closely, you'll see that she has these dark round eyes that are scary.

That does not occur in the film, so they must have done it with paint. And, notice how they whitened his face and the front of his head. It's stark white, isn't it? They didn't want  to admit that he was shot. They just said: "The President collapses on his wife's shoulder." They did not state or imply that he was shot. and I understand why. It was a shot taken from the front, slightly in front. Right and front. And the story was going to be that all the shots came from the rear, from the 6th floor window. So, that's why they didn't want to admit that he was shot there. 

Eventually, they changed their minds and decided to highlight the fatal head shot. But, they did not include it in the 11/29 LIFE. 

The final section shows a lot of frames of Jackie crawling on the back hood of the limo. You don't see Clint Hill until he's climbing up. In the film, you see him running and overtaking the moving limo. But, of course, it was sped up. The limo was either stopped completely or going no more than 2 or 3 miles per hour. 

So, the bottom line is that they carefully avoided showing JFK getting shot in the back high on the hill, but that is what happened. And they avoided showing the fatal head shot or including it in the narrative. They left out all the familiar spectators on the south side of Elm. And they avoided showing Clint Hill running and catching up with the limo.  

 Jack Ruby was innocent, and the Dallas Police killed Oswald; and their actions speak of their guilt. 

Consider first that they announced that Oswald was in grave danger, that they expected him to be attacked when they did the jail transfer. You should listen to the DPD spokesmen on Dallas morning radio that morning. 

They said they got over 100 calls threatening Oswald's life. Do you believe that? Do you think that someone bent on killing Oswald would call the police to warn them that he was going to do it? Why would anyone do that? 

And one cop who took such a call actually said that he recognized Jack Ruby's voice on the line threatening to kill Oswald. If that was true, why didn't he send officers to Ruby's apartment to arrest him right away? It's against the law to threaten to kill someone- then and now. 

So, is there any chance that it's true? No. There isn't the slightest chance. Ruby lived in a small apartment with his roommate, George Senator and his dogs. George gave a complete accounting of Ruby's Sunday morning to the WC. The only call that occurred was Karen Carlin calling him. If Ruby had called the Dallas Police to threaten to kill Oswald, Senator would have known about it. And Ruby said, over and over, that he NEVER had a thought to kill Oswald- not once the whole weekend. There is no chance that Ruby made such a call.  The officer claiming it lied. 

And I don't believe there were any such calls, but if there were, why did the Dallas Police proceed with the pageant-like transfer? They didn't  have to do it. No one was forcing them to do it. They had complete control. They could have moved Oswald in secret, in the dead of night, with no fanfare. If they were really worried about his safety, if they really expected him to be attacked, wouldn't they have done that?  Why did they have to turn it into a show, into a televised spectacle? They weren't in the entertainment business. They were in the police business. Who said there had to be a media extravaganza in moving Oswald to the County Jail? That was a choice, not a necessity. The DPD surely could have gotten him there safely, if they wanted to.  So, why did they do something that they knew was very risky when they didn't have to? They could easily have called it off, and I mean without any hassle. What would have been the downside of calling it off? None.  

There is simply no excuse for their actions; for what they did. Their actions reek of guilt- the guilt of planning Oswald's televised murder.

But, let's look closely at their actions. They filled the basement with reporters and cameramen. They had a lot of detectives there, for security, who were lined up on the south wall of the garage. The reporters and cameramen were on the north side. So, as Fritz, and then the trio of Leavelle, Oswald, and Graves came out the corner door of the Jail Office, the concern had to be the north side where the reporters and cameramen were. They weren't worried that one of the detectives was going to shoot Oswald, were they? So, you'd think that their focus would be to look to their left. 

But, when they came out, Fritz turned around and nodded back at the trio. This is a single frame, so you can't see motion, but he was nodding his head here.

It was obviously a signal. And then, the trio came out. 

So, on our left, which was their right, there was the wall with the detectives. So, there wasn't going to be an attack from that side. If there was going to be an attack, it was going to come from the other side. So, it stood to reason that Leavelle and Graves would turn their heads and eyes to their left to visualize a threat. However, both of them made a point NOT to look that direction. They both acted like horses with blinders on, looking straight ahead. They didn't turn their heads or eyes at all. They just looked deadpan straight ahead- like zombies.  Then, just as Bookhout was coming in, Leavelle deliberately turned his head to his right to avoid seeing him. This is Leavelle looking away. 

So, Leavelle had his head turned towards the wall with the detectives, and that's because he knew Bookhout was coming in and he didn't want to see him. 

Graves was in on it too. Bookhout had to scurry right in front of him, and Graves just pretended not to see him. In this frame, Graves is looking down. He does not want to look at the shooter, and he doesn't want to take action until after  the shot goes off. And with his hand, he's helping him. He's shoving him a little bit to get him positioned. 

So, with eyes gazing down, Graves gives Bookhout a good hard shove to get him situated in front of everyone. 

Supposedly, Graves still hasn't seen the Shooter. If he had, he'd be looking at him, right? Can you see that Graves is looking down and not at the shooter? But, he's still shoving the shooter, trying to get him where he thinks he should be.  

So, with help from Graves, Bookhout is in position for what is coming next. And notice that Oswald is still on his feet. 

What happens next is that the shooter does a swan dive into the waiting arms of the police. He didn't try to run away. But, if he was going to give up, why didn't he just drop his gun and raise his arms in the air? Isn't that what surrendering criminals do? Have you ever heard of a criminal diving into the arms of the police? 

So then, they grab him, but he wasn't resisting. Never once did he try to punch or kick or spit or elbow. He wasn't being aggressive at all. He was being passive. So, why didn't they quickly get handcuffs on him? Isn't that what police do in that situation? Of course, it is.  

Then, Bookhout's hat must have fallen off, and maybe his toupee too. So, Detective Miller put something over his head. 

Miller really did do that, and if you watch it in motion, there will be no denying it. 

No one can deny that that's what happened: he covered the shooter's bare head. 

Then, they split up. Leavelle stays with Oswald, who is now on the ground, and the others, like a herd of penguins, start moving Bookhout towards the jail office door. 

There is no martial activity going on. There is no fighting. Bookhout isn't doing anything hostile, and the Penguins are just trying to get him inside without exposing him to the cameras. They didn't want to expose him because he was Bookhout and not Ruby.

Then, it went to a sea of bodies to obstruct the view. 

And by the time it cleared, it was all over and Oswald and Bookhout were gone. We never saw how Oswald made it inside. That was deliberately covered up. And we never saw Bookhout again either. They both just disappeared.

There were a lot of behind the whale frames. 

That big body obstructing the view for so long was famed photographer Bob Jackson. Of course, he wasn't really that big; they did photographic manipulation to turn him into a whale. And when he finally got out of the way, it was over. 

All done. Nothing more to see. Thrilling police work though, wasn't it? 

Now, anyone who buys this official crap is a schmo. This was a spectacle, a theatrical spectacle. And Oswald was not shot in the garage. He was shot afterwards in the Jail office. They had silencers for 38s in 1963. 

And Ruby wasn't in the garage during the spectacle. He was already being held up on the 5th floor, and they slipped him into the story for the first time at 3 pm when they brought him down to the 3rd floor for his first session with Fritz. 

What the Dallas Police did, in converting a 40 foot walk to put Oswald in a car into a puffed-up, televised spectacle, was designed to be a platform to kill him. It was all theater because they didn't shoot him for real until later.  

FBI Agent James Bookhout masqueraded as Ruby, and there was no  struggle between him and cops. They were all working together to keep him covered up as they waltzed him inside. There was no fighting or resisting. It was a dog and pony show, and every bit of it was dripping with guilt. 

Jack Ruby was innocent, and if you don't know that, you might as well not know anything about the JFK assassination. There is no understanding of what happened that weekend without realizing that Jack Ruby was innocent.  

 

There is a myth that we don't see the Stemmons Freeway sign in the Zapruder film until frame 133. It's either a myth or a lie because it first pops up at frame 88 and it stays until frame 110. Then it vanishes again but without a break in the video. It appears that Zapruder just turned left or counterclockwise, which was back up the hill, and it was to center on a lone motorcycle cop. 

But then, there is a break between 132 and 133. So, it goes from the lone motorcycle cop in the road to the full-on motorcade, with the limo on Elm and the follow-cars behind him and on Houston. It's like Zapruder stopped filming for a while and then turned his camera back on. 

So, frame 133 is when the freeway sign REAPPEARS in the video. It's when it becomes visual the second time. People just forget about the first time.

But, I don't forget about it. This is a collage of frame 99. I chose it because the sign looms large in it. And compared to it is my frame 99 from my reenactment in Dealey Plaza, with me on Zapruder's pedestal, and someone holding the freeway sign overhead in the right position and angle.   

And as you can see, the freeway sign was not captured in my frame 99. It wasn't captured for a long time. I had to swing right and tracking down the hill quite a ways before the freeway emerged into the picture. 

I say again that the freeway sign in the Zapruder film is bogus. But, if it's bogus, what happened when Zapruder got to the real sign? Why don't we see two signs in the Zapruder film, first one and then the other? The reason is that they cut the real sign out completely, and I know how they did it, and I will show you. 

  This is an aerial view of Dealey Plaza showing the Stemmons Freeway sign. At the top left is frame 99 from the Zapruder film showing the fake sign they put into it. That sign is completely bogus. It's at the wrong angle to the road. Roadway signs are placed 90 degrees to the road. The sign in the Zapruder film is about 45 degrees to the road. It's turned towards the road, and it's obstructing the view more than the real sign did.

I went to Dealey Plaza and proved that from Zapruder's pedestal, when shooting the top of Elm Street, at the corner of Houston, that the Stemmons Freeway sign is not captured at all. I brought a surrogate sign and someone held it in position as I reshot the Zapruder film. If you haven't watched my video about it, here it is:

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

Please watch it and share it because it is one of the most important discoveries in JFK assassination research in the 21st century.

But, I want to focus on that Stemmons Freeway sign because that sign is wrapped in evil. Did you know that it was removed soon after the assassination? Sylvia Meagher in Accessories after the Fact, page 33, said that it was definitely gone by January 1965, but it may have been removed much earlier than that. She said it appeared to be gone in the FBI reenactments in May 1964.

So, when was the Stemmons Freeway sign installed? I don't know, but I'd be willing to bet that it was soon before the assassination. That sign was installed to kill Kennedy. It was installed as a marker for the shooters. It was meant to mark the start of the Kill Zone. There were no deadly shots before JFK reached that sign.

However, he was hit before he reached the sign. He was hit in the back high on the hill with an ice bullet that contained a paralyzing nerve agent, the effects of which we can see in the Zapruder film, where his muscles were seizing up, and his mental acuity and awareness collapsed. It was the effect of poisoning. And I want to thank Steve Kober for being the first one to proffer that JFK was hit in the back with an ice bullet that contained a paralyzing nerve agent.

I can prove to you that that sign was bogus. It said "Stemmons Freeway, keep right." But, do you know how far it was from the entrance ramp? The sign was in the top part of Dealey Plaza. The sign was much closer to the top of Dealey Plaza (the intersection) than it was to the bottom (the Triple Underpass). It was a long way from the sign to the Triple Underpass. However, the freeway ramp was a long way past the Triple Underpass. Look at the second picture, the McIntire photo.

Those cops are just starting to take the ramp, and look how far they are past the Triple Underpass. So, why would there need to be a Stemmons freeway sign warning way up where it was? It wasn't needed at all. That sign was put there to kill Kennedy.

And think about the site where it was. You do realize that Dealey Plaza is described as a park, and a park is a place where people go to bask outdoors, to play, to picnic, etc. And that grassy area in front of the pergola was meant to be a picnic area, a picture-taking site, a place to run around on the grass, to let kids play, to assemble for special events, etc. So, why would you mar it by putting an unnecessary freeway sign right in the middle of it? You wouldn't, unless you were trying to kill Kennedy with it.

JFK was hit in the back with the paralyzing nerve agent soon after he made the turn from Houston Street. The shooter was at a low window in the Dal-Tex building, probably on the 2nd floor. So, JFK rode down the hill having been hit and stricken that way and reacting to it. And they realized it as soon as they saw the Zapruder film.

Why do you think there was such an immediate fervor to take possession of the Zapruder film? It's because they saw it, and they realized what it showed, which was JFK being struck in the back high on the hill; then riding down the hill with a startled and distraught look on his face. Jackie described it as a "quizzical" look. She said that that's the first thing she noticed, that Jack had a quizzical look on his face. That was before they reached the Stemmons Freeway sign.

Then, when they reached the sign, Umbrella Man used his dart-shooting umbrella to put the dissolving flechette in JFK"s throat. And then, the real murder began. From that point on, it was all kill shots, except it didn't go well. Two shots hit Connally, and no other shot hit Kennedy until the fatal head shot. And the guy behind the fence who took that shot wasn't supposed to take it. He was just supposed to be a fail-safe. But, the other guys missed, so he had to do it.

But, the point is that the Stemmons Freeway sign had a purpose, and it wasn't to direct traffic; it was to direct shooters. And it wound up playing a key role in the alteration of the Zapruder film. They realized right away that they could use the sign- a bogus version of it- as a screen to divide the film into two parts: the part before JFK got shot, and the part after JFK got shot.

So, the story of the Zapruder film, as we know it, is that JFK was smiling and waving until he reached the freeway sign. Then he was shot under cover of the sign. The sign was like the magician's curtain. And then, when he emerged from behind the sign, he was stricken and flailing. But, it's all a lie. JFK was struck and stricken high on the hill, adjacent to the TSBD. That is when he was shot in the back with a paralyzing nerve agent.

 

We've all seen the image of Clint Hill climbing up the back of the limo. And the story goes that he jumped off the Secret Service and caught up with the limo. So, Clint was moving faster than the limo, since he was behind it and caught up with it.

But, how do you catch up with a moving car? And what does it say about how fast (or slow) the car was going? We don't see the limo slow down in the Zapruder film. But in reality, the limo either came to a dead stop of very nearly so, like maybe 2 miles per hour.

So, what's the proof of that, that they altered the Zapruder film to hide the stopping of the limo? Well, think about what happens when a person jumps off a moving train; they roll. They don't just land; they roll. So, why do they roll? They roll because their body is in motion when they jump. They are moving in the same direction as the train. But, when they jump off the train, they are trying to land on their feet, and to plant their feet firmly on the ground.

So, when they land with their feet on the ground, their feet are planted right there in that spot. But, their body is still moving. And when your feet are planted while your body is still moving, you topple. You can't possibly go from being in motion on the car to complete stillness.

Here's an example of it; a young man jumping off a moving train. And notice that when he slides, his body is sliding in the same direction that the train was going.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3pyk--VmYU

So, what happened when Clint Hill jumped off the Queen Mary? Did he topple? No, he didn't topple, and it's because the Queen Mary wasn't moving. Perhaps it was moving a very negligible amount, but it had to be close to 0 mph.

And after he stepped off the floorboard of the Queen Mary, how did he catch up with the limo? It had to have been stopped or been going slower than he could move himself, and I mean after stabilizing himself after deboarding.

So, the point is that Clint Hill's ability to do that, to jump off the Queen Mary and catch up to the limo is proof that the motorcade had stopped. We don't see it in the Zapruder film but that's because they took it out of the Zapruder film, just one of the many things they did to that Frankenstinian film.

Oswald was NOT in the 2^nd floor lunch room during the motorcade, and there are multiple proofs for it, which I will lay out.  But first, I want to point out that it was a diversionary tactic from the start. It wasn’t until 1978 that anyone claimed that Oswald was there. It was during the HSCA, and a Dallas reporter, Earl Golz, was contacted by a woman who claimed to be Carolyn Arnold, and he went and interviewed her.

Carolyn Arnold  is the one who told the FBI on November 26, 1963 that she saw Oswald standing  at the doorway a few minutes before the motorcade arrived. She was standing on the sidewalk in front of the doorway, and she said she turned around and saw him peering through the glass of the entrance. Recall that the whole entrance was clear glass. So, he was just inside the glass looking out when she saw him about 12:25.

But, the FBI didn’t like that claim. The agent who took her statement designated the time as 12:15 when she saw him, thinking that 15 minutes was enough time to leave for him to get upstairs to the 6^th floor. But, smarter heads than him at the FBI realized that it was no f__king good if Oswald was hanging around the doorway at 12:15.

So, they went back there in March 1964, and they read her the riot act. They got her to sign a statement stating that she didn’t see Oswald at all that day. And, they let her claim the real time she got outside which was 12:25. But, I have a hunch they also instructed the Warren Commission not to call her in, and they didn’t.  So, Carolyn Arnold never testified to the Warren Commission.

And that’s how it stood until 1978 when the Dallas Morning News published an article by Earl Golz about his meeting with Carolyn Arnold. As I said, the HSCA was going on, and Oswald in the doorway was back on the front burner again. So, by getting this new sighting of Oswald in the 2^nd floor lunch room during the motorcade, it dissipated some of the focus on Oswald in the doorway.

But, Oswald couldn’t have been in the 2^nd floor lunchroom during the motorcade. For one thing, Oswald said he was “out with Bill Shelley in front.” And Shelley was in front, and Oswald could only have known that if he was there himself.

But, there’s a very solid proof that relates to another witness: Officer Marrion Baker.  Baker said that as he went up the  northwest staircase that on the landing, he saw Oswald moving from the anteroom to the lunch room. The anteroom was a little passageway room that had 3 doors. It had a door from the office side; one from the stairwell side where Baker was; and then internally, it had a door  to the lunch room. The door to the stairwell had a glass pane, and it was through that glass pane that Baker saw Oswald moving into the lunch room. Of course, he didn’t know at the time that the man was Oswald. But, he soon found out.

But, the important thing here is that the time was 12:31 and 30 seconds, and OSWALD WAS JUST GETTING TO THE LUNCH ROOM. That is so important, I am going to say it again: OSWALD DIDN’T GET TO THE LUNCH ROOM UNTIL AFTER THE SHOOTING. And since he didn’t get there until after the shooting, he couldn’t have been there during the shooting.

But then, there is the behavioral side of it. Oswald knew about the motorcade. He didn’t know it would be passing the building before he got to work, but he found out that morning at work. And the evening before, he and Marina talked about it, and she expressed how much she wished she could lay eyes on the President and Jackie. Remember that JFK, singlehandedly, prevented nuclear war with the Soviet Union. His generals wanted him to get into the bunker beneath the White House, so that they could start bombing Cuba, but he said no. And he found a way to peace. He agreed to remove U.S. missiles from Turkey in exchange for the USSR removing their missiles from Cuba. Imagine how catastrophic it would have been for the Oswalds if there was war between the US and USSR, when all her family and most of their friends were in the USSR. So, I’m sure they felt tremendous gratitude to JFK.

So, why wouldn’t Oswald want to step outside and watch the motorcade? Why would he prefer to sit in a dank lunch room when it turned out to be a very nice day, and it was a once in a lifetime opportunity to see the President? And what did he have to do in the lunch room? The answer is: nothing. That’s because he ate his lunch early in the lunchbreak in the 1^st floor lunch room. That’s what he said. That’s what he told his interrogators. Now, I don’t care who you are reading this: but, if you EVER call Oswald a liar, don’t you dare claim to be his defender. You are NOT his defender if you call him a liar; you are his accuser.

So, since Oswald had already eaten his lunch, what did he have to do in the lunch room? Nothing. And don’t tell me get a Coke because he didn’t get a Coke until after Truly and Baker left. It’s a lie that Oswald had a Coke when he was first seen. As I told you, he was walking when he  was first seen. He hadn’t even reached the lunchroom yet.  And both Baker and Truly said, adamantly, that he did not have a Coke when they saw him.

So, you don’t have Oswald eating or drinking in the 2^nd floor lunchroom.  You don’t have him writing a love letter to Marina or to Judyth Baker, whichever you prefer. You don’t have him doing anything there. And he wasn’t there. He was standing outside in the doorway, and he went from the doorway to the 2^nd floor lunch room and reached it slightly ahead of Marrion Baker, with them having taken different routes. Baker when across the first floor and went up the rear stairs. Oswald used the elegant stairs that were right next to the front entrance in the southeast corner of the building. Then, he walked across the great expanse of the  2^nd floor to get to the lunchroom, and he got there slightly ahead of Baker.

And that Oswald claimed to eat his lunch in the 1^st floor lunch room early in the lunchbreak was in the Fritz Notes, the Bookhout Notes, and the Hosty Notes.

I am attaching a frame from the Wiegman film which shows Oswald in the doorway and Carolyn Arnold in front of the doorway, and that’s where she turned around and saw him before he came out, when he was still inside the glass.

Anyone who keeps saying that Oswald was in the 2^nd floor lunchroom during the motorcade after reading this is just no good.

I haven't been a big student of the Tippit shooting.  I've mostly stood back from it. But, even from a distant perspective, it's plain to see that Oswald didn't do it and couldn't have done it. 

The first thing to consider is that authorities never told us what Oswald said about how he went from his boarding room to the Texas theater.  He definitely went from Dealey Plaza to his boarding room on Beckley in Oak Cliff. His landlady Earline Roberts said he did, and he said he did.  He said he changed his pants there. Oswald was arrested in black pants, but he wore grey pants to work that morning. 

However, he did not change his shirt. He was arrested wearing the same shirt he wore to work; the same shirt he was wearing when he was photographed in the doorway. 

But, there is simply nothing in the record about what he said about how he got from his room to the theater. And he must have said something. If he explained how he got from his job to his room, which he did, why wouldn't he explain how he got from his room to the theater? So, I assume that he did explain it, but they didn't tell us because it was very exonerating. 

The great researcher John Armstrong has suggested that Oswald was driven to the theater, and that's why they didn't tell us what he said. And obviously, if he was driven to the theater BY ANYBODY, it destroys the lone gunman hypothesis. But, John thinks that the cop who tapped his car horn twice outside the boarding house, as reported by Earline Roberts, is the one who drove Oswald to the Texas Theater. And, John thinks that that cop may have been JD Tippit. I'm not going to lay out his case for that because, again, I'm discussing this from a distant perspective. But, here is the link to John's article about it, which is very good: https://harveyandlee.net/November/TippittMurder.html

But, I will state two points that John makes that I think are very telling. The first is that Oswald could not have walked to the theater. It was only slightly more than a mile from his room to the theater. So, it was very walkable, but he didn't do it. That's because he was spotted in the theater at 1:07 by Butch Burroughs, the popcorn man, and Oswald didn't leave his boarding room until after 1:00.  1:03 is the most commonly cited time, but we'll never know exactly what time it was. But, regardless, he couldn't have walked there by 1:07. He couldn't even have gotten there even by 1:15 because: you can't walk uninterrupted in the city. There is traffic, other pedestrians, bicycles, dogs, traffic lights and stop signs. You're crossing numerous streets.  

But, the other thing that John points out is that if Oswald had walked there in broad daylight, it's highly likely that someone would have seen him and come forward about it later. And no one did. 

Likewise, Oswald did not get to the theater by public transportation because, had it been a bus, someone would have remembered seeing him on the bus and come forward. And regarding a cab, it is highly unlikely that he could have flagged one down. Plus, the cab driver would have come forward afterwards, just as Whaley did. 

So, I think that John's hypothesis that it was a cop who drove Oswald to the theater is very sound. 

Tippit was killed at 10th and Patton, which is not on the route to the theater. Even if you reject the claim that Oswald was driven to the theater, there is no basis to place him at 10th and Patton. What could he have been doing there? Where could he have been going? Warren Commission Attorney David Belin was asked that very question, and his answer was "Mexico." I can't respond to that kind of stupidity without cursing, so I won't say anything. 

Now, what is the supposed evidence that Oswald shot Tippit? First, there were the witnesses who claimed that they saw Oswald, but that evidence is very weak. And John Armstrong maintains that the other LHO, whom he calls "Lee" in contrast to the LHO of fame whom he calls "Harvey" is the one who did it, and he looked a lot like the famed LHO.  But, even if that weren't the case, I will point out that eye witness testimonies just plain suck. You've heard about the Innocence Project, where they have used DNA evidence to vindicate convicted murderers who were either going to be put to death or who served decades in prison for crimes they didn't commit. Well, how did they get convicted in the first place? By eye witness testimonies.

And in this case, the eye witnesses who identified Oswald said he was wearing a grey Eisenhower-type zippered jacket over a white t-shirt and no brown shirt. Of course, the Oswald of fame wore a brown outer shirt. And there is no connecting a grey Eisenhower jacket to the LHO who worked at the TSBD. So, none of the Tippit witnesses correctly identified the famed Oswald's clothes. 

But, what was there in the way of tangible evidence? It's mainly the LHO wallet that Captain Westbrook found at the Tippit crime scene. However, LHO had a wallet on him when he was arrested in the theater. So, how likely is it that Oswald had two wallets on him and left one at the Tippit crime scene? I put the chance of that at zero. 

If you read that piece by John Armstrong, he makes the case that Captain Westbrook and Sergeant Croy were both dirty, that "Lee" shot and killed Tippit, and Westbrook and Croy covered it up. 

But, it's not just John Armstrong. One of the most powerful theses in James Douglass' masterpiece JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE is that Butch Burroughs singlehandedly exonerated Oswald from having shot Tippit. Tippit was shot at 1:16, and Butch insisted- to Jim Douglass directly- that he saw Oswald in the Texas Theater at 1:07 and sold him popcorn. 

Now, where did Oswald get the pistol that was on him in the theater? We don't know what he said about it. And I'll remind you that the ONLY things we can be sure that Oswald said are the things he said in public to reporters that we can hear with our own ears, and he never said anything about that. 

John Armstrong did the definitive work to prove that Oswald never ordered a rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago. https://harveyandlee.net/Guns/Guns.html But, he did just as much damage to the claim that Oswald mail-ordered the pistol from Seaport Traders.  https://harveyandlee.net/Guns/Pistol.html

John thinks that the cop who drove Oswald to the theater may have been the one to give him the pistol. And since that was before Tippit got shot (and may have been Tippit himself) it could not have been the actual murder weapon that killed Tippit. 

The FBI tried to use ballistics to prove that the gun found on Oswald in the theater had to be the one that fired bullets into Tippit and were taken out of him, but only one ballistics expert went so far as to claim that it was certain: Joseph D. Nichol. Multiple other experts said it could not be ascertained.

However, let's consider that if this was an operation to frame Oswald for the Tippit shooting, then surely they got someone who looked like him to do it, AND WITHOUT A DOUBT, THEY HAD SOMEONE WHO LOOKED VERY MUCH LIKE HIM TO DO IT. 

Again, I don't proffer this as an exhaustive study of the Tippit shooting, but rather, as a distant one. But, when you realize that Oswald was standing in the doorway of the Book Depository during the shooting, AND THAT IS AS CERTAIN AS THAT IT WAS JESUS CHRIST ON THE CROSS, then you realize that there is no way to conjure up a motive for Oswald to have shot Tippit. But, the fact is that the framing of Oswald for the Tippit murder was even more elaborate and detailed and painstaking than the framing of Oswald for the JFK murder. 

But, go back to what I said at the beginning: What was Oswald's alibi for the Tippit murder? Surely, when he was accused of it, he denied it and gave his alibi. So, what did he say about his movements? Why haven't they told us, in 62 years, what he said about how he went from his room to the theater? It can only be that they didn't want us to hear it because it was extremely exonerating. 

It's often claimed that the Mafia forced Ruby to kill Oswald, that he was threatened with great harm if he didn't do it. It is a ridiculous claim, and I'll explain why. 

First, we know all of Ruby's movements, minute by minute, from the Thursday to the Sunday. You can see it right here:

https://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Jack_Ruby/Timeline_of_Ruby.html 

So, when did this meeting between Ruby and the Mafia take place in which they threatened him? And what exactly did they threaten him with? The story often goes that they threatened to kill his sister if he didn't do it. But, it's just made-up fodder. There is no evidence for it, let alone proof. There is NOTHING to substantiate it. 

But, let's take it further. What if someone ordered you to kill someone with the threat of killing your sister if you didn't? Would you go out and kill the person? Well, I have a sister, and if someone ordered me to kill someone, threatening to kill her if I didn't, I would not go out and kill the person. I would go to the police and report the threat. And I would inform my sister and take measures to protect her. But, I would not, for one second, consider committing the murder. 

And remember that Ruby knew many Dallas policemen and detectives.  He was on a friendly, first name basis with them. He gifted them. He contributed to their fundraisers. Surely, if his life or the life of his sister was threatened, he would go to them. Wouldn't he? 

All the stories you have heard about Ruby being a Mafioso are lies. You see: the people who framed him for killing Oswald wanted to insure that no one would suspect the truth, that he was tricked into thinking that he shot Oswald. So, by couching him as a Mafioso, a hit man, a pimp, and even a participant in Kennedy's murder, it steered thinking far away from the truth, which was that he was completely, totally innocent. And there are cues that the official narrative about him is false. First, he was very adoring of the Dallas Police. He was like a groupie to them. Why would a criminal be so adoring of the police? Second, he was a devout Jew. He frequented the synagogue. He counseled with his rabbi, often. Ruby was far more devout than most people. For instance, JFK was nominally a Catholic, but he wasn't devout at all. For him, religion was just a pin that he wore. He was a politician, and politicians need to have a respectable religion, and his was Catholicism. But, Ruby wasn't a politician. He sincerely practiced the Jewish faith, which doesn't permit murder. 

But, the bottom line is that there was no meeting between Ruby and the Mafia in which he was ordered to kill Oswald, under threat of him being killed or his sister being killed. That is totally made up. And it couldn't have happened before the assassination, and we know everything he did and everyone he talked to after the assassination. So, show me in this timetable when his meeting with the Mafia took place: https://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Jack_Ruby/Timeline_of_Ruby.html

It didn't take place. It never happened. It's just a falsehood that a lot of people repeat, in which some of them know better, and some of them don't. 

So, what is the evidence that Ruby was ever ordered by the Mafia to kill Oswald, under threat of killing him or his sister? I want specific, concrete, tangible proof that such a meeting took place. I want to know when it took place; where it took place; and who was involved. And you can't just say "It was Santos Trafficante" because you have proof of that. Your ability to say it doesn't make it true, and it doesn't even make it credible. I need verifiable proof. 

But remember: the Mafia story is NOT the official story. The official story is that Ruby did it entirely by himself. The first story that came out was that Ruby did it to save Jackie a trip to Dallas to testify at Oswald's trial.  But then it came out that Ruby's lawyer Tom Howard made that up. Then, the story became that Ruby was raging and fuming about Oswald the whole weekend and stalking him, but that's a lie. Here, Ruby denies that he felt any anger at all that weekend.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3frRy03qKV8

Another time, he even made a joke about it. He said that there was no conspiracy, that he didn't tell anyone; not even himself. 

And Ruby didn't stalk Oswald. He did not go to the DPD on Friday afternoon. He did not go to the Texas Theater. Those are lies. He did go to the DPD on Friday night, but it wasn't to see Oswald; it was to deliver sandwiches, first to the detectives, but then when they turned  them down, it was to give them to the television crew. He already bought the sandwiches, so he had to do something with them. 

At Ruby's trial, Henry Wade argued that it was cold-blooded murder, that Ruby wanted the fame of being the one who killed Oswald. But, the story evolved after that into something closer to what the Defense claimed, which was that Ruby shot Oswald unconsciously, that he just snapped. The diagnostic term that Melvin Belli put to it, "psychomotor epilepsy" didn't stick, but the idea that it was a "moment of madness" did. That, by the way, was the title of a book by Ruby's other lawyer, Elmer Gertz.