Roger Scott Cathey sent me this. It's a presentation given at the 2018 Dealey Plaza UK conference by Bart Kamp. Roger had another reason for sending it, but I noticed something. Start listening at 11 minutes. It's presumably the Midnight Press Conference. You hear a reporter blurt, and rather angrily, at Oswald: DID YOU BUY THAT RIFLE? It sounds like it may have been followed by a "No," but it's strange. If someone blurted that at me in such an angry tone, I would respond in kind "No!" And I think anyone would. Why be timid after being badgered like that?

But, the most important thing is that we never heard it before. They must have removed it, but this one got missed. So, why did they remove it? Because they didn't want us to hear Oswald denying that he bought the rifle. And of course, he didn't. Here is John Armstrong's brilliant analysis of it:

https://haveyandlee.net/Guns/Guns.html

The entire mail-order rifle story was an FBI concoction. But, think about what it means. Since they concocted it, they knew it would never hold up in court, which means that they knew they could never try Oswald, which means that they knew they had to kill Oswald. And that's why they couldn't let Oswald have a lawyer.

Listen to the loud angry yelp at 11:05, "Did you buy that rifle?" That would have stood out to everyone. They removed it, but here, it fell through the cracks.

[Dealey Plaza UK Canterbury 2018 Seminar Bart Kamp on Oswald's Interrogations Part 2 - YouTube]

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCzDPCrfxu8)

 Here is another comparison of Oswald (on the left) and his double (on the right). They look similar, and at a glance, one might think that the double was Oswald, especially if you were looking at him alone without comparing him to the real Oswald.

But, when you do compare them- and I mean the way fingerprints are compared- you see the differences. Their hair is different. Their noses are different. And their ears are different.

Even the lips are different because Oswald had a very thin upper lip, but a prominent lower lip, but we don't see that on the double.

These are more than subtle differences, but we live in a world in which subtle differences can make a big difference. For instance, what radiologists notice on x-rays, is often much more subtle than this. The same is true of dentists looking at dental x-rays.

They are two different men, and it's only in the evil world of JFKing that anyone would claim that they are the same man. And it shows you what an evil world this is.

And it is a very corrupt world because people make claims, based not on honest, objective, unbiased analysis, but on their long-held beliefs and biases. They are stubborn and defiant to the point of absurdity.

So, I tell you, that if you can't see that these are two different men, then you are either lying, or, you are turning off the rational part of your mind, You are being stubborn and defiant to the end, as the ship you're on is sinking. And perhaps subconsciously, you realize the implications of this, that it means that Oswald was innocent; framed and innocent.

The fact that, in a general way, they look alike doesn't matter because they wouldn't have done it unless they could get the double looking close. And this isn't the only instance of it. It's widely admitted that Saddam Hussein had body doubles who rode in parades and waved at crowds for him. Stalin, Castro, and Sukarno were all known to use body doubles. During the 2016 campaign, Hillary Clinton was accused of using a body double too.

And there had to be Oswald doubles because of all the false Oswald sightings, which there are a lot of. I'll cite just one: the claim that he went to shooting ranges to practice and would shoot diagonally at other people's targets, just to be an a-hole. It is ridiculous. Oswald had no car, and supposedly, his rifle was hidden in Ruth Paine's garage. Also, Oswald had no friends. No friends, no friends, no friends, no friends, no friends, no friends. Get that in your head. So, somehow, he got out to Irving, and he snuck into Ruth Paine's garage, searched for and found the rifle, assembled it, and somehow got to the range, then he returned the rifle to Ruth Paine's garage, sneaking it in and hiding it again, and then somehow made his way home. And that was supposedly weeks before the assassination. But, the story also goes that Oswald didn't get the idea to kill Kennedy until he saw the motorcade route in the newspaper, just days before. So, what was he practicing for prior to that? What need did he have to do that?

And think about Oswald's priorities at that time. Why did he return to Dallas? Because his family was there. Why did he hitch rides with Frazer out to Irving on the weekends? Because that's where his family was, and they were his priority. He was at a point in his life that going to the rifle range to practice shooting, just for the heck of it, had to be the farthest thing from his mind.

David Reitzes is a lone-nutter, and I have done battle with him. And I'll battle him again, any place and any time. But, even though he supports the official story, he admits that Oswald never went to the rifle range. Doesn't it mean that someone who looked very much like Oswald went there and did what Oswald was said to do? And there is no innocent explanation for that.

 The Oswald double on the right is definitely not him. He looks a lot like him, but there are distinct differences that I'll lay out. Oswald had longer hair, and he didn't have that deep recession on his right side like the double. And the double's deep recession may be artificial; his hair may have been removed there because recession and thinning usually go together, and his hair looks thick otherwise. 

Oswald had a longer nose with larger tip cartilage. He also had flared nostrils, unlike the double who had straight nostrils because there was no arch in his nasal tip, as Oswald had. So, the double's nose on the right was shorter and blunter. Oswald also had larger ears with a more expansive helix. 

Another big difference is that Oswald was thinner. He looks leaner than the double. You can see that the double's face was puffier. 

And Oswald's prominent sternocleidomastoid muscles on the left are apparent in many of his photos but not seen on the double. 

I am not denying the great likeness between them, and I wouldn't object to calling him a doppelganger. But, the double on the right is DEFINITELY not Oswald. 

I am going to discuss Kennedy now and what happened to him on Elm Street. First, I shall tell you that the Single Bullet Theory is complete, total, utter nonsense. Dr. David Mantik told me that he analyzed it and determined that if it were true, it would have hit the spinal cord. And that would have been catastrophic. I won’t devote any more time to it.

So, since JFK was not hit in the back with a bullet that traversed him, what happened to him? All we can do is look at what the autopsy doctors found, because the Parkland doctors didn’t find anything. They missed it completely.

What the Bethesda doctors found was a shallow wound that abruptly ended, with just an inch and a half of penetration, approximately.  Humes even said that it appeared to be “shallow.” He used the word “shallow.” That was all the back wound was: a shallow wound in JFK’s back that affected only skin, fascia, and muscle.

So, how could a FMJ bullet, traveling at approximately 2000 feet per second stop, in an inch and a half? It couldn’t. Isaac Newton says it couldn’t. The bullet couldn’t stop until its energy got dissipated. How could it get spent traveling an inch and a half through soft tissue (skin, fascia, and muscle)? It couldn’t.  It would take much more resistance from much more tissue to stop it.

So, it is an insurmountable problem to claim that an FMJ bullet stopped in an inch and a half in JFK’s \back. And then, there is the fact that there was no bullet in the wound. So, if it stopped, why wasn’t it there?  Why didn’t they find it inside him? And don’t tell me that it fell out because that is stupid.  

But, let’s leave that a moment and look at Kennedy: his clinical condition, physically and mentally, as seen in the Zapruder film.  Mentally, after emerging from behind the phony sign, he was gone. He was incapable of speech. I know he was shot in the throat, but it did not damage his larynx. He was hit below his larynx. It just damaged the trachea, not the larynx.

Kennedy didn’t speak because his mind was gone. Something happened to him that completely devasted his mind. Jackie said that he didn’t speak. She said that from the time she heard the explosive sound, and she turned to look at him, that he had a “quizzical” look on his face, and he never spoke again.

Be aware that it has been admitted that Jackie’s testimony to the WC was altered.  And if you read it, it doesn’t make sense because it goes from her first noticing the quizzical look on his face to the fatal head shot, with nothing in-between. That is not what happened. JFK was hit in the back high on the hill, and he rode down the hill that way, reacting to that shot, and only that shot.

A common mistake that researchers have made is to assume that although the SBT is bogus, that JFK was hit in the back and in the throat at about the same time. Some even put the throat shot before the back shot, and that is false. The back shot came way before the throat shot. JFK was hit in the back high on the hill, when the limo was still adjacent to the TSBD. He rode down the steepest part of the hill that way. And then, he was shot in the throat, and that was not a metal bullet either. There was no bullet in JFK’s throat. Dr. Perry couldn’t find one, and the Bethesda doctors, though they didn’t open his throat, they did x-ray him and found no bullet within him.

We have three photographs in which JFK was riding down the hill and not waving at spectators: Croft, Betzner, and Willis. And even in the Zapruder film, he stopped waving BEFORE he disappeared behind the phony freeway sign.

Here is frame 206. That is NOT JFK waving. That is JFK with his hand over his face. And notice that Jackie is turned and looking at him. So she stopped doing her job too. This was a political trip. They were there to garner votes. And she was a political wife. Yet, her focus, at that time, was totally on her husband. She had already tuned out the rest. She already knew that something was terribly wrong.

Now: I don’t believe he put his hand over his face. I believe they did that with paint. I think he had a stricken look on his face that they did not want us to see. Because: supposedly, nothing had happened to him yet. But, I tell you that he was shot in the back already.

JFK was shot in the throat adjacent to the Stemmons sign, the real one, but that wasn't a bullet either. That too was a dart, but not a frozen one. But, it also dissolved, and that's why Dr. Perry couldn't find it. That dart may also have had a toxic payload, but, it had another purpose. And that was to provide a plausible exit wound for the back shot. The perps knew that doctors were going to find an empty, shallow wound in JFK's back. So, by making a hole in his throat, they could claim that that's where the back bullet came out.     

But, getting back to Jackie, we can’t rely on her testimony because it was altered. Yet, her first statement, that she heard an explosion and turned and looked at him, and he had a quizzical look on his face, that speaks volumes because he was reacting to the shot in his back.

You should watch Dan Rather describing the original Zapruder film. He said that the film shows the limo making a left turn from Houston to Elm. Wait. The Z-film that we have doesn’t show that. It doesn’t show the limo until frame 133, well past the intersection. So, the Z-film did include the limo turning from Houston to Elm, but they cut it out.

Then, he said that about 35 yards from Houston, Kennedy had his right hand up to the side of his brow, when he suddenly lurched forward. We don’t see that either. But, that was when he was shot in the back. The “lurch” was from that shot, and Rather admitted it. He said, “the first shot had hit him.”  And, he admitted that Jackie was looking the other direction at the time. So, she wasn’t looking at JFK when the back shot hit. But, soon after that, she turned and saw him with a turbulent look on his face. And she never took her eyes off him again after that. She was done with the motorcade at that point. All her attention was on her husband.  And that was before they disappeared behind the sign. JFK was shot before he disappeared behind the sign.

And it’s not even a real sign. The real sign would have barely covered him at all because it was 90 degrees to the road.

From the moment Jackie first saw him in distress, Kennedy never spoke to her or responded to her again. His mind was gone, and he was not only mute, but also inert. He took no evasive action whatsoever. He made no attempt to communicate non-verbally either. He didn’t try to to protect himself or Jackie. He just sat there like a zombie and did nothing.

And, something else started happening to him. He started going into spasm. It started with his arms. He raised his arms in a very dysfunctional way to clear his throat. Instead of using the rotary motion in his elbow that enables you to “supinate,” in which you rotate your wrist counter-clockwise.  he contracted his deltoid muscles and lifted his arms like wings. You can see it in frame 232.

 

Then after that, he couldn’t put his arms down. They were stuck. He was frozen. Jackie tried to get him to relax his arms. She pressed down on his arm, above and below his elbow, trying to get him to release it. You can see it in frame 253.

 

But it was to no avail. His spasticity only worsened. It spread to his neck, back, and shoulders. By frame 312, he was contracted  everywhere.

 

It was probably very painful. The only thing that ended it was the fatal head shot.

So, Kennedy was in a state of total mental collapse and tetanic spasm of his muscles, where his muscles were being incessantly stimulated. We have to account for those two things. What caused them?

The spasticity was clearly the effect of a nerve agent. It was not due to physical trauma. The only trauma he suffered, to that point, was the shallow wound in his back that did no vital damage, and the wound in his throat that damaged his tracheal coils on his left side and caused a very mild contusion (bruise) in the apex of his right lung. But, neither of those wounds could have caused his spasticity. It was from a nerve agent.

But, let’s return to his back wound. We know it was very shallow and that an FMJ bullet could not have stopped that short. But, an ice bullet could have, from bursting on penetration. Even though ice is very hard, it is also quite fragile. It’s partly because of the impurities in ice. Frozen distilled water (which has no impurities) is stronger. But regardless, ice is a crystalline lattice, and it can fail suddenly and spectacularly under stress. In this case, we are talking about not only mechanical stress, but thermal stress because the body is so warm.

That Kennedy was hit with an ice bullet solves everything. It explains why no bullet was found within him, since the ice melted. And it explains why the wound was so shallow because the ice burst upon entry and was no longer there.

I am certain that he was hit with a nerve agent, but it may have been more than that. It may have been a cocktail of drugs.

This would all be very theoretical and speculative if not for the fact that we know that the CIA did develop a gun that could shoot an ice bullet with a toxic payload. It was called the “heart attack gun” because it could deliver a drug or drugs that could mimic a heart attack and kill a person. And it could also deliver a nerve agent. Two nerve agents were discovered in stockpiles, and they were saxitoxin from contaminated shellfish and cobra venom, both of which are neurotoxins.

CIA Director William Colby testified to the Church Committee, and he was asked if the heart attack gun was ever used, and he very cagily said no, but I think it’s likely that he lied. The year was 1975, and of course, he wasn’t’ going to say, “Oh Yeah, we used it to kill Kennedy.”  But, Colby was in the CIA in 1963. At the time, he was the Chief of the CIA’s Far East Division, and he was stationed in Washington. But, prior to that, he was the CIA’s Station Chief in Saigon, and he was in Saigon. That was from 1959 to 1962. So, he oversaw the policy changes from Eisenhower to Kennedy, and he had to be privy to the disputes that Kennedy had with his top military and intelligence advisors over Vietnam policy. 

The CIA Chief in 1963 was John McCone, whom Kennedy appointed, replacing Allen Dulles, whom Kennedy fired.  Was McCone involved in the plot to kill Kennedy? I seriously doubt it. However, afterwards, McCone was very supportive of the official story.  Like others, he got caught up in the tsunami of pressure to support it.  Consider: even Robert F. Kennedy supported it. You can’t say that he fought it.  But, I have to think that William Colby either knew that the heart attack gun was used on Kennedy, or he at least suspected it.

But, I’m not surprised that he coyly evaded it.  Of course, he wasn’t going to tell the Church Committee that the heart attack gun was used to incapacitate Kennedy, so that he would be a sitting duck when the limo reached the Kill Zone. He wasn’t suicidal.  However, I think he was murdered in 1996.  They said he drowned accidentally in the Chesapeake Bay, but I think he was murdered.

Now, if you were told, in a vacuum, that JFK was shot with an ice bullet with a toxic payload to incapacitate him, I wouldn’t blame you for being skeptical. But, you are not being told that in a vacuum. I have pointed out to you that there is no way a regular bullet, shot from a high-powered military rifle, could have caused such a shallow wound.  So, when we consider that, and the fact that the wound was empty, and that JFK manifested bizarre physical and mental changes, we know that it must have been something else- something very unusual.

This is a matter of observing clinical manifestations and trying to account for them. The heart attack gun fits perfectly with all the phenomena we see. Stop thinking that this is farfetched. It is not. The heart attack gun was real; it was developed by the CIA, the same CIA that killed Kennedy. So, if you are going to deny it, what you’re saying is that all that association is just a coincidence. 

 To everyone who believes in Oswald’s innocence, are you aware of how many times he complained about not having a lawyer? I counted 13x that he publicly complained about it in the hall to reporters, where we can hear him. Then, he devoted his entire MPC address to it. And he ended by saying, “And I ask that someone come forward to give me legal assistance.”  He could not have been more clear and emphatic about what he wanted.

Well, do you really think that just 18 hours later, he would turn down H Lous Nichols’ offer for a lawyer? A free lawyer?  .  

Oswald didn’t ask the world to contact John Abt for him. He just asked for a lawyer, any lawyer. I tell you that it would have been insane for Oswald to turn down Nichol’s offer, and he didn't. He never got the offer. It was an Oswald double, and Nichols was bamboozled.

Nichols said that on Saturday afternoon, he called Captain King of the DPD and explained his mission. He said that King’s response was: “Oswald hasn’t asked for a lawyer. He has not asked for the right to call a lawyer, or that a lawyer be furnished to him. If he does, I am certainly going to call you and let you know, because we want to be sure that if he wants a lawyer, he gets one. We don't want it to be a situation of anybody saying that we deprived him of the right to have a lawyer."

How could King not know what Oswald said to the world at the Midnight Press Conference on Friday night? Wasn’t he there? He was a Police Captain.  His statement to Nichols could not have been more diametrically false. The truth was just the opposite, that Oswald desperately wanted a lawyer. 

And that’s why I started looking very closely at this. Nichols said he didn’t leave for City Hall until 5:00. And when he got there, it was pandemonium and wall to wall people. He said he went to the Chief’s office, and Chief Curry came to him in the reception area and invited him to come into his private office. Nichols said that an FBI agent was there, and he was introduced to him. I find it odd that he didn’t mention the agent’s name. Or did he? There’s a very good chance that that FBI agent was James Bookhout because he was the FBI liaison to the Dallas Police. And that would explain why they removed it from the record.

Nichols was taken up to talk to Oswald in his cell. They only talked for 5 minutes. Then, Nichols, with Currie present, gave a press briefing to reporters about what happened. So, what time was that press briefing?

I did an AI search, and the time it gave me was 5:30. But, that is impossible. He didn’t leave his house until 5:00. There is no way all that happened in half an hour.

Oswald had an evening interrogation that was scheduled for 6:30. We have a film of him being taken to it. And the film says that it was 6:24. In it, Oswald exits the elevator room. This was a private elevator just for police; not the public. It was how they got up to the higher floors that were closed to the public. The public elevator only went to the 3^rd floor. So, Oswald was brought down to the 3^rd floor this way, and you see him walk down the hall and then into the Homicide Bureau, where Fritz’ glass-walled office was. Here is the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04aL80prg7U

You should watch it because it’s weird. The tone of it is weird. Oswald was supposed to be a double-murderer, right? But, it’s all very light-hearted. It seems downright friendly. ‘There he is, Lee Oswald, on his way.”  It reminds me of Ed McMahon saying, “Heeeeeerrrre’s Johnny."

Then, you see Oswald go up to this short guy in the hall and say, “What have  you got against Broby?” That short guy was James Bookhout. And they did all they could to hide Bookhout’s features.  

Notice that Bookhout’s eye is closed. Do you really think he was standing there with his eyes closed? I told you that Hosty wrote in his book that Bookhout had to stand on a pedestal to find him. It was because he was short.

Then, you see Bookhout follow Oswald into the Homicide Bureau because he attended every Oswald interrogation.

That had to be Bookhout. And someone told me that he was Bookhout. Who else could Oswald have known? He didn’t walk up to a stranger. Oswald knew Hosty, but Hosty only attended the first interrogation.. Bookhout attended them all. It’s fair to say that Fritz and Bookhout were the only two men that Oswald got to know. And this guy wasn’t Fritz. He definitely was Bookhout.

So, the clock said 6:24. I say they waited for this and then moved the Oswald double into Oswald’s cell, and that’s who Nichols met with and who rejected his offer for a lawyer. Oswald never would have done that.

I’m going to end this with the Midnight Press Conference. Watch it again, in light of what I just told you. Do you think this Oswald would have turned down an offer of a lawyer? And be aware that all that noise you hear during his address was added. It isn’t real. It wasn’t there at the time. How could it be? Oswald was sounding so cogent, so compelling, so rational, and so impressive that they had to dilute that by adding all that ridiculous noise. You even hear a man giving the order, “At ease” which is the last order to a firing squad. Do you think they might have been playing with our minds?

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

If you believe in Oswald’s innocence as I do, if you believe that he was sane and sound and had his wits about him, then you have to realize that he never met with Nichols and turned down his offer of a lawyer. That claim is just another lie; another deception, in this horrid, wicked, evil undertaking.

 Why don't you watch the Oswald shooting again with fresh eyes? It's at the beginning of this video. Notice first how bad and blurry the footage is. Why is it so bad? It's because they didn't want us to see it well. Second, notice that Oswald is leaning his head to the right, as he walks. I don't recall him doing that any other time. I am not at all sure that that's him.

Then, notice how ridiculous Jim Leavelle's arm looks, with his hand in Oswald's pants. His forearm looks curved, and that's impossible because there are long bones in there that don't bend. I think they decided to go with the story of Leavelle with his hand in Oswald's pants afterwards.

So, Oswald gets shot, and at first, he keels forward, but then, he veers backward. And then, he goes straight down at an impossible speed. It reminds me of the vacuum tubes at the bank, where they put the documents in the container, and then put it in the shoot, and then, it swishes away at incredible speed.

A person doesn't fall like that. It takes time to build up to "terminal velocity" Initial velocity is slow, and it increases at a rate of 32 feet per second per second. Oswald shoots down like he's being sucked into a vacuum. Plus, he falls straight down vertically, but that's impossible too because he had momentum going backwards. Watch it and notice that it looks as ridiculous as a cartoon.

Then, the shooter dives into the arms of police, and then a tsunami of rushing bodies crosses the screen, blocking the view completely. Who were those guys, and what were they doing? They were blocking the view. That's what they were doing, and that was their purpose. It continues, and by the time it clears, it's all over. There is nothing else to see. In 20 seconds, it's all over.

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

It was all an act. There is nothing real about any of it. Oswald was not shot in the garage. He was shot in the Jail Office afterwards. Lyndon Johnson put the Dallas Police up to killing Oswald. I know it is distressing to hear that, but it is the truth.  How do I know? Because they definitely did it, and they never would have done it on their own. It was a national crisis, and Johnson was suddenly the Commander in Chief. And as in war, you follow orders, especially when they come from the Commander in Chief.

 People keep saying that reporters recognized the Garage Shooter as Ruby, but that is a lie, and I can prove it. Here is a video of the shooting, followed by 22 minutes of reporters milling around in the garage, talking amongst themselves about what happened, and wondering who the Shooter was. Did anyone pipe-in and say, "I recognized him. He was Jack Ruby"? No, no one did. In fact, it was just the opposite. The reporters pinned down Sergeant Patrick Dean, and they tried to find out from him who the Shooter was. But, he wouldn't tell them. He acted as though he knew, but he just wouldn't tell them. Then, they started asking him questions, such as, "Is he from Dallas?", "Did the Police know of him?" "Do you know him?" Dean answered some of the questions with, "I wouldn't want to say." Here's the link. The shooting starts at 8:52.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSrXXfBeAUk&t=557s

What about the cops? Did they recognize Ruby? Afterwards, some of them claimed that they did, such as Leavelle and Combest. And some of them, like those two, claimed that they yelled at him, "Ruby, you son of a bitch." Stuff like that. But, they lied. As you'll see in that video, there was no talking. The Shooter never spoke, and the cops never spoke to him, or even to each other. Not a word was said,. Who are you going to believe? Jim Leavelle or your own ears?

So, watch the film, and then vow to never again tolerate the claim that Ruby was recognizead in the garage. No one found out who the Garage Shooter was until Chief Curry announced it on the steps of City Hall with reporters present. That was after Oswald was pronounced dead.

And don't believe any of those cops because they were liars, through and through, and they were the real culprits. They framed Ruby. They tricked him into believing that he shot Oswald. And they are the ones who shot and killed Oswald, though not in the garage.

And they deliberately took a long, circuitous route to Parkland Hospital so that Oswald would bleed out. They turned left on Commerce and took it all the way down to the Pearl Expressway, which was way west, and then, they rode it just to the next exit, which was Main Street, and came all the way back to Harwood. So, they drove several miles just to go around the block. What they could have done is turned right on Commerce to Harwood, and then turned right again on Harwood, and it would have been a straight shot to Parkland Hospital.

And I don't believe that any of the images of Oswald at Parkland Hospital are real. Doctors said that he was completely exanguinated; meaning that he bled out completely. They had to give him a total body blood transfusion. And in the exsanguinated state, he would have looked a fright; pale, as in white as sheet, and really ghastly. And we have no such images. Perhaps they were afraid that people would feel sorry for him. They actually reenacted his arrival at Parkland.

 You’ve heard the expression of something being too good to be true. Well, the Oswald shooting was too convenient to be true. The authorities desperately needed Oswald dead. They claimed he ordered a rifle from Chicago, but here is the link to John Armstrong’s brilliant analysis proving that he didn’t.  

https://harveyandlee.net/Guns/Guns.html

Here is a segment of John’s analysis, and you’ll see how solid it is:

“The Postal Money Order allegedly used to purchase the rifle that supposedly killed JFK is perhaps the most unexplainable document published by the Warren Commission. A quick look at this money order shows that it was never deposited nor cashed at a bank. It does not have a single bank stamp on the front or reverse side. Yet the WC wants us to believe that this uncashed, never-deposited money order was used to purchase the rifle that supposedly killed President Kennedy. All monetary instruments deposited to banks or financial institutions (1962-63) were stamped by the bank into which the item was deposited, stamped by a correspondent bank, and stamped by the originating bank or institution when the item was returned. A US Postal Money Order purchased in Dallas, TX, and sent to Kleins Sporting Goods in Chicago, would have been date-stamped when deposited to their bank (First National Bank of Chicago). It would have been stamped a second time after passing through a correspondent bank and/or the Federal Reserve System. Finally, it would have been stamped a third time when returned to Federal Postal Money Order Center in Kansas City. But the money order given to the Warren Commission did not have a single bank endorsement stamp and was not found at the FPMOC in Kansas City. The absence of date-stamped bank endorsements means this PMO was never deposited to a bank nor cashed by Kleins Sporting Goods. Yet we are supposed to believe that Klein's Sporting Goods shipped a rifle to Oswald in Dallas, TX and that he used this rifle to kill JFK.”

So, the rifle story was doomed. And Oswald denied owning or ordering a rifle. And being innocent, he wasn’t going to lie to the Police. That would be stupid, and he wasn’t stupid.  

It means that trying Oswald was out of the question.  They couldn’t even let him talk to a lawyer because he would have told the lawyer that he didn’t kill Kennedy or Tippit, that he never ordered and didn’t own a rifle, that he didn’t pose for the Backyard photos, and that he was standing in the doorway during the shooting.

And how credible would Oswald have been to a defense lawyer? Extremely credible. And there was no gag order. The lawyer could have gone from Oswald straight to the Press!

Do you get it now why they didn’t, and couldn’t, let Oswald have a lawyer? And I’m the one who did the analysis exposing the bogus visit between Attorney H. Lewis Nichols and Oswald. Nichols said he didn’t set it in motion until 5 pm, and we have footage of Oswald on the 3^rd floor at 6:20. That’s an hour and twenty minutes, and when you consider all the steps involved, and the time for each one, there’s no way Nichols met with Oswald. It must have been an Oswald double. And there is no way the real Oswald would have turned down his offer of a lawyer.  

The reason they did it was because of all the damage Oswald did at the MPC; it was damage control. Yet, time was running out. Oswald had the Constitutional right to a lawyer. Gideon v. Wainwright was the case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on March 18, 1963, ruled (9–0) that states are required to provide legal counsel to indigent defendants charged with a felony.  

Every passing second was deepening the crisis for the government. If they didn’t give Oswald a lawyer soon, it would have been obvious to the world that they were denying his rights.

So, then what happened? Did they just get lucky that Jack Ruby came along and ended their dire predicament? You would have to be the most gullible person on Earth to believe that.  Cui bono? Who benefited from the Oswald killing? The answer is all those who were involved in killing Kennedy and framing Oswald.

It was the plan all along to kill Oswald ASAP. Why did Roy Truly brush off the idea that Oswald could have done it to Officer Baker and then 20 minutes later tell Police that Oswald was absent from the roll call, so better issue the all points bulletin?  It’s because they didn’t want Oswald arrested at the TSBD. They wanted him to die in a gun-fight with police in the theater. It didn’t work out, but that was the first attempt to kill Oswald. The second attempt was that evening at the Midnight Press Conference, but that didn’t work out either. And Oswald was doing so much damage talking to the world, that they had to abort it.

So, why didn’t they try to kill him on Saturday? Leavelle did wear his Easter suit that day. But, before they could kill Oswald, they had to pull off the stunt with Nichols to make it look like Oswald turned down his offer of a lawyer. And I’m not saying that Nichols was in on it. He was bamboozled. But, by that time, the day was over. And that’s how the "Jail Transfer" (it was really his murder) got slated for Sunday morning.

I’ll end this with a photograph.

It’s from Saturday, November 23. It’s a staged photo. You recognize Jim Leavelle. To his left and our right is Detective Warren Hall, who was one of Oswald’s escorts; the other two being Boyd and Sims, both of whom were personal friends of LBJ and did security for him whenever he came to Dallas. I think the guy at the typewriter was an FBI agent, but I forget his name. But, the star of this photo are the phones. The idea is that they were taking calls from the public, with not just tips, but threats. They said that 100 people called threatening to kill Oswald. And that is ridiculous. Why would anyone do that? Why tell Police that you're going to kill someone? And one lowly officer said that when he was fielding calls, that Jack Ruby called threatening to kill Oswald; that he recognized his voice. That is so ridiculous. We know every move Ruby made from Friday to Sunday, every call he made or received; every person he talked to. It’s all documented here:  https://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Jack_Ruby/Timeline_of_Ruby.html

Ruby didn’t call the Dallas Police threatening to kill Oswald. He never had the slightst thought to kill Oswald, and he said so. But, the whole idea that ANYBODY would do that is ridiculous. Listen to me: EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED THAT SUNDAY MORNING WAS BY MANIPULATION, INCLUDING RUBY GETTING TO THE GARAGE. He was steered there. He was tricked into going there. And he was like a baby lamb at slaughter. I dare say that the killing of Oswald and framing of Ruby was the most Machiavellian plot of all time.  And we were all victims of it.  We were all like Pavlovian dogs.

This is Jared Isaacman, who was just confirmed as the new NASA Chief. He happens to have protruding ears, which are also called prominent ears. About 5% of people are born with prominent ears.  

From this angle, you don't notice it as much. 

If you are wondering who that is next to him, it is Billy Lovelady, who also had prominent ears. That photo of him was taken by Robert Groden in 1976 for the HSCA. Let's look at it more closely. 

He has unusually long, bushy hair on his sideburns. Have you ever seen sideburn hair so long? Are you buying it? I'm not. Why would he let his sideburns grow like that? 

I'd be willing to bet that that was done with paint.  

If we look at Lovelady's FBI photo, it's not like that, but it's weird too. The one on the left below is the one that the FBI sent to the Warren Commission with a letter from J. Edgar Hoover. The WC did not publish it or mention it. We only know about it because Harold Weisberg found it in the "document pile." Lovelady's right ear is too low, in both versions. The dark, shadowy one is what the HSCA published. And they did that to it, to soften his look. He looks thuggish on the left, but not on the right.   

Do I think the FBI messed with his ears to obscure Lovelady's prominent ears? Yes, I do. Look below on the left. That is the photo of Lovelady taken by Mark Lane. You can see his ears are sticking out. Next to him I put Doorman and Oswald, whose ears are identical and have the normal auriculo-cephalic angle. 

I would tell you that this settles it, but it was already settled. It was Oswald in the doorway, but Lovelady was there too. He was the guy visoring his eyes who had no head. There is no other photo like that in the world. And if you tried to duplicate it, you couldn't. It is fradulent. They blackened out his face because he was Billy Lovelady. 

 The guy plastered next to Oswald, overlapping him, wasn't there. They put him in to hide the unusual construction of Oswald's Russian shirt. 

But, getting back to Lovelady's prominent ears, are they the reason why Lovelady was never interviewed by the press? CBS interviewed him for their 1967 JFK Special, but they chucked it and the whole segment about Doorman. They never mentioned it in the 2 hour program.    

But, his ears weren't the only reason. Lovelady was a terrible liar and a terrible actor. He was no good at claiming to be Doorman. And that's the reason HSCA lawyer Ken Brooten didn't subpoena him. Think about it. They had a photo, and they knew that a mystery man in it had to be one of two men, but only one of them was alive. Wouldn't they interview him? How could they not? But, they didn't.  

Folks, it really was Oswald in that doorway, and they have been lying to us about it for 62 years. Oswald said he was in the doorway, and he cited someone who was in the doorway: Bill Shelley.  How could Oswald know that Shelley was there?  Because he was there himself.  

"I was out with Bill Shelley in front." That's what Oswald said in his first interrogation, and Fritz wrote it down. We need to take a stand:

 Stop the lies! Oswald outside!

 

 

 I know it is daunting for people when they hear, for the first time, that Jack Ruby was innocent. But, if it was Ruby in that garage shooting at Oswald, then the images of Ruby have to be consistent with the Shooter. They have to match. It’s as simple as that, and nothing else matters.  It doesn’t matter what anybody said- including Ruby.

With that thought in mind, I have made a new collage comparing Ruby to the Shooter. The image of Ruby on the left is one of his mug-shot photos from that day. The image of the Shooter is from the Beers photo.

If there are any physical differences between them, that settles it; he wasn’t Ruby.  One difference is that the Shooter was shorter than Ruby. Ruby was 5’9”.  It was on his driver’s license. That was the same height as Oswald. But, you can see in the Beers photo that the Shooter was quite a bit shorter than Oswald. In fact, he looks almost like a Munchkin.

They tried to hide it by changing the Shooter’s left leg, to make it look like he was stretched out and squatting, thereby lowering him. But, that is fake.   You can see in the Jackson photo that his legs were underneath him; he wasn’t all stretched out.  You can see it in the films too.

Another difference that stands out is that the Shooter had a very short neck. He had one of the shortest necks I have ever seen, and I was a chiropractor.  It’s almost like his head was sitting on his shoulders. Ruby, on the left, clearly has a longer neck than the Shooter.

Another thing that stands out is that the Shooter had a very round head. He was like Charlie Brown.  You can see that Ruby had a longer head. The shape of their heads is nothing alike.

The other thing is that they wore different shoes and sock. Ruby wore jet black socks, while the Shooter wore light socks. We don’t know what color they were because it’s a black and white photo, but they were light.  Also, the Shooter is wearing dressy wingtips, while Ruby wore a high-top shoe. When this was discovered, they had to make it that they changed every stitch of clothing on his body, including his shoes and socks. But, that is ridiculous because it was a City Jail. A defendant only stays there until they are arraigned. Then, they either go home or to the County Jail. And the Constitution guarantees a speedy arraignment.  So, they don’t provide any clothes at a City Jail. Oswald didn’t get any. Yet, we are supposed to believe that they changed everything on Ruby, including his underwear. He was transferred to the County Jail the very next day.

So, the truth is that Ruby wore black socks and high-top shoes, while the Shooter wore light socks  and wingtips, and that is just what happened.

Jack Ruby was innocent. He was tricked into believing that he shot Oswald. He got  to the garage an hour before, and they pounced on him then.

Now, if you were standing somewhere, minding your own business, and the cops jumped you and dragged you off somewhere and told you that you shot someone, you would defend yourself. You would respond with fury! And that’s normal, in that situation. But, Jack Ruby wasn’t normal.  He was extremely impaired mentally, and partly due to drugs. He was so weak, so submissive, and so pathologically respectful of authority, that he accepted that he shot Oswald just because the lying Dallas Police told him that he did. To put it succinctly: Jack Ruby was MK-ULTRA’d.

So, here is the collage, and it is screaming at us that Jack Ruby was innocent.  Never mind anything else. This alone proves that he was innocent.   

 I am going to claim something that I have been pondering for years. I am not claiming it with 100% certainty, but I am claiming it with very strong conviction. You'll understand as I proceed. 

It is that it wasn't Oswald in the films of the Oswald shooting; that they used an Oswald double for that. 

Now, it definitely was Oswald in the "iconic" photos  of the Oswald shooting: Beers, Jackson and Johnston. But, I have been saying for years that those photos were taken at a photo-shoot before the televised spectacle.  

Dr. Fred Bieberdorf testifed that reporters started gathering very early in the garage, but about 9:45, the police ordered everyone out, including him. And no one was allowed back in until 10 minutes before the spectacle began. 

Why did they empty the garage? For one thing, they were expecting Ruby, whom they had to grab, and they didn't want anyone but police to be there for that. But second, they had to take the iconic photos. 

And those two things may have overlapped. Ruby may have gotten there right during the taking of the iconic photos. 

And the very fact that they took those iconic photos argues for Oswald not being there for the  televised spectacle because it explains why they needed the advance photos. If they didn't take them, they wouldn't have had any images of the real Oswald supposedly being shot.  

What this comes down to is looking very closely at the images of Oswald in the films and seeing if it's him. We don't have much to work with, and the quality of both films (NBC and KRLD) are very poor. They are very blurry and very poor resolution. 

The KRLD footage barely shows Oswald at all. This image shows him for a fraction of a second, but that's it. 

That is the only time you can see Oswald's face in the KRLD  film, and it is impossible to say if it's him. So, let's look at NBC.

We see Oswald like that for several seconds before the Shooter comes in. You can't tell whether it's him. One thing that bothers me is that he had his head cocked to the right slightly, and I don't recall Oswald doing that. it is a subconscious postural habit, and perhaps the Oswald double had that habit, but the real Oswald didn't. 

He comes closer, and we do see his ear. Make a note of that. 

Then, a tenth of second later, the ear instantly disappears. Look: no ear. 

So now, Oswald has no left ear, which means they acted to remove it. Why would they do that? Because ears are very unique and distinctive, and if he wasn't Oswald, his ears may have been very different from Oswald's.  

But, this comparison of the Oswald in the footage with the real Oswald is the best we have. I'm sorry, but there is nothing better. So, clear your mind and just consider: do you think that guy on the left is really Oswald? Notice how swollen Oswald's left eye is in the mug shot. We don't see that on the guy in the film. The very fact that they obscured his ear argues that it's not him. This was 1963, and I know movie cameras were not as good as they are today, but they weren't as bad as this. So, the very fact that the film is so blurry and of such poor resolution argues strongly that it's not him.  They just did not want us to get a good look at him.  

As I look at those two images, I see the hair of the man on the left being straighter and lying flatter. I see his neck as being shorter than Oswald's. Look how close his head is to his shirt collar; that guy had a short neck. 

But, I'll put it in perspective: I would stake my life that it's Oswald in the doorway of the Altgens photo. I would also stake my life that it was James Bookhout masquerading as Ruby at the Garage Spectacle. But, I can't tell you that I would stake my life that it wasn't Oswald in the films of the Oswald shooting. However, if there was a way to bet on it, I would stake my money that it wasn't Oswald at the Oswald shooting. 

And it makes sense that it wouldn't be. Because: how could they trust Oswald? How could they be sure of what he would do on camera? What if he responded by kicking Bookhout in the testicles? 

Furthermore, they had to shoot Oswald under controlled conditions, with perfect placement of the bullet. And those controlled conditions included that Oswald had to be sedated first. They had to knock him out before they could shoot him. They had fast-acting sedation drugs in the 1960s, such as Thiopental Sodium, but it had to be administered intravenously.

I have been saying for years that Oswald was shot in the Jail Office, but they had to start early. They couldn't just wait until after the Garage Spectacle and then somehow drug him and then take their carefully placed shot. So, I think it's very likely that once they used him to take the "iconic" photos (Beers, Jackson, Johnston), that they were done with him. So, they started their operation of killing him, starting by sedating him.  

I am going to finish this by showing you something else that I am 100% sure of; that I would stake my life on. 

There is footage of Oswald being brought down and led into the garage, but it is definitely not Oswald in that footage. 

On the right below is the Oswald double; on the left is Oswald from the Johnston photo, one of the iconic photos taken at the photo-shoot beforehand. 

The man on the right is definitely not Oswald. His nose is shorter and blunter, and his tip cartilage doesn't dip as Oswald's does. You can see that his left ear was smaller than Oswald's. You can see that his hair was shorter and had more recession. And he did not have the prominent sternocleidomastoid muscle that Oswald had, which is the long ropy muscle that goes from your collar bone to the mastoid process behind your ear. 

He was an Oswald doppelganger, and it is an amazing resemblance. But, he was not Oswald, and I would bet my life on it. I was a doctor my whole adult life, and I know damn well, from having examined people, that the man on the right is not the man on the left. 

So, you see, they had an Oswald double. And I already said: Attorney H. Louis Nichols never met with the real Oswald. Watch the Midnight Press Conference and observe how impassioned Oswald was that he wanted a lawyer. He never would have turned Nichols down. They waited until Oswald was taken to his Saturday evening interrogation before putting the Oswald double in his cell and bringing Nichols up there to talk to him.  

And finally, just for comparison, here are two images of Paul McCartney. 

Some people, to this day, believe that in November 1966, Paul died in a car accident in England and they replaced him with "Faul." Well, do the same kind of photo comparison that I did above for Oswald. In this case, it's Paul McCartney in both photos, and the people who claim otherwise are out of their friggin' minds. And it's not just because the photos match so well (and they do). It's because the idea that someone else could not only look identical to Paul, and sound identical to him, but also have his 1 in 50 million musical talent? And the same resonnace of his voice? And both happened to be left-handed? As I said, the "Paul is dead" people are out of their friggin' minds. But, I assure you; I am not.  

 

 Let’s talk about whether a rifle of Oswald’s was being stored in Ruth Paine’s garage.  This is a hypothetical discussion because Oswald didn’t even own a rifle. He said he didn’t.  And if you read this brilliant analysis by the great researcher John Armstrong, you’ll realize that the whole mail-order story was a concoction by the FBI. 

https://harveyandlee.net/Guns/Guns.html

So, even though John settled the matter, once and for all, I still want to discuss the claim that Oswald had a rifle in Ruth Paine’s garage because it introduces a whole new level of absurdity, and one that most people have not considered.

So, the story goes that Oswald took his rifle with him to New Orleans, but there is a problem with that. Ruth Paine drove Oswald to the bus station to go to New Orleans, and  Marina and June went along too to see him off. Therefore, if he had a rifle with him, it would have been noticed. But, neither Marina nor Ruth said that Oswald had a rifle. And Ruth Paine detailed his belongings that she saw, and it did not include a rifle.   

That was in April 1963. And during the 5 months between April and September, there are no claims or reports of Oswald ever having used his supposed rifle.  But then, after he lost his job, Ruth Paine drove all the way to New Orleans from Dallas- and dragged her kids along- just to turn around right away and come back with Marina and June.

Now, both Oswald and Marina knew that Ruth was a Quaker, a pacifist, that she did not believe in guns and did not allow them in her house or in her presence.  And Marina herself was not into guns. And Oswald wasn’t going along. So, imagine Oswald telling his wife:

OSWALD: Now listen, Marina: I am going to wrap my rifle in a blanket, and when we’re loading her station wagon with your stuff, I am going to sneak it in there. Then, when you get to Irving, you need to sneak it into her garage, without telling her, and hide it somewhere, so that she doesn’t know about it.

MARINA: I will not do that. She is offering to house me and June, and feed us, and help me when I give birth in October, and I am not going to repay her by sneaking a rifle into her garage. And, it’s a stupid idea anyway. You’ve got your buddies down here, your Guy Bannister boys. You can leave your rifle with him or with one of them. Or, you can just sell it. You don’t use it. You never used it once the whole time we’ve been in New Orleans. Just get rid of the damn thing. You don’t need it.  Do whatever you want with it, but I am not going to sabotage my relationship with Ruth by sneaking a rifle into her garage. Forget it, Lee.

That’s about how that exchange would have went- but in Russian.  And don’t tell me I am exaggerating. We know that Marina stood up to Lee, and that they fought often. And we know that she had no interest in guns. The chance that she would have consented to Oswald’s scheme is zero.  

So, what happened after that? Did Oswald sneak the rifle into the station wagon anyway and take his chances that it would wind up snugly placed in Ruth’s garage? It seems awfully stupid to me.

But, let’s fast-forward to Dallas, where we have to talk about Michael Paine.  The story goes that Michael Paine, who was divorcing Ruth, was still quite the nifty house husband. First, it  seems rather unlikely that a man who had to support his estranged wife and his children would agree to also start supporting a separated, pregnant woman and her daughter. But, the story goes that he put the rifle in the garage without knowing what it was. And then, at various times, over the next two months, he was doing stuff in the garage, and he would come across the rifle again and again.  And each time he came across it, he would put it somewhere else.  He would move it. And each time, he moved it, he would wonder what it was. First, he thought it was tent poles, as if the Oswalds were into camping. Another time, he wondered if it was a military shovel. And he said he knew about military shovels because he served in the Military. But, he never looked inside the blanket to see what it was, as curious as he was.  And it also never occurred to him to ask Marina what it  was.   But tell me: if you were handling a rifle wrapped in a blanket, is there any chance you would think it was a shovel? Doesn’t a shovel have a spade? And don’t rifles not have spades? And remember that a blanket is not a box. A box can hide the geometry of an object, but not a blanket.   

Now, let’s fast-forward to early October when Oswald returns to the Dallas area, since his family is there.  He never gives any thought to living in Irving. Right away, he thinks Dallas. He eventually winds up getting a job at the TSBD and moving into a boarding house in Oak Cliff. He reportedly went out to Irving most, if not all, weekends, and stayed at Ruth Paine’s house.

And that was the entirety of his life: working at the TSBD and spending weekends with his family in Irving. But, what about his supposed rifle? Did he do anything about it?  No, according to the story. There are no reports that he and Marina even talked about their deep, dark secret. Did he consider retrieving it and keeping it in his boarding room? There are no reports of that.

Now, let’s fast-forward to November 21 when Oswald rode with Frazier out to Irving on that Thursday night. Why did Oswald go out there? Was it to get his rifle so that he could kill Kennedy? If you’ve been reading this, I hope you realize there was no rifle in Ruth Paine’s Quaker garage. So, why else would he have gone there? Well, he had $168 in cash that he left with Marina. This is what AI said about the value of that money: AI Overview

$168 in 1963 had the buying power of approximately 

$1,736 to $1,790 in 2025,

Let’s just call it $1750.  How many people today walk around with $1750 in cash on them? I bet you Jeff Bezos doesn’t.  Elon Musk? Not him either.  Warren Buffet?  Certainly not. So, that was a lot of cash. And where did Oswald get it?  He was fired on July 19, and this was November. He had been working about a month at the TSBD, but for $1.11/hour. And on that pay, he had to support himself and give money to Marina for her and two kids.

SO, WHERE DID OSWALD GET THE MONEY? Well, he didn’t rob a bank. Somebody must have given it to him. And whoever gave it to him may have urged him not to leave it at that flaky boarding house, but to take it out to his pretty little wife in Irving.

And that’s why I think he went to Irving. But, it was also to implore her to reunite their family and move back into an apartment with him, that he would get for them in Dallas. And that’s in the record. Marina admitted that he asked her to do that. And she said she politely turned him down, saying that she wasn’t ready. But, they still slept together that night. So, let’s talk about that. So, they ate dinner, and they watched tv, and then they went to bed. I’ll assume Oswald took a shower. Supposedly, in the middle of the night, Oswald got up out of bed and went out to the garage. It was cheap little two bedroom house. Did I mention it was small?  

Do you think Oswald got up in the middle of the night in that house and starting doing stuff in the garage without others in the house hearing him? I have house guests sometimes, and when I do, I have to be very careful at night not to make noise that will disturb them. I like to play the piano at night because it relaxes me. I have an electronic piano that I can put on mute and listen through headphones. I used to think I could play it that way at night, but just pressing the keys would disturb my guests. Just the pressing of the keys with no musical sound would wake them up.  

So, you think Oswald got up and went into that filthy, cluttered garage (I’ve  seen pictures) and starting milling around for that blanket with the rifle (having no idea where it was) and then upon finding it, he had to turn the brown paper he brought with him from the TSBD into a paper bag and then load the rifle parts into the makeshift bag, and then put it somewhere so that he could leave with it the next morning undetected. And then after all that, you think he slipped into bed with Marina? But, nobody is that sound a sleeper. And assuming he showered before going  to  bed with her, he had to smell different after doing all that. He’d have been sweaty and musty and even dirty, because it was a dirty garage.  But supposedly, Marina didn’t know a thing until she woke up in the morning and saw that he was gone, leaving the cash and his wedding ring. Did he really leave his ring? I don’t know because she didn’t state that until she testified to the Warren Commission in February 1964, and she said all kinds of things then that never happened.  

But, the point is that every last thing about the rifle story is implausible, from him ordering it from Chicago, to him using it shoot at General Walker,  to him taking it to New Orleans, to it being brought back to Irving and stored in Ruth Paine’s garage, and  to him retrieving it the night before the assassination.

Oswald did not own a rifle. He said he didn’t, and he really didn’t. It means it was physically impossible for him to have shot JFK.  And of course, he was standing in the doorway of  the Book Depository during the shooting, and he identified someone who was there in the doorway: Bill Shelley. How could Oswald have known that Shelley was there?  It’s because he, Oswald, was there, in the doorway.