This is Part 2 of my takedown of the Evil Praymanites. They claim that Oswald was eating his cheese sandwich in the doorway, during the motorcade, at 12:30. Why would he do that? They were let off work early, at 11:45. We were told that it was precisely so that the employees could eat lunch and tidy up before the motorcade arrived. Who knows, maybe it was because they had to do things on the 6th floor like arrnage the boxes to build the Sniper's Nest. But, that's what we were told, and there is no reason to doubt that they did get off at 11:45. 

So, since Oswald got off at 11:45, why would he wait until 12:30 to eat? He hadn't eaten that day. According to Ruth Paine and Marina, the only thing he consumed before leaving for work was coffee. 

So, presumably, he was ready to eat. So, why wouldn't he? What else did he have to do in lieu of eating?  Why would he have postponed eating? In order to do what? 

And if he put off eating until 12:30, how did he spend that 45 minutes, and where did he spend it? Oswald told his interrogators that he spent the lunchbreak eating in the 1st floor lunch room, which is where he always ate. In this note by James Hosty, it appears that Oswald said that he went to the 2nd floor lunch room first to get a Coke, with which to wash down his lunch. A cheese sandwich can be rather dry, right? 

I can't think of any reason to doubt that Oswald did what the note said, which was eat his lunch early in the lunch break, and then go outside to watch the Presidential Parade. That's what P. Parade stands for.

So, why would he be eating at 12:30? He wouldn't. He couldn't. He didn't. It is just an Evil Prayermanite lie. 

And why would anyone be eating during JFK's motorcade? I mean, if it were say an Easter Parde or 4th of July Parade, you might be noshing on something as you watched. But, not when it's the President of the United States. We have footage of the entire 10 mile drive from Love Field, with all the huge, thick crowds that lined the streets, and I don't recall seeing anyone eating. And in Oswald's case, it is particularly ridiculous because he was given the opportunity to eat at a time when there was nothing distracting him or preventing him from using the time to eat. It is impossible to conjure up anything that would have prevented him from doing so. No, he was not writing a love letter to Judyth Baker, telling her how much he looked forward to running away to Mexico with her, abandoning his wife and kids. There is no reason to believe that Oswald ever met Judyth Baker, and there is no evidence that he did.  

So, if you are a sane and rational person, you are going to believe Oswald that he ate his lunch early in the lunch break in the Domino room and then he went outside, where we can see him in the Altgens photo and the Wiegman film. But, I mean as the Doorman, not as the shadowy figure that the Evil Praymanites conjured up and call Prayer Man. As I said in Part 1, there was no Prayer Man. He is an invention. Why did they invent him? They invented him to muddy the waters, to create a false rumor to draw people away from recognizing that Oswald was the Altgens Doorman and the first Wiegman Doorman. 

The 2nd Wiegman Doorman was another invention. There was no 2nd Wiegman Doorman. He is just a still image that was added to the film. The reason they added him was because Oswald had left for the lunch room, so there was no Doorman. Apparently, the commotion that caused Wiegman to do his second pan of the doorway concerned Oswald. I think it was Bill Shelley ordering Oswald to go to the lunch room. There must have been a bit of a scene there. 

So, Oswald was definitely not eating in the doorway, but he was in the doorway, and here are three images of him on 11/22. Left is an arrest photo; center is Wiegman; and right is Altgens. 

 There was no Prayer Man. Not only is the claim that Oswald was Prayer Man false, but the claim that there was a Prayer Man is false. 

Let's be thorough about this. Prayer Man is a figure who is supposedly seen in two films: the Wiegman film and the Darnell film. We are talking, of course, about the doorway of the Book Depository. 

First, we should acknowledge that the quality of the films is very poor, and I mean extremely poor. There is a photo that is derived from a frame of the Wiegman film which shows the doorway during Wiegman's second pan of it. Wiegman captured the doorway the first time just from rounding the corner. But then, after passing it, he swung back around and shot the doorway a second time. Now, why did he do that?  

We don't know. He never said. And nobody ever asked him. I tell you that he must have detected a commotion in the doorway. Why else would he have done it?  

The Wiegman film that we have today is EXTREMELY blurry. The clearest image we have from it is a still frame that was converted into a photo. It is an image of his second pan of the doorway. Here it is, and next to it I have put the corresponding frame from the Wiegman film that we have today, which is from a Youtube video. 

I don't know the source of the superior image on the left, but it's very existence tells me that there is a higher quality version of the Wiegman film in somebody's hands, presumably NBC. Congresswoman Anna Luna from Florida has been saying, for years, that NBC has a better quality Wiegman film that they have been hiding. 

But, the Youtube postings of the Wiegman film are all we have. The Prayermanites claim that in the black of the doorway between black man who is next to the column and the Doorman on our right is another person. Do you see anybody? I don't see anybody. So, why do they claim it? 

What those evil Prayermanites did is post a Photoshopped image from the Wiegman film in which they added Prayer Man. 

 Do you think that is a bold statement? It is not. The Prayermanites admit it themselves. A 2024 Prayer Man analysis says that it examined eight Wiegman frames and that seven failed to show Prayer Man with sufficient clarity and detail. It then singled out one lone frame as the promising one. Then, that one frame was subjected to "light/clarity adjustments, AI-powered enlargement, noise cancellation, desaturation, contrast adjustment, and histogram manipulation." In other words, it was Photoshopped, and I'm using that term generically for image manipulation using software. 

The only thing that matters is what we can see in the Wiegman film. And the Prayermanites can't show you a version of the Wiegman film that looks like what they are claiming.  All they show is the doctored frame. And since you can't see it in the Wiegman film, there is no reason to believe or accept any of it.  

And consider that the Prayermanites have been around for a long time, probably 15 years. And they have always claimed that the Wiegman film shows Prayer Man. But, if they didn't do their image enhancement using AI until recently (2024), how were they claiming it in the beginning before there was AI?  

Do you think the Prayermanites have a better version of the Wiegman film? How could they have any version of it? It's not like you can buy it. I think they started with the same still frame that I showed you that is relatively sharp, and they applied their machinations to it. There is no reason to believe that their doctored frame is legitimate. If you are going to accept their doctored image, you might as well get your checkbook out to buy the Brooklyn Bridge.   

The bottom line is that the Wiegman film, as it appears on Youtube, is all there is. It's all we have. It is the only access we have to the Wiegman film. And the only way we can confirm what is in the film is by viewing the film. We can't trust anybody's still-frames of it because it is too easy to alter them. 

Prayer Man being in the Wiegman film is something we must reject outright, if we are honest and smart.  

The only other place the evil Prayermanites claim shows Prayer Man is the Darnell film, and I will cover that next time, and it is a humdinger of a story. And when I'm through, you'll understand why I call them the Evil Prayermanites.  

 Watch the Midnight Press Conference again with your focus on one thing: does Oswald sound sane? It is a very pertinent question because he would have had to be completely insane to shoot Kennedy. So, does he sound sane or insane?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CK_xxne2WE

I tell you that he sounds so sane that they put a lot of noise over him trying to diminish his composure, steadiness, and grounded self-control. He showed a lot of equanimity and self-possession, despite the extraordinary situation he was in.

And if we look at Oswald's life at the time, his objectives are clear and sane. He wanted to get his family back under his roof. He wanted to find a better job. He wanted to acquire a driver's license. For him to destroy his entire life by shooting Kennedy goes beyond insane. It goes to the realm of the totally inexplicable and imponderable. Not only did Oswald have no reason to shoot Kennedy; and no benefit from shooting Kennedy, but there is no credible and coherent basis to assume he would derive any satisfaction from shooting Kennedy.

And notice how passionate he sounded in asking for a lawyer. He was imploring the whole world to get him a lawyer. Do you really think that just 18 hours later, when he was offered one, that he just shrugged and said no? I know that's what we've been told, but this is the JFK assassination, and everything weve been told has to be scrutinized and challenged.

And especially if you defend Oswald, if you deny that he killed Kennedy, it is your responsibility to defend his sanity too.

And consider that in the weeks before the assassination, there is no basis to claim that Oswald was focused on Kennedy at all. And he could not have had any expectation of seeing Kennedy. So, theoretically, and we don't know that this happened, if he was browsing the newspaper on, say, the Tuesday, and saw the motorcade route, that he instantly got the compulsion to kill Kennedy? Without any progression? Without any bridge? Without any preliminaries whatsoever?

The plotters knew they had a credibility problem that way, and that's why they conjured up the Walker shooting attempt. But, the credibility of the Walker story is every bit as bad, with the bullet dug out of Walker's window not matching Oswald's supposed bullet, and witnesses seeing two culprits, each driving off in their own car. And Marina was involved too because supposedly she knew that her husband was a homicidal maniac, and yet, she not only didn't inform the police, but she followed him down to New Orleans to live with him, after knowing about it, and also subjecting her daughter to him.

I get it that women have been known to forgive men for violent acts, such as slugging them in a drunken rage. But, shooting at Walker was different because there was no personal connection and no immediate provocation to provide even a rudimentary explanation for it.

And why wasn't Marina charged for failing to report a felony if she knew Oswald had shot at Walker?

But, let's get back to the MPC where Oswald came across as lucid, rational, and sane. He devoted his whole speech to not just pleading for a lawyer BUT PROTESTING THAT THE DALLAS POLICE WERE DENYING HIM ONE. So, after doing that, how could he say no when offered a lawyer? Such a reversal would have been a mental break in itself. Again, there is no basis to think that Oswald was in such a mental state.

The man we hear in the Midnight Press Conference appears lucid, rational, purposeful, and remarkably self-possessed. His known concerns immediately before November 22 appear overwhelmingly directed toward ordinary, rational personal pursuits. There is no clearly demonstrated progression toward killing Kennedy. The alleged route discovery supplies no obvious psychological bridge. The Walker episode is offered to supply that bridge, but itself presents serious evidentiary and behavioral questions. And his urgent demand for a lawyer creates an additional question about the subsequent claim that he rejected legal assistance.

There is something terribly wrong with the story that H Louis Nichols met with Oswald- the real Oswald- who rejected his offer of a lawyer. I am asking you to doubt it, on principle, knowing that Oswald was sane. But then, when you look at the specifics of the Nichols' story, especially the timeline of it, you will realize that it never happened, that Nichols met with someone, but it wasn't the Lee Harvey Oswald of fame.

 Watch this video of the Midnight Press Conference because it's bizarre.

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

It starts with reporters in the hall. One, with a strong Texas accent, says "we should get a larger room." They are in a hall; not in a room, but that's what he says. Then, another reporter says "How about the Assembly room?" Then another voice says, "All right; let's go down there." But, you don't see any of those figures. It's just their voices, and I suspect it was just added to the footage to concoct it; to fabricate it. It was an attempt to make it look like the reporters organized the Midnight Press Conference- not the cops.

Then it gets to the conference, and you hear a narrator say, "The suspect is coming down the aisle and into the Identification room." But, that may have been added too.

Then, Oswald is led in, and he starts speaking, "I positively know nothing about this siutation here, and I would like to have legal representation."

Then, he said, "I was questioned by a judge, but I protested at that time that I was not allowed legal representation, during that very short and sweet hearing."

Notice that he did not say anything about John Abt or wanting John Abt. And he could not have been protesting that the Dallas Police didn't get him John Abt because they couldn't get him John Abt. All they could do is get him a Texas laywer, and that is what he was talking about.

Now after that, there is jump cut. So, they cut something out; something they didn't want us to hear. The next thing we have is:

"I really don't know what this situation is about. Nobody has told me anything except that I am accused of murdering a policeman. I know nothing more than that, and I do request that someone come forward to give me legal assistance."

Then, a reporter asked him if he killed the President.

"No. Nobody has said that to me yet. The first thing I heard about it is when the newspaper reporters in the hall asked me that question." That implies that the Police never informed him that he was suspected of killing Kennedy. So, why didn't they tell him?

The final thing Oswald said was in response to a reporter who, apparently, asked him about his swollen eye. He said; "A policeman hit me."

But, this version below, supposedly, shows Jack Ruby. At 1:18, it says it's him standing among the reporters, but it is obviously not him. They deliberately made it very dark to obscure it. I lightened it some, and you can still tell that he isn't Ruby.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20gMauCyU0s

But, there is also this version which shows Ruby in the back of the room. Now, that is where Ruby said he was. He said he was on a table in the back of the room. And it does look to be him. It's weird that it starts as a still image and then it starts moving, and I'm not sure that Ruby ever moves.

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

So, it may be a still image of him that they added to the film. But, that is him, and it is where he said he was.

But, I have to finish this by pointing out that the whole idea of giving Oswald a press conference makes no sense. Remember: they would not let Oswald have a lawyer, which means they didn't want him talking to a lawyer. So, why would they let him talk to the world? They took a big chance doing that. And therefore, they must have had an ulterior motive, and I think it was to kill him on camera. I can't think of any other ulterior motive. I presume Ruby was not in a spot where they could pin it on him. Consider that the whole press conference only lasted one minute. Why abort it so soon, after going to all that trouble? For one, Oswald was doing them a lot of damage complaining about being denied a lawyer. But, once they realized that the shooting of him wasn't going to happen, they ended it abruptly.

Now, don't tell me they did it to give the press access to Oswald because if they were concerned about that, they would have let it go on for more than a minute.

 It is clear to me now that the images of Jean Hill and Mary Moorman in the Zaprduer film are bogus. On the left is a photo of Mary taken late that afternoon, and on the right is a Costella frame from the Z-film.

Note that how we source the Z-film is very important because with Photoshopping and now AI, anything is possible. We have to be sure we don't use something that was tampered with or digitally enhanced. But, we can trust the Costella frames.

1 Mary's raincoat had enormous white buttons, which we don't see in the Costella frame. You could claim one button in 303, but I also included 296 which shows no buttons at all. There is no rationalizing this. The buttons should be visible.

2 Mary's raincoat was extremely long. It appears to go all the way down to her ankles. But, in the Costella frame, it is not that long. On her left side, which is on our right, it only goes a little below her knee.

3 On the left, her coat is wrinkled and looks baggy on her, like it's a a size too big. On the right, it looks sleek, streamlined, and tight-fitting.

4 Mary's shoes in the Zapruder film do not correspond to what we see in the still photo, which is a mocassin-style loafer, although dressier than a mocassin. There is no basis to claim that the Zapruder frame displays Mary's shoe authentically, as seen so clearly and sharply in the still photo. It is another non-sequiter.

5 When we consider the above issues and then add the weird flow of Mary in the Z-film, where she continues to point her cameraa straight ahead even after the Kennedy's have passed her, it makes her entire presence in the film not just questionable but non-credible. I'm not questioning that she was there. Of course, she was. But, the imagery of her that was captured by Zapruder's camera got replaced with the crude imagery that we see in the film.

 Look what I found. This is from the day of the assassination, and Jean Hill said that "We were looking at the President, we were looking at his face. As Mary took the picture, I was looking at him, " Listen to it yourself. You can start at the 5 minute mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rgmr03l4GFI&t=285s

Then, after that, "he grabbed his hands across his chest." I presume she was referred to his repsonse, raising his hands up to his throat. There is nothing else she could have been talking about.

So, it seems that Mary's real picture was taken right after the throat shot, which was followed by his reaction to it.

Like Mary, Jean said that there were several shots after Mary took her picture. Therefore, it had to be taken long before the fatal head shot because that was the final shot, and nobody disputes that.

 Supposedly, in the Zapruder film, Mary Moorman was still looking through her viewfinder when the fatal headshot occurred at 313, and she still waited longer to take her picture. The "experts" tell us that she didn't take it until 315 or 316.

But, Mary never said that. She said the opposite, that she took her photo at the time of the first shot.

And wouldn't she have turned to keep tracking the Kennedys? Why would she keep pointing her camera straight ahead when they had already passed her?

You have to admit that this is a bizarre image, and it is contrary to real life. In fact, is something that we have never seen except here, in the JFK assassination.

So, why didn't Mary turn? First, I'll tell you why she didn't turn in real life, and then I'll tell you why she doesn't turn in the film.

She didn't turn in real life because she finished taking her photo before they reached her, and then she got down on the ground. And she doesn't turn in the Zapruder film because they just added a still image to the film. It wasn't a moving image. So, that image couldn't turn. It's just art- crude, crappy CIA art. It's just a painting. And paintings don't move.

The real images of Jean Hill and Mary Moorman in the Zapruder film were taken out of it and replaced with bogus still images.

 According to the U.S. government, Mary Moorman still hasn't taken her photo yet in this frame. And that is insane because Mary waited there for hours, and she saw the limo when it turned onto Houston Street, and she brought her camera up to her eye as soon as it made the turn onto Elm Street. And even though she was poised and ready to take her picture as soon as the limo was on Elm, she let the Kennedys pass her a long way before she pressed the shutter? Nobody on Earth would do that. Not one of the 8.3 billion people on Earth would do that.

 Now, let’s peer into the Looking Glass to see what really happened with the Moorman Photo. Are you aware of the things Mary said on 11/22/63 and soon thereafter? I have audio files of everything she said. Here is one of them. You can listen to it.

https://soundcloud.com/ralphcinque/mary-moorman-spring-1964

So, she stepped out into the street, and she made sure they were looking at her, and then she took her picture. And be aware that when she was saying that, she was in the street and turned and facing eastward. She wasn’t facing across Elm; she was facing up Elm. So, why does the Zapruder film show her back on the grass and shooting across Elm? Because: the Zapruder film is bogus.

If Mary had taken her picture under those conditions, it wouldn’t look like the Moorman photo because Jackie would have been blocking Mary's view of JFK. And they don’t claim that her picture was taken then. That is Z300, and they claim her photo was taken at Z315, after the fatal head shot. Yet, they use Z300 to show when she took her picture. I also have an audio file of Mary saying that she took her photo at the time of the first shot and that several shots followed.

Mary said that, following the assassination, the feds kept borrowing her photo. But why? Not only were many copies made on 11/22, but a negative of it was made, so that they could make unlimited copies. So, what did they need hers for?

So, first the FBI borrowed it; then the Secret Service; then the CIA, and then the FBI borrowed it a second time. When they returned it after borrowing it a second time, it had the infamous white thumbprint. She said they never told her how it happened.

So, they damaged her invaluable historical photo and just returned it without explaining?

“Here’s your photo back, Mary. It has a white thumbprint on it now. Have a nice day.”

No, no, no. Nobody would do that. Not even the feds.

And how exactly could a white thumbprint get on it? As I explained, there is no plausible, credible way that that could have happened by accident.

So, the FBI added the thumbprint, and there is no doubt about it.

And it was damage to her invaluable historical photo. When you damage someone’s property, you have to compensate them. The FBI knows that. Everyone in America knows it.

And we are talking about the U.S. government, which has unlimited money because it can print any amount of money for any reason whatsoever.

So, I tell you that they surely must have brought a check with them when they returned her photo damaged. Mary never said that, but I’m also sure they brought a non-disclosure agreement with them for her to sign before they gave her the check.

Now, I admit that I have no proof of this. What I’m saying is based entirely on supposition. But, we live in a country in which when you damage someone’s property, you have to pay them. And that is not a supposition.

And I strongly believe that, in this case, they made the check big and fat- that it was an eye-opening amount of money. Why? Because: they were returning to her a photo that was not only damaged, but its content was vastly different. Instead of showing their faces, like Mary’s photo of Officer Glenn McBride, it showed the backs of their heads. It is simply not plausible that Mary waited until the Kennedys passed her to take her picture.

Furthermore, the Moorman photo was taken at a diagonal angle from behind, and I have a Physics professor, with a specialty in Optics, who will testify to that in court, as my expert witness, if necessary. I won’t tell you his name, but I will tell you that he teaches at a college in Texas.

So, for Mary to have taken the Moorman photo, she would have had to turn past perpendicular. But, there are no images of her turned past perpendicular, and she never claimed to turn past perpendicular. Even though she originally said that she was facing the Kennedys and shooting their faces, she eventually started saying that they were directly across from her when she took the photo. But, that doesn’t cut it because if she had taken the picture then, they would have been centered in the photo, which they are not, and it would have looked very different. Whoever took the Moorman photo took it diagonally from behind.

I have multiple diagrams that were drawn by the Physics Professor. I am posting one of them here.

And he is a professor who lectures other Physics professors about Optics. And he insists that the content of the Moorman photo tells us that it was taken by someone who was diagonally behind the Kennedys on the south side of Elm.

I think Mary Moorman was played. I think all those visits by the feds had a dual purpose, one of which was to size her up; to find out how respectful she was of Authority; how compliant she was when told to believe something by Authority. I think Mary was MK-ULTRA’d. It was nothing heavy duty. I’m sure it didn’t involve drugs or sleep deprivation or subliminal messages or shock waves. (Read: Poisoner in Chief: Sidney Gottlieb and the CIA Search for Mind Control by Stephen Kinzer.) But, I think that with kind, gentle voices those feds prepped Mary to accept a photo that was taken by somebody else as her own.

It is simply impossible that Mary Mooman took the Moorman photo because Physics says so. And when the Professor told me that the Moorman photo was taken at a diagonal angle from behind, I showed him this frame of Babushka Lady in the Muchmore film, he said: “Bingo. That’s who took it.”

 Robert Groden has a video about the Dave Wiegman film. Never mind what that charleton says about it. The truth about it is that it shows Oswald in the doorway. But, only in the first pass. Wiegman did a second pan of the doorway. He turned around to shoot it again, and it must have been because there was a commotion there. And by the time his camera got there the second time, Oswald was gone., and they put in a still image of someone else. So, the first Wiegman Doorman is Oswald, and the second Wiegman Doorman is nobody.

This is the first Wiegman Doorman, and he is Oswald. However, the film was deliberately degraded and distorted to make him unrecognizable. But, to sell it, they had to distort the whole film. They couldn't just distort the doorway.

But, this issue reached national prominence. Congresswoman Luna went on national television and said that the Wiegman film showed Oswald (it did) and that NBC is hiding the original, undistored one.

I doubt that that's true. I assume the original was destroyed. But, I was alive then. I remember watching tv in the 1950s. The picture wasn't as good as we're used to today, but it was not as bad as the Wiegman film. The Wiegman film is grotesquely bad. AND THAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO REALIZE: THAT THE APPALLING QUALITY OF THE WIEGMAN FILM TELLS US THEY WERE OUT TO DECEIVE US.

So, here is the film about the 1936 Berlin Olympics shot by Leni Riefenstahl who was imprisoned for 4 years after WW2 for having made propaganda films for Hitler. Don't you think that by 1963 they should have had better movie cameras than they had in 1936? So, here is the 1936 film:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frVw5XQMCb0

And here is the Wiegman film from 1963, first at regular speed and then in slow-motion.

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

Toward the end of the film when it's shooting Newman and others on the Grassy Knoll, the images are sharper, but still not as good as the 1936 film.

So yes, the Wiegman film was degraded and distorted to obscure Oswald in the doorway. And personally, I doubt that the undistored original film still exists. It makes no sense for them to have kept it. What for? Only to have to guard it under lock and key for the rest of time? No, no, no; they must have destroyed it.

 Do you think that they were telling us the truth about the Midnight Press Conference? Then look at these conflicting images of Jack Ruby at the MPC. On the left, he is up against a table in the corner, which is about what he said he did. But, there are two images of him milling with reporters, as if he was a reporter. The two images are about the same, but in the bottom image, he looks thinner and younger. There is no excuse for both those images to exist. And there is no excuse for either one to exist if the first image is valid.

There is nothing about the official story of the MPC that makes sense. The very having of it makes no sense. Who gives a man considered to be a double murderer a press conference? And do you know how long it lasted? One minute, almost exactly. Who holds a press conferene for one minute? And you can see that it was suddenly and very abruptly aborted. Why? Beacuse Oswald was doing so much damage.

 A Nicholas Kilburn has contacted me to inform me about his project entitled: The People vs. Lee Harvey Oswald. It's to simulate Oswald's trial with the assumption that it happened no later than March 1, 1965. So, how would Oswald's trial have gone?

The answer is that Oswald could not be tried. There is no way the plotters could let that happen. It would have been a disaster for them, and they knew it. And it was worse than that because they couldn't even let Oswald see a lawyer: not even once.

Don't you find it strange that Ruby didn't even ask for a lawyer, but they got him one. Ruby was allowed to talk to a lawyer before he even spoke to Fritz. But, Oswald, who wailed about wanting a lawyer wasn't given one.

And what's really chilling is that on Sunday afternoon, Fritz was talking to reporters after Oswald had died, and he said that Jack Ruby was consulting with his lawyer, "which is his right." His right? What about Oswald's right?

And before you tell me that Oswald was offered a lawyer, which he turned down, I tell you that that never happened. The Oswald of fame never met with H. Louis Nichols. That was damage control- from Oswald's Midnight Press Conferrence where he wailed to the world about being denied a lawyer. They waited until Saturday evening when Oswald was taken to his evening interrogation to bring Nichols up to the Jail to visit with Oswald, but the man he saw and spoke with was an Oswald double.

They were never going to let Oswald talk to a lawyer. They were going to kill him before that happened. And they did; eventually. They hoped he would be killed in the Texas Theater, but that didn't work out. Then, they hoped they could kill him at the Midnight Press Conference, but they couldn't pull that off either. Then, after doing the damage control on Saturday evening, they finally succeeded at killing him on Sunday morning.

So, why couldn't they let Oswald talk to a lawyer? It's because the lawyer would surely learn from him that he was standing in the doorway during the motorcade. And then, the lawyer would have showed him the Altgens photo and asked, "Is that you?" And Oswald would have said "Yes, but they tampered with my image." But, he would have had no trouble convincing the lawyer that he was telling the truth.

Then, the lawyer would have asked him if he mail-ordered a rifle from Chicago, and Oswald would have said no. Then, the lawyer would have told him what the FBI was saying, and Oswald would have reacted aghast. And he would have had no trouble convincing the lawyer that there wasn't a word of truth to it.

Everything would have come out: the bogus Backyard photos, the reason he left the doorway to go to the 2nd floor lunch room (Bill Shelley ordered him to); how he he got to the lunch room (using the elegant stairs in the southeast corner and walking across the second floor) that he never ordered a pistol from Seagate Distributors, that he did not kill Tippit, that he never shot at General Walker, etc. And through it all, Oswald would have come across as lucid, sane, and not the least bit deranged. Oswald would have repeated to him, "Why would I shoot President Kennedy? I had no reason to do it. I had no desire to do it. And I had no thought to do it. It's insane."

And what the lawyer would have gotten from that first session was that the government was framing Oswald, which meant that the government must have killed Kennedy.

So, the answer is that there was zero chance that Oswald would be or could be tried. Oswald could die. That was the only thing he could do. And that was baked in the cake before 11/22/63.

So, don't waste time speculating about how the trial of Oswald would have gone. There was never going to be a trial. They had every intention of killing him the same day, before he ever talked to the Police, let alone a lawyer.

The problem with speculating about how the trial of Oswald would have gone is that the inquiry itself implies that there was some case against him. But, there wasn't. There wasn't a speck of evidence against Oswald.

You have to realize that for Oswald to have shot at Kennedy, he would have had to be insane. But, he was not insane, and he showed that to reporters at the MPC, where he was the most lucid person in the room. And it was because he was so lucid that they had to put that racket over his voice in the tapes, including a guy issuing a firing squad order, "At ease!"

So, I say: don't respect the killers by acting like there was a reasonable case they might have made against Oswald at trial. All we need say about it is that they knew they couldn't try Oswald. That is the truth, and it speaks volumes.

 There are several things I would like to point out about this plat of Dealey Plaza. I'll do them one at a time. The first one is to point out where Robert Croft and Tina Towner were. They were both at the top of the Plaza, close to the intersection of Houston and Elm. Tina was at the intersection, right at the corner. Coft was on Elm, a little down from the corner, but not much. So, they were close to each other.

And they both followed the limousine, Croft with his still camera, and Tina with her movie camera. But, Tina's film should have included Croft's photo. Croft's photo, or something very close to it, should have been a frame in Tina's film. But, it is not. We do not see the Croft Laides in the Towner film. And we don't even see the retaining wall in the Towner film. We see the TSBD, and then it gets to the obelisk, and then we see the pergola, but that whole area that Croft captured is not in the Towner film. So, why not?

Well, I don't assume the laws of physics and optics got violated that day. I assume they didn't want to show us what she captured of that, and so they got rid of it.

And the TSBD entrance looks very weird too. It's mostly black , and the figures in it aren't discernible.

Do you realize that there are no two images of the doorway that look the same or even similar, that every single one is distinctly different from the rest?

guess they never expected anyone to compare them. But, someone did.

 So, as his Secret Service agents had the door open on Elm Street, at the same time LBJ was scooting down his seat in the Veep car ahead of them. What I mean by that is that he scooted his butt forward in the seat and probably had his knees pressed against the seatback in front in order to get his head down. It shows in the Altgens photo.

I have what is probably the best version of the Altgens photo. I got it from Dr. Gerald McKnight. I was privileged to be able to connect with him near the end of his life. I never met him in person, but I had 5 or 6 long phone calls with him. He was bedridden at the time and within months of the end, but his mind was still sharp.

Notice that Lady Bird and Senator Yarborough look quite good, meaning high resolution. So, why don't we see LBJ? It's not because he was scooted down so low that he disappeared. I think that when the CIA photo-alterers saw it, they saw him scooted down, and they realized that that looked bad; real bad. So, they took him out.

The arrow that I put there is actually pointing to his Secret Service Agent Rufus Youngblood, who was Native American. LBJ actually had the nerve to claim that Rufus turned around, grabbed him, and threw him down to the floor of the car. Then, he climbed over the seatback and lied on top of him. Do you believe that? If you do, stop it because Senator Yarborough said it never happened. And the Laws of Physics say it never happened. That's beause the floor of the car was occupied by the legs and feet of Lady Bird and Senator Yarborough. So, how oculd even one man lie on the floor, let alone two?

And observe the expressions on the faces of Lady Bird and Senator Yarborough. They are not looking distressed. They both seem festive. And that is clear evidence that what I have told you about the Altgens photo is true, that the imagery of JFK and Jackie in it is bogus. The throat shot didn't happen yet. That happened later and lower on the hill. The Altgens photo was taken high on the hill right when JFK was shot in the back. But, that was practically silent, and it may have been completely silent to the occupants of the VEEP car. Those two don't look like they are aware of anything dire. Don't you agree? They look like happy campers to me. And that should tell you that this photo was taken early- long before JFK was shot in the throat.

LBJ actually gave an award to Youngblood for saving his life. They had a big ceremony for it at the White House, and Youngblood brought his wife and many kids. But, I bet he hated every second of it because he knew the truth, that it never happened.

Did you know that Ruby was put into Oswald's cell on 11/24? We have this statement from the Jailer Henry Ellison: 

“Oswald was in cell F-2 Friday, November 22nd, Saturday, November 23rd, and Sunday, November 24th, 1963, and after Oswald was shot by Jack Ruby,  Ruby was then placed in that same cell F-2 on Sunday, November 24, 1963.”

But, whether it was the same cell as Oswald or another one really doesn't matter because they were all the same. I have a picture of Oswald's cell. 

So, it had a sink and a commode but no mirror. And they all looked like that. Therefore, how did Ruby go from looking like he does on the left to looking like he does on the right?

 David Tarshis

 ·

Then why did Dorothy Kilgallen get murdered? She had an interview with Ruby, and she bragged about it. Big mistake. She was on What's My Line, and she was a journalist.

Reply

Share

Ralph Cinque

 ·

David Tarshis Dorothy Kilgallen had two private meetings with Ruby during recesses at the trial. The fact that there were two tells you that they must have gotten along. Nobody knows what was said. But, I tell you that she was definitely murdered, and it was because of those meetings. So, what did she glean from those meetings with Ruby? Being a smart woman, I think she gleaned several things; that he was not right in the head; that he had not the slightest bit of viciousness in him and did not seem capable of murder; and he may have said something that made her realize, or at least suspect, that he was innocent. And those who put the Dallas Police up to killing Oswald and framing Ruby for it (starting with LBJ) couldn't take the chance about what she learned and what she concluded. So, they killed her.