I just came across some very interesting information about the Dal-Tex building. I have known for a long time that the TSBD occupied the first floor of it until the summer of 1963, when they moved into the 411 Elm, which is the building we know as the TSBD. What I just learned is that the first floor of theo Dal-Tex was unoccupied in November 1963 , and so was the second floor.

The third floor had garment manufacturers. The 4th and 5th floor had Abraham Zapruder's company Jennifer Junior. The 6th floor had Dallas Uranium and Oil, an attorney, and a belt manufacturer. And the 7th floor had various miscellaneous professional offices.

But, the point is that if the 1st and 2nd floors were unoccupied, it means that placing a shooter at a 2nd floor window should not have been a problem.

Still, somebody had to own the building. I found out that the Dal-Tex building got sold on November 1, 1963. The person who bought it was a woman. Her name was Sylvia Golden Russ. Actually, she already owned half of it. She was the widow of Morris Russ, who had died at the young age of 56 in 1955. The cause of his death is unknown. He had owned it with a business partner whose name was David Weisblat.

So, in late October, Russ's widow Sylvia bought out Weisblat's half of the Dal-Tex building, and on November 1, 1963, she became the sole owner of it. We're talking about a 7 story professoinal office bulding in downtown Dallas owned by one person.

The most important thing to me is that the 1st and 2nd floors were unoccupied, which made a 2nd floor window available and accessible to a shooter. And it supports my theory that the CIA "heart attack" gun was the gun used because it was very quiet. Look at this testimony from the Church Committee:

Sen. Frank Church: "So that when it fires, it fires silently?"

William Colby: "Almost silently; yes."

That's what you want in a situation like that, so that you could fire it on the 2nd floor and not disturb or alert anyone on the 3rd floor or higher.

 So, when did Jackie turn to her husband and remain focused on him for the duration? I can tell you. First, here is frame 168 in which you can see that she was doing her job, engaging with the spectators on her side of the street. Then, if we jump to frame 175, which is supposed to be about a third of a second later, she has turned to where she is facing straight ahead. Then by frame 185, which is like half a second later, she is about 45 degree to JFK. Then at frame 190, she is facing him squarely and looking at him.

From that point on, she ceased doing her politiking, and she was focused exclusively on him. She never waved again. But, according to the official story, nothing happened to JFK until he was shot about 223. Why then did she start focusing on him so early? It's because he was shot in the back; that's why. I'm not saying she knew that at the time, but she knew that something was wrong; that he was in trouble. And that's why she stayed focused on him.

The official story, that JFK wasn't hit until he was hit with the Single bullet when he was behind the sign and out of view, is a lie. He was hit in the back high on the hill, and it was a very unusual shot. It was not a kill shot. And it wouldn't be very smart to shoot someone on the right side of their back if you were out to kill them. Connally got hit on the right side of his back, and he survived. If you were trying to kill him, wouldn't you shoot him on the left side where the heart is?

But, they weren't trying to kill hiim. They didn't want to kill him high on the hill. They absolutely wanted to wait until he got to the lower part where there were few spectators. They didn't want a lot of eyes on it.

The fact that Jackie started turning to her husband in the 170s and had her eyes squarely on him by the late 180s tells us something. It tell us that he was in trouble then, and she knew it. And when I say he was in trouble, I mean that he was shot.

 The official story of the JFK assassination is not just wrong; it is ludicrous and preposterously wrong. Oswald did not even own a rifle, and other researchers have said so, such as John Armstrong and Gil Jesus. John Armstrong did the definitive work on it.

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

Oswald said he didn't own a rifle. And if you claim to be an Oswald defender, you have to believe him. You can't call him a liar. If he didn't commit any crime (and he didn't) then it would have been VERY stupid to lie to the Police about anything. And Oswald wasn't stupid.

And when first asked about it on November 22, Marina said that Lee used to own a rifle, but it got sold. She was referring to the shotgun he owned in Russia to go rabbit-hunting. The mail-order rifle story was concocted by the FBI, and they knew that it would NEVER hold up in court. The situation was so bad for them that they couldn't let Oswald talk to a lawyer because they knew he would tell the lawyer that he didn't own a rifle. And then, with the greatest of ease, the lawyer would have confirmed that it was true, and then, he or she would have realized that the FBI were the bad guys. You can be sure it was FBI Agent James W. Bookhout who ordered Fritz not to let Oswald have a lawyer.

So, since Oswald did not own or order a rifle, he could not possibly have shot Kennedy. But, it gets worse than that. There is solid evidence that the bogus rifle that Oswald didn't own never made it to New Orleans. Both Ruth Panie and Marina testified that it was not among his possessions when he moved to New Orleans. And then after that, the bogus rifle that never made it to New Orleans, it never mde it back to Irving. The story that Oswald snuck his rifle into Ruth Paine's station wagon and just hoped that, somehow, it would wind up in her garage without her knowing, and just remain there, is preposterous. Nobody would do that. And when I say nobody, I mean that not one of the 8 1/2 billion people on Earth would do that.

The story of the paper bag is preposterous. The first bag they showed us was obviously not just paper and tape; it was a real manufactured paper bag. Neither Frazier, Ruth, nor Marina reported seeing Oswald with any paper. Troy West said he never saw Oswald milling around the mailing area. And the whole idea that he would "make a bag " is preposterous. Nobody would do that either. Nobody makes bags. If anything, he would have just laid the paper out, and put the rifle parts on it, and wrapped and taped it until it was some kind of package. But no, the damn idiots made it that he started out by making a bag, the dumb plucks.

And then, when he was ready to access the rifle parts, instead of tearing the paper, he preserved the bag. He opened the bag and poured the contents out, so that the bag would remain intact. And it wasn't even torn. We're talking about jagged rifle parts in paper, and him walking several blocks with it. Yet, with all that jostling, the paper never tore, and that is amazing- that they would make up such a story.

Now, since Oswald didn't own a rifle, he wasn't shooting at Kennedy from the 6th floor, and there wasn't anything else he was donig on the 6th floor. Therefore, he wasn't on the 6th floor during the motorcade. Where was he? He was in the doorway, AND THAT IS THE ONLY PLACE HE COULD HAVE BEEN. Nothing else works. He wasn't working filling book orders. He wasn't eating because he said he ate early in the lunch break in the first floor lunch room, and that after he was done eating, he went outside to watch the Presidential Parade. We have it written down in James Hosty's own handwriting. What the hell more do you need?

So no, Oswald was NOT in the 2nd floor lunch room eating during the motorcade, even though that is what Oliver Stone depicted in the movie JFK, regrettably. There is NO CHANCE that Oswald was there. And that's because he just got to the second floor lunch room at 12:31+ when Officer Baker first saw him. Oswald was on the move just entering the lunch room when Baker first saw him. And since he just got there at 12:31+, it means he wasn't there at 12:30. You can't claim that he was there, and then left, and then came back. That goes way beyond reasonable speculation.

He wasn't on the phone during the motorcade. He wasn't reading a book. He wasn't writing a love letter to Marina or to Judyth Baker, if you buy her story, which I don't. You can't suggest that he was in the bathroom sitting on the throne with a belly ache because you don't know that, and you can't just make something up. He was in the doorway during the motorcade, just as he said. And that runs the gamut. There is no place else he could have been.

From the beginning, the whole Lovelady story was a lie that our government told, and I mean our FBI, which told it, and our CIA, which helped by providing the photo-alterers to alter the Altgens photo, trying to turn Oswald into Lovelady, and also blacking out the face of the real Lovelady, since they couldn't have two Loveladys.

And the truth is that Oswald citing Bill Shelley in the doorway is strong evidence that he, Oswald, was there himself because how else could he know that Shelley was there? And no, he didn't just gamble and say it without knowing. Remember: Oswald hadn't done anything. So, he had no reason to lie and no reason to make anything up. He said he was "out with Bill Shelley in front" because he was.

Oswald never shot at Walker. Since he didn't own a rifle, he couldn't have. But, witnesses at the scene said that there were two assailants, and they each drove off in separate cars. Well, Oswald had no gun, no car, no driver's license, no ability to drive, and he didn't have any friends either. And the bullet they dug out of Walker's window frame wasn't consistent with the Carcano bullets.

But, the story went on to include him leaving a fail-safe note for Marina, in case he got killed or apprehended. This was her emergency to-do list. The very first thing on the list was to go to the P.O. Box. But, why the heck would he have put that in? The only thing that came to the P.O. Box, according to Postal Inspector Harry Hines, were Russian and Socialist newspapers. I'm sure that that was a lie. Oswald was not spending money on Russian and Socialist newspapers. They barely had enough money for food.

But, why at a time like that would he fuss about the P.O. Box? He wouldn't. He couldn't. He didn't. The whole letter was bogus, but, the reason the plotters put the P.O. Box at the top of the list was to sell the idea that Oswald confirmed that he had a P.O. Box. He didn't have one, and they never even asked him if he had one. They didn't need to ask him beccause they knew he didn't have one.

Getting back to the 6th floor, Oswald wasn't on it during the motorcade, but do you know who was? Bobbie Ray Williams. He ate his lunch up there alone: some fried chicken and a Dr. Pepper. There is a photograph that shows the bottle he left behind and the empty carton. So, if he was up there eating (and he was), how could Oswald have been assembling the Sniper's Nest without encountering Bobbie Ray?

Oswald supposedly brought the rifle he didn't own unassembled. And he brought no tools, such as a screwdriver, with which to assemble it. And there was no screwdriver found up there. So, the Warren Commission helped themselves to the conclusion that he used a dime as a screwdriver to assemble the rifle.

Well, in that scenario, Oswald had a heck of a lot to do. He had to retrieve his non-existent rifle from wherever he hid it. He had to assemble it using a dime as a screwdriver. He had to decide which window he was going to shoot from. And he had to assemble the boxes of books to create an enclosure and a perch for himself.

So, if he had to do all that, wouldn't he have gotten started ASAP? But, Oswald started by eating his lunch in the first floor lunch room.

Now, I like to eat as much as the next guy, but if I knew I was going to be shooting the President of the United States, that would put me off my lunch. I couldn't eat under that situation. I would have no appetite at all But, even if he had a roaring appetite and an iron stomach, Oswald would have had no time to eat. So, how could he calmly eat his cheese sandwiches and an apple in the domino room, knowing that he had all that to do?

And then, his first sighting after the assassination proves that he didn't come down from the 6th floor. Officer Baker saw him moving through the anteroom of the lunch room, but if he had gone through the door that Baker saw him through (which had a glass window) that door would have still been moving. It was a tiny little room, no bigger than a closet. And if Oswald had come down from the 6th floor on the same stairs that Baker and Truly were on, they surely would have heard him, and probably seen him. Oswald would surelry have run into Truly because Truly was well ahead of Baker. Since Oswald only got to the lunch room a little ahead of Baker, he surely came from the office side of the second floor. And that means that he used the elegant stairs in the southeast corner of the building that were next to the doorway, and then he walked across the great expanse of the 2nd floor to get to the lunch room in the northwest corner. So, Oswald went from the doorway to the 2nd floor lunch room in that way, and when he was finished, he went back down the same way he went up. And then, he went outside and got photographed a second time in the doorway talking to the cop who was guarding the entrance.

We live in a Bizarro World that anybody takes the official story of the JFK assassination seriously. The story is and was so preposterous, so non-credible, that there wasn't a snowball's chance in Hell that they were going to try Oswald. They had kill Oswald, and they knew that beforehand, and from the very beginning. They hoped some cop would take him out in the theater, but that didn't happen. Then, they hoped they'd have a chance to kill him at the Midnight Press Conference, but that didn't work out either. And before you object, think about how abnormal it was to give him a press conference. And then, they finally got it done (his killing) on Sunday morning. But, they actually confiscated his wife on Saturday evening. They got her out of Ruth Paine's house, never to return, and she spent the night at the Executor Inn being guarded by the Secret Service, who took control of her on Sunday morning before Oswald was killed. But, when you are charging a man with double murder in a death penalty case, you can't confiscate his wife. But, they knew that he was a dead man walking, and they just jumped the gun a little, taking custody of her a little too soon.

Our government did this. It was the CIA, the FBI, the Vice President, and with involvement from other players from within the government. They killed Kennedy, and they killed Tippit and Oswald too. And they have been lying to us about it for 63 years. Well, they are not getting away with it. The truth is coming out. And there will be a reckoning. That is an unstoppable fate; there is nothing the government shills and lapdogs can do to stop it.

 This gif shows Jackie pressing down on JFK's arm trying to get him to relax it and put it down. She did get it lower, but it was mainly by tipping him. He did not relax. He was unable to. 

 I've been having an interesting private conversation with Shaun Horrigan, who agrees with me that Umbrella Man took the throat shot. And we both think that there must have been a homing device that sent the dart exactly where it needed to go.

As you know, the projectile struck JFK in the lower throat, and not for one second do I think it was an accident; a miss. That was the target, and no one has any basis to assume otherwise.

So, not only did it hit the target, but it hit it right in the center. The throat wound was described by several Parkland doctors as being "in the midline." And that includes Malcolm Perry. There's no way anyone could have accomplished that by sighting down an umbrella. Sprague and Cutler said that the dart was like a guided missile. It did not involve any great marksmanship by Umbrella Man.

So, what guided it? It must have been a homing device. But, where was the homing device?

Shaun Horrigan suggested that perhaps his tie was the homing device. And that makes sense because we know that the tie got nicked.

So, I have looked into it, and what I found out is that JFK changed his tie shortly before the motorcade began. He was wearing one tie in Ft. Worth, at his address outside the hotel and at the breakfast they had for him, and also on the plane. But, either on the plane, or after he deboarded, he changed his tie. And that is NOT subject to debate. The White House Historical Association says that he did that. And the two ties had very different outcomes. The first tie, which he put in his jacket pocket, was later give to a family friend, Preston Bruce, by Jackie. The second tie got nicked in the shooting, and it went to the National Archives, which still has it. And they have never displayed it publicly.

But, here is where it gets even weirder: the two ties look about the same. I can't see any visual difference between them. SO, WHY WOULD HE CHANGE FROM ONE TIE TO ANOTHER TIE THAT WAS IDENTICAL OR NEARLY SO?

I don't think that his mind would have been on his tie at all. So, I don't think it was his idea. I think that someone on his staff must have given him a reason why he really should change his tie. And when I say his staff, I mean his Secret Service agents.

So, I am very open to the posssibility that the second tie had the homing device that would guide the dart to his throat. So, I think Shaun Horrigan got it right, that it was the tie.

And to the naysayers, I ask: Why then did he change his tie? You think he got some egg on it at the Ft. Worth breakfast? It's not part of the record, and you can't make it up.

And I find it very strange that he would have two such identical ties. If you look at men's tie racks, no two ties are the same, and that's true of me too, although I hardly ever wear ties any more.

I think we uncovered history today. How many JFKers knew before today that JFK changed his tie between Ft. Worth to Dallas? But, now you know, and you know that the ties were very similar, which makes the whole thing even more suspicious. And remember how it started, with Shaun Horrigan wondering if JFK's tie was the homing device that guided the dart from the umbrella gun to his throat. Good thinking, Shaun.

 I am having trouble buying this. I'm one of those people who thinks that aging only goes in one direction. You've heard of the movie The Curious Case of Benjamin Buttons? Well, this is the curious case of Benjamin Netanyahu.

 They swiftly covered James Bookhout's head when his hat fell off during melee' because he was maquerading as Jack Ruby. 

 Someone wrote to me saying that JIm Leavelle, his "look of horror" was so sincere. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, that is delusional. The whole thing was faked. How could anyone be so obtuse? Leavelle lied through his teeth. You wanna talk about Leavelle? Let's do.

It's true that Leavelle made a cottage industry out of the whole thing. He became the face, the voice, and the curator of the Oswald shooting. His lies about it started immediately, but because he was so long-lived, his lies became so entrenched that he may have started believing them himself.

He said he was looking directly at the shooterr, Jack Ruby, as he rushed in, and that was a lie. Leavelle deliberately looked away from the shooter as he rushed in because he had no intention of stopping him. And, Leavelle came to start embellishing the story over the years,claiming that upon seeing Ruby, he said out loud, "Jack, you son of a bitch." He never said that. Remember, the films are video and audio.

He said that upon seeing Ruby rush in, he pulled on Oswald to jerk him behind him. He never did that. Leavelle did not react in any way to the shooter until after the shot went off.

And from the very berginning, Leavelle said that he thumped Ruby on his left shoulder with the heel of his right hand. He did not do that either. Didn't he know that there are films? He even demonstrated how he slapped the shooter, which he never did.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxKEzFH_OHY&t=188

So, on the left is Leavelle tellling his tall tale and showing what he did, and on the right is the very moment of the shot, and you can see that he was nowhere near trhe shooter and didn't even have his eyes on him, let alone his hand.

Leavelle was oblivious to the shooter until after the shot, and so were Oswald and Graves. The shooter had to pass right in front of Graves to get to Oswald, but somehow, Graves didn't see him. Like Leavelle, Graves did not begin to react until after the shot.

Another lie Leavelle told was that, after the shot, the shooter tried to shoot again, aiming at him, and that his partner LC Graves saved his life by grabbing Ruby's wrist and gun. Total lie. The shooter did not try to shoot again. What he did was dive into the waiting arms of the Police.

Then, the next lie was that he, Leavele, and "another officer" picked up the stricken Oswald and carried him into the Jail Office. Bill Lord asked Leavelle who the other officer was, and Leavelle stumbled and stuttered and then said he couldn't remember. It was the same day. The reason he didn't want to cite anyone is because it never happened. Oswald wasn't shot, and he moved into the Jail Office on his own power nrhind a curtain of men. Supposedly, he was shot AND HIS AORTA AND VENA CAVA WERE RUPTURED. And they were. The Parkland doctors said that happened. But, it didn't happen in the garage. Those are the largest blood vessels in the body, and the aorta, being an artery under pressure, would have been spurting blood like a hose with the water turned full on spurts water. And yet there wasn't a single drop of blood in the basement?

But, I'll leave you with this: Leavelle said that he was handcuffed to Oswald, and he didn't remove the handcuffs until he put him down on the floor inside. But, how did he pick him up if they were handcuffed? If they were handcuffed, then Leavelle's left hand was tied to Oswald's right hand. So, how did he get his arms underneath Oswald to carry him if Oswald's right hand had to go wherever Leavelle's left hand went?

Not only did Leavelle claim to be handcuffed to Oswald, he also said that he put his hand in his pants as they were walking along. Why did he have to do that? Wasn't the handcuff enough? That whole claim deserves a post in itself.

Leavelle lied like a dog, and I apologize to all dogs. And he wore his Easter suit the day after his friend JD Tippit and the President of the United States were killed. That's right. He wore it on Saturday as well as Sunday. That's because the purpose of the Easter suit was to help the shooter distinguish Oswald (who was in black) from him. And it was possible they were going to do the jail transfer on Saturday, so he wore the Easter suit. It was a very light beige suit. The one on display at the Sixth Floor Museum is brown, and it's not the one he wore. His was truly an Easter suit.

I'm telling you: the whole thing was staged. It was all theater. The Dallas Police shot Oswald afterwards, and I have no doubt that Leavelle was part of that too.

 The deepest, darkest secret of the JFK assassination was that Jack Ruby was innocent. He did not shoot and kill Oswald. The framing of Ruby may be the most successful psy-op of all time. They convinced everybody that he did it, including him.

But, I can prove to you, here and now, that he didn't do it. And it is a very simple process. All you have to do is compare the Garage Shooter to Jack Ruby, and if they don't match, if there are any discrepancies between them, if you can plainly see that they are different men, that settles it; Ruby didn't do it.

And after that, nothing else matters. Not a damn thing. You want to claim that Ruby admitted doing it? It doesn't matter. If the images say he didn't do it, then he didn't, no matter what he said. You want to claim that the Dallas detectives claimed to recognize the Shooter as Ruby? It doesn't matter. If the images say he wasn't the Shooter, then he wasn't. Nobody's lip-flapping matters.

So, here we have an image of the Garage Shooter on the left and one of Jack Ruby on right. It was the same day. It's one of Ruby's mug shots. What do we see? We see that the Shooter had an extremely short neck. That is about the shortest neck I have ever seen. Ruby, on the right had a much longer neck. We see that Shooter was also very thick-necked and jowly. It's hard to distinguish his face from his neck. In comparison, Ruby's neck looks tapered and slender.

The Shooter had thick, matted hair, and it looks like a wig. You don't see any hair growing out of his head. You can see hair growing out of Ruby's head on the right. But, you should realize that Ruby didn't have that much hair. He was practically bald on top, and you do see that in a few of his images. They had to doctor Ruby's hair in his photos for the rest of his life. And the reason is because the Shooter had such thick hair. On the right is a mostly accurate image of Ruby's head. What's fake is the tuft in front. Look how low his hairline is on the side. That is an extreme degree of descent. Most bald men have more hair on the sides than Ruby did. And by the time you get that bald on the sides, you don't have any hair left in front. That image on the right is something you might commonly see today. Do you know why? Think for a a second. It's because today, in the 21st century, we have a procedure known as hair transplants. So, men can look that way today. But, they didn't have hair transplants back then.

The Shooter was clean-shaven on his neck in back. It looks razor-clean. But, Ruby had a lot of stubble on his neck in back. Did I mention it was the same day?

The Shooter also had a round head. He was like Charlie Brown. Ruby did not have a round head. He had a longer head.

And notice how burly the Shooter looks; burlier than Ruby. And one of the reporters, a Frenchman who flew in from Paris, described the Shooter as burly. It's in the KRLD footage.

This isn't close. The Shooter and Ruby don't look anything alike. They don't even look like they could be related. There is no way they can be the same man. And that means that Ruby did not shoot Oswald. So, who shot him? The Dallas Police did. I don't mean in the garage; that was all theater. I mean in the Jail office afterwards. They has silencers for 38s in 1963. And I think I know who they gave the honor to to shoot Oswald. But, I'll get into that another time.

You have to be intellectually mature and intellectually honest. And if you are, you are going to admit that Jack Ruby was not the Garage Shooter of Oswald. Ruby, like Oswald, was innnocent. And there is nothing anyone can say to refute it.

 Please reason with me. You know that the plan was to say that all the shots came from the rear. Yet, you know that JFK was shot in the throat from the front. Dr. Perry stated, emphatically, that it was an entrance wound. So, how could they shoot him from the front and still expect to be able to claim that all the shots came from the rear?

I'll tell you how. They already shot him in the back leaving a very shallow wound that was devoid of a bullet. So, all they had to do was create another shallow wound in his throat that was also devoid of a bullet. Then, they could claim that the back shot went through him. Presto! You don't have a frontal shot any more.

The Single Bullet Theory was planned in advance. It just didn't include Connally.

Now, you think I'm wrong about that? Well, if I'm wrong, then why didn't the Admirals let Humes and his team dissect Kennedy to find out where the back wound went? They wanted to do it, but the Admirals wouldn't let them.

Now, at the time, they didn't even know that there was a throat wound. Humes thought it was just a tracheotomy. He found out the next day about the throat wound from Dr. Perry. But, it's baffling because Dr. George Burkley was at the autopsy, and he was also at the ER at Parkland. So, he had to know about the throat wound. So, why didn't he tell Humes about it at the autopsy? I can't tell you because I don't know.

But, the next day, after Humes talked to Perry, he should have gone to the Admirals and said, "I need to go back and finish the autopsy. I need to determine if the back wound and the throat wound are connected. There is no need to speculate about it. We can find out for sure by cutting him open. I am not going to just say that they are connected without finding out for sure. Now, you need to let me go do that: for the Kennedy family, for the American people, and for history. And if you won't let me, you will be obstructing justice, and I'm going to scream Bloody Murder."

Unfortunately, Humes was not that kind of man. He was a team player, and he did what he was told. But, he really did want to open up Kennedy's back at the autopsy, but they wouldn't let him, and it was because they knew those two wounds were not connected. Can you think of any other reason why they wouldn't let him?

And if you don't agree with me about all this, then tell me: What was the purpose of the throat shot? Do you think they were trying to kill hiim with that shot? If so, why shout him in the throat? Why not shoot him in the heart or in the head? Of course, they couldn't shoot him in the heart or head from the front because that would have destroyed the lone nut thesis.

So again I ask you: What was the purpose of the throat shot? Why shoot him there? I told you why I think they did it, but if you don't agree with me, then you still have to come up with a reason why they shot him there. Please ponder it.

 Brian Burden asked me about Steven Witt. He was not Umbrella

Man. He was a liar, a faker, and an actor. There is nothing credible about anything he said to the HSCA, and he was treated with kid gloves by them. I'll give you some examples.

Witt said he worked for an insurance company and that he had the habit of going for a walk on his lunch break. He said he was not looking for the motorcade; that he just ran into it on his walk. But, why did he bring his umbrella when by that time, it was sunny?

That's when he got into his story about wanting to taunt Kennedy with it. His story was that, in 1963, when the Nazis were long gone, and we had a new enemy the Soviet Union, that the mere sight of an umbrella was going to remind Kennedy of Neville Chamberlain,
who was infamous for appeasing Hitler in the 1930s. And that was supposed to spill over into mocking JFK's father, Joseph P. Kennedy Sr, who was considered a Nazi sympathizer and forced to resign as Ambassador to the UK after he met secretly with the German Ambassador to the UK to plot a way to defuse the march
to war in 1939. JFK was supposed to get all that from seeing an umbrella in 1963: "He's making fun of my Dad!"

Remember, Witt started by saying that he wasn't looking for the motorcade, that he just ran into it. So, why did he bring the umbrella if it wasn't threatening to rain, and if he didn't intend to see Kennedy?

So, he ran into the motorcade when he got to Main Street. And then with no direction or guidance whatsoever, he just happened to park himself right in that tiny Kill Zone? That freeway sign in front of the pergola was the start of the Kill Zone, and it was a very small Kill Zone, and Witt, just randomly and mindlessly found it? It was all luck? And then his story got even more bizarre.

He was asked what he saw of the shooting, and he said nothing; that he missed the whole thing; every bit of it. He claimed that when he started opening his umbrella that it blocked his
view of Kennedy, and by the time he could see again, it was all over, that he missed the entire thing. That is impossible because the shooting started high on the hill where Kennedy was shot in the back. Then, the limo slowed tremendously and probably came to a complete stop. All that took time, and it doesn't take that long to open an umbrella. And he didn't have to block his view at all to open it. He could have just opened it to the side and then swung
it over his head and never lost sight of JFK at all. But, his story was that the mere act of opening his umbrella caused him to miss everything. Are you buying that?

In 1939, when JPK Sr. got in trouble for trying to defuse WW2 and was ultimately disgraced for it, Witt was a 15 year old boy growing up in East Texas. How could he have been so focused on it then at such a young age, and why was he still focused on it in 1963 in the midst of the Cold War with the Soviet Union? Talk about being stuck in a time warp. We almost went to war with the Soviet Union in 1962 and would have, if not for Kennedy. Yet, Witt was still obsessed about JFK's father? It isn't credible, and I don't believe it,

And I don't believe Witt was Umbrella Man. I say that the real Umbrella Man used the weapon that Charles Senseney designed for the CIA to fire the dart into JFK's throat. That's what
it was, a dart; a dissolving dart; not a bullet.

Remember that Dr. Malcolm Perry said on 11/22/63 that it was an entrance wound in JFK's throat. and that there was no exit wound for it, and that he looked for, but couldn't find, the
missile. And he was a trauma surgeon who had worked on hundreds of bullet wounds.

The autopsy doctors never opened JFK’s throat, but they did x-ray his whole body, and they said that there was no bullet in him. And to those who think there was a bullet in his throat that was dug out at the pre-autopsy, I say no because if it could be found then, then Dr. Perry would have found it.

So, who was Umbrella Man? I don't know for sure, but I have been told that he was Fred Gibb, a CIA operative. On the left is Umbrella Man, and on the right is Gibb.

Ironically, the image on the right was sent to the HSCA as Oswald in Mexico City. Obviously, it's not Oswald, and Oswald did not go to Mexico City. But, I am open to the possibility that Gibb was both Umbrella Man and an Oswald impostor in Mexico City. But, I am darn sure that Steven Witt was not Umbrella Man.

 People don't realize how short the actual killing of Kennedy was, how concentrated the shots were. The first shot was the shot that hit him in the back, which was not a kill shot. It was a preparatory shot to immobilize him- physically and mentally- so that he would truly be a sitting duck. And it took time to work. The poisons had to seep in and take effect.

 So, as soon it happened, the limo began to slow, and it was already going slow. And it kept slowing until it stopped completely or very nearly did.  

 I know you don't see that in the Zapruder film. The limo zips right along in the Zapruder film. But, that film was massively altered. It was altered like the body of Frankenstein.

 Let's establish the coordinates. JFK was shot in the back about 30 yards from the Houston intersection when the limo was still adjacent to the TSBD building, and I can tell you exactly where it stopped or nearly stopped. It was when JFK was adjacent to Umbrella Man, who is the one who shot the dart into JFK's throat.

 Now, don't recoil from that. It is NOT farfetched. It is what happened, and there is no doubt about it. First, recognize that there was no bullet in JFK's throat. Dr. Perry fished around for one, and explained why. It was because he recognized the throat wound as an entrance wound, and after looking for and not finding an exit wound for it, he started looking for the missile. He even cut the strap muscle so that he could look underneath it, thinking that it might be there. But, it was not there.

Some people claim that it was dug out later, but don't believe it because Perry would have found it. If the later operators could go in there and find it and take it out, then Perry would have found it.

Furthermore, the plotters had to know that the first doctors to lay eyes on Kennedy were not going to be their doctors. They were going to be independent doctors.

 I can make an analogy to Trump. Some people don't believe that his ear was grazed in Butler. They think it was fake. They refer to it as "ketchup ear." They say it wasn't real blood. But, Trump was taken to an independent hospital: Butler Memorial Hospital, where he and his people had no control over the doctors. And those

doctors confirmed that he was shot. Doctors know the difference between blood and ketchup. It's not hard to tell them apart, and I say that facetiously. The fact that he was taken to independent doctors proves that what happened to him was real.

 It's the same with Kennedy, who was taken to independent doctors at Parkland Hospital, who were not involved in the plot. Those doctors included Dr. Perry, and he found no missile in JFK's throat.

 Whatever hit JFK in the throat dissolved, and it was designed to dissolve. It was "blood-soluble" as the great JFK researcher Jack White used to say. And he started saying it long before I did.

So, what was the purpose of that shallow shot in JFK's throat? It was to make a hole, which they needed. That's because they made a shallow hole in his back, which also did not have a missile. That was dissolvable too, but it was different; it was made of ice. I don't assume the throat missile was made of ice. It was made of something else that would dissolve in the heat of the internal body.

So, they were both empty shallow wounds. And what do you have when you have two empty shallow wounds that are lined up? You have the means to claim that they were one shot that traversed him.

 I resisted this narrative for years, probably over a decade. But then, Dr. Alen Salerian informed me that the CIA contracted with military engineer Charles Senseney in the 1950s to make an umbrella gun that would fire dissolvable darts. Then, I read Senseney's 20 pages of testimony to the HSCA. And that did it for me. I became a believer that Umbrella Man took the shot.

 Umbrella Man is the only one who could have taken it because of how small the target area was. This is me demonstrating it.

My index finger is on my Adam's Apple, and my thumb is in the suprasternal notch of the sternum. The hole in his throat had to be within that tiny span, and it had to be in the center. Otherwise, they couldn't tie the back shot and the throat shot together. The only way someone could hit such a tiny target was from up close. The idea that it was taken from the bridge or from Commerce St. and shot through the windshield is preposterous. No one could do that.

I asked Chat GPT if shooting through a windshield would cause a bullet to deviate.

"A windshield is one of the most likely types of glass to alter a bullet's path because it is laminated (two layers of glass with a plastic interlayer) and mounted at a significant angle.

In general terms: A bullet fired from outside the vehicle into the passenger compartment tends to be deflected downward after passing through the windshield.

The amount of deflection varies considerably depending on the angle of the windshield, the type of ammunition, and the impact point, so it isn't something that can be predicted with precision.

For storytelling purposes, if a character aims carefully through a windshield and the shot lands somewhat above or below the intended point because of the glass, that's generally realistic. The exact amount of the shift, however, is not something that can be reliably specify, and real-world outcomes are highly variable."

RC: Do you believe me now that JFK was not shot in the throat through the windshield? And he wasn't shot in the throat from a great distance. That shot was taken from just a few feet away by Umbrella Man.

 All right, so JFK was shot in the throat right when he was reaching the Stemmons Freeway sign across from the pergola. All the kill shots followed that, and the last one, the fatal head shot, was taken when JFK was adjacent to Zapruder. Therefore, the KIll Zone was on Elm Street from the Stemmons Freeway sign to Zapruder. I do think that the Stemmons Freeway sign was a pre-intended marker, but I'm not saying that about Zapruder.

 But, think about how small that distance was. And yet, they couldn't kill Kennedy until they took a shot that they didn't want to take, that was a shot of last resort, which was the fatal head shot taken from the right front. They didn't want to take it because they knew they were going to claim that all the shots came from the rear.

 I know there are people who believe that JFK was shot in the back of the head a split second before the fatal head shot. I don't say that they are right or wrong. I am an agnostic about it. We can't go by what the autopsists said because they denied the presence of the big blow-out wound in the lower right part of his head. They claimed that he had an entrance wound slightly above and to the right of the external occipital protuberance that was 15 mm long and that the big blowout wound was in his parietal bone on top of his head.. But tell me: how does a bullet that was shot from a high elevation strike someone at the bottom of his head and then come out the top of his head? The discrepancy between what the Parkland doctors found and what the Bethesda doctors found needs to be addressed, and I will.

 My purpose in writing this was to show you just how small the Kill Zone really was. It didn’t start until Kennedy reached the sign. There was no attempt to kill him before that.  Yet, in order to get the job done, they had to resort to a fail-safe shot that they really didn't want to take. The killing of John F. Kennedy got botched. Badly botched.

 Marina said that she and Oswald discussed the President's visit on Thursday evening. She said she told him that she wished that she could get to see the President and First Lady. So, Oswald's wife liked the Kennedys. Imagine him hearing that on Thursday evening. What kind of sick, twisted maniac would he have to be to hear his wife say that and then proceed to kill this man she admired so much?

It is VERY important to reckon with the fact that there is no plausible motive for Oswald to kill Kennedy. There was nothing in it for him except total and complete self-destruction. It would mean the destruction of everything he held dear, and frankly, at that point in time, his family was about all he held dear, and it would have meant losing them.

We have often heard it said that he wanted to be remembered for something; to become famous for something. But, if that were true, why did he "emphatically deny these charges," as he said to reporters?

There is NO reason for Oswald to have done it- not even a wild one. It is hard to ascertain how much stock he really put in the Fair Play for Cuba business. I listened to the radio debate he did in New Orleans shortly after his arrest, and to me, he sounded sincere. I did not get the impression he was putting on an act. Still, I don't claim to know how much it mattered to him. But, if it mattered to him at all, it made no sense for him to kill Kennedy. Remember, Kennedy is the one who was pressured to invade Cuba after the Bay of Pigs failed, but he refused to do it. And then, he paid Castro reparations, to the tune of about $53 million. It wasn't in cash. It was in food, medicine, and also baby supplies. But, think about what $53 million in 1962 dollars is equivalent to today in 2026 dollars. It's almost $600 million. So, over half a billion.

Kennedy was called a Castro-lover, and he was hated for it. But, nobody called LBJ that. LBJ was considered a conservative Democrat who was hawkish towards Cuba and the Soviet Union. So, why would Oswald want to kill Kennedy knowing that he would be replaced with Johnson?

I think it's fair to say that for Oswald to kill Kennedy would have been so destructive to Oswald's life, meaning the loss of everything, including his family, that his fate after that would have been worse than death. We have all heard of situations in which someone went on a killing spree and ended it by killing himself. I could cite numerous examples, but I don't need to because you know it as well as I do. And the reason for it is that they know that if they live, they are either going to be executed by the State or imprisoned for life. And not wanting either of those options, they just kill themselves.

WC Attorney David Belin said that Oswald, after killing Kennedy, sought to escape to Mexico. It was based on nothing. Absolute zero. And the very idea of it is absurd. What would Oswald have done in Mexico? What would he have gone there for? How could he have put up with living there, under the circumstances? I mean: even if he could have managed to escape and get there, and even if he could have remained undiscovered, and even if he could have found a way to secure his needs, meaning food, water, and shelter, how could he stand a second of that life? What I mean is that he would have been so tortured, that he probably would have killed himself.

Let's go back to the idea of Oswald getting an impulse to kill Kennedy. There is no basis to think that he could have gotten such an impulse. It is patently absurd. But, let's put that aside a second and talk about it hypothetically. So, let's say that he did get an impulse to kill Kennedy. What I just laid out to you, about how killing Kennedy would have wrought the complete destruction of his life and everything he held dear, all of that would have flashed across his mind after he got the impulse, and that would have extinguished the impulse.

And we are talking about more than an impulse. Because, let's say that he was reading the newspaper in the lunch room earlier that week, and he saw the motorcade route. So, he got the impulse to kill Kennedy. Impulses are very quick, but he would have had days to think it over. And there are 24 hours in every single day.

Remember that the mind is a calculator, and his mind would have been calculating what was going to happen to him after he killed Kennedy, and he would have realized that if he killed Kennedy, he might as well kill himself. And we are talking about enough time for him to come to his senses about this.

And then, of course, he went to Irving on Thursday night. He saw his wife. He saw his kids. He played with his daughter and Ruth Paine's children. Wouldn't that have jarred him back to reason and self-control?

And what was there driving him the other way? People will do bad things because of compelling, irresistible desires, such as for drugs, or even sexual compulsions. But, what was there compelling him to kill Kennedy? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

The irony is that it was Kennedy's real killers who were acting on compulsion. They were Cold Warriors, and Kennedy was a threat to the nation, a danger to the republic, etc.

Oswald was not only innocent; he was completely outside the monstrous mindset that Kennedy's real killers had. The criminal derangement that they assigned to him was their own criminal derangement. But, I bet you that even they couldn't do it if they had to do it alone. They couldn't have done it as lone nuts either. It was being part of a group that gave them the gumption to do it. It was a cult in which they all sustained each other.

Oswald killing Kennedy is so utterly impossible on so many different levels that it is bizarre that anyone in the year 2026 actually believes he did it. We have a duty to tear down this lie, if only out of respect for our own rational minds. To the extent that this story of Oswald's guilt is still being heaped upon us, we are living in the Twilight Zone.

 If you realize that Oswald was not on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy, then he had to be somewhere else, and the only place he could have been was the doorway. He could not have been in the 2nd floor lunch room. Why? Because he was just getting to the 2nd floor lunch room when Officer Baker saw him at 12:31.5. And if he was just getting there, he wasn't there a minute and half before.

One wise guy tried to claim that Oswald could have been there at 12:30, left and come back. But, there is no basis to claim that. We know of no reason why he would have done that. You can't speculate just for the heck of it. It looks like he just got there at 12:31, coming from somewhere else. That's what the evidence points to, and we have no reason to doubt it.

And where did he come from? Can we determine that from the facts of the matter? Yes, we can. Baker saw Oswald passing through the anteroom of the lunch room. There was a glass window in the door on Baker's side, and Baker saw him through that glass. But, the door was not in motion. Do you know what that means? It means that Oswald did not go through it because if he had gone through it, the door would have still been in motion. So, the fact that that door was still tells us that Oswald entered the anteroom through the other door, which was on the office side.

So, Oswald did not come down the stairs from the 6th floor. If he had, he would likely have run into Baker, and he surely would have run into Truly, who was ahead of Baker. That's right; even though they were looking for an armed killer, unarmed Truly led the way. What does that tell you? It tells me that Truly knew very well that there was no danger.

So, Oswald entered the anteroom from the office side, but how did he get to the 2nd floor office area? He didn't take the elevator because the electricity was turned off. That's why Baker and Truly took the stairs because the elevator was out for them too.

So, that means that Oswald must have used the stairs in the southeast corner of the building that went from the first floor to the second floor, and that is all. And those stairs were located right next to the doorway.

So, Oswald went from the doorway to the stairs; then he walked across the great expanse of the second floor from the southeast corner to the northwest corner, and then he entered the anteroom where Baker saw him.

So, Oswald was in the doorway during the motorcade, and there is no place else he could have been.

This plat shows you the exact route he took.

It starts with the doroway in the lower right corner. So, he just went through the double doors and then took the stairs to the second floor. Then he walked from that southeast corner to the northwest corner where the lunch room was. Baker saw him as he was passing through the anteroom into the lunch room, and he followed him in there.

It really is certain that Oswald was standing in the doorway during the assassination of John F. Kennedy. However, he may have left for the lunch room before the final shot, which was the fatal head shot. And if so, it was most likely because Bill Shelley ordered him to. There is no other plausible reason.

Oswald would have had to be psychotic to shoot Kennedy. He never said a bad word about Kennedy in his life. Marina said that he liked Kennedy, that he defended Kennedy to her family in Russia. When Oswald heard that Kennedy liked to read James Bond novels, he started reading them too.

The story went that, with no ominous precedents about Kennedy whatsoever, Oswald saw that his motorcade would be passing the building, and he decided, on the spot, to kill him.

Oswald was living his life. He was working there. He was spending his free time with his family in Irving. The top priority in his life was to get his family back under his roof. He also wanted to acquire a better job. And he believed that getting a driver's license would make him more employable; so he was pursuing that too.

So, that was his life. That was where his mind was at. So, why would seeing the motorcade route in the newspaper cause him to go berserk and decide to kill Kennedy? There is no reason to think that it would. If you watch the Midnight Press Conference- and you should watch the whole thing because there are a lot of partial postings of it- you'll see that Oswald comes across as the most lucid, stable, and rational person in the room. He was totally in control of himself and totally sensible.

Now, the truth is that Oswald never did see that the motorcade would be passing the building. When he saw people gathering on the sidewalk on Friday morning, he asked James Jarman why they were doing that, and Jarman told him that the President would be riding by. Appareently, Oswald did not know that prior to that. So, how could he have had any plan to kill Kennedy? He couldn't have.

And the plotters realized that Oswald had to be made to seem insane, and that his insanity couldn't just start on 11/22. And that's why they made up the story about Oswald trying to shoot Walker. Oswald did not do that. He did not order or own a rifle. It is established in the record that he never took a rifle with him to New Orleans. And that means that no rifle of his was brought back from New Orleans and stored in Ruth Paine's garage.

Witnesses said there were two culprits at the Walker shooting, and that they both drove off in separate cars. Oswald had no car, and he had no friends. So, it couldn't have been him. And the bullet that was dug out of Walker's home was not one of the 6.5 x 52 mm bullets connected to the rifle that Oswald didn't even own.

But, that isn't the only wild story they added. They also got Marina to say that Oswald informed her that he was going somewhere in Dallas to kill Nixon. That was in April of '63. Nixon was not in Dallas then, but LBJ was. So, they asked her if she meant LBJ, but she said no, that she was sure it was Nixon. And she said she stopped him by locking him in the bathroom. And when it was pointed out to her that bathrooms only lock from the inside, she said she held the door handle, and he couldn't overcome her great strength.

So, like the alleged Walker shotoing attempt, which was on April 10, that was also in April. I don't know the exact day. And then, Oswald moved to New Orleans on April 24. According to Ruth Paine, Marine was very sad that he was leaving. She cried. And then when he called and said he had rented an apartment for them, Marina was jumping for joy, and she went to June and said to her in Russian, "Papa loves us."

Marina would have had to be insane too. When you find out that your husband is a homicidal maniac, you don't want to follow him anywhere. You want to get away from him. You want to protect yourself and your daughter. You don't follow him down to New Orleans after he does those things.

So what the authorities were telling us was that both Oswald and Marina were insane.

But, neither one of them were insane. It was just storytelling by bad storytellers. And I know about storytelling. I've written 8 movies.

Now, listen to me: The U.S. government killed Kennedy, and they killed Tippit and Oswald too. But, it was a transitional thing. It started as just a cabal, a secret network within the U.S. government, that did it. But, as soon as JFK took his last breath and LBJ became President, at that instant, the entire U.S. federal government got behind the official lone nut story. You might as well say that every federal employee, politician, diplomat, military personnel, etc. got behind it. And if anyone didn't believe it, they kept it to themselves. From that moment on, it was like a tsunami of pressure to go along with the story. And it wasn't much different for those in state governments. And of course, the mainstream media supported it. The tsumami covered everything and everyone. Acceptance of the official story became a litmus death for loyalty, patriotism, and love of country. The tsumani was so powerful, even Robert Kennedy didn't try to resist it.

So, it went from being a secret operation to a government decree that put everyone on the spot to either accept it or be an outcast. So, everyone accepted it, even though the non-seguitors existed, such as the complete lack of credibility of a rifle going to and from New Orleans. It was a roadblock then, as it is now, and people have ignored it all along. The pressure has persisted, and that's why it takes courage to do what we're doing.

 They have told us that Oswald shot Tippit at 10th and Patton, but they can't even tell us what Oswald was doing there. Why would he have been in that location? In route to what destinaton? You don't know? Then you don't know that he was there. It is a big gaping hole in the story.

And guess what? They never told us what he said about it They didn't tell us a word about what he said about anything he did after he left his boarding room.

But, you know what the situation was, and you know quite a bit about Oswald. So, where could he have been going when he was at 10th and Patton? The answer is: no conceivable place. When WC Attorney David Belin was asked where Oswald was going when he was at 10th and Patton, his response was: "Mexico." Are you going to buy that ridiculous answer? And from the people who buried whatever Oswald said about it? Oswald didn't have so much as a toothbrush on him, let alone a change of socks. And he only had $14 and change in his pocket. How could he be going to Mexico? And what about that location and direction had anything to do with going to Mexico? Was there an international bus station a few blocks from there or a mile from there? No, there wasn't. There was no link whatsoever between that spot and Mexico.

And ironically: Oswald didn't even go to Mexico the first time they said he went there. He said he didn't. It's in the record. Who are you going to believe, him or them?

A network within the U.S. government killed Kennedy, Tippit, and Oswald that weekend. And they killed a lot more people after that to cover their tracks. And our government has been lying to us about it for over 62 years. Join me in exposing them. Together, we can destroy the Big Lie that Oswald killed Kennedy. We can do this.

 Even though the AI resources, such as Chat GPT, are programmed to support the official story of the JFK assassination, sometimes you can get meaningful revelations from them. Here, for instance, I got Chat GPT to admit that Ruth Paine's testimony about what Oswald took to New Orleans is roadblock for the official story because if Oswald didn't bring his supposed rifle with him to New Orleans, then he could not have snuck it into Ruth Paine's station wagon on September 23, where it, supposedly, got put in her garage, unbeknownst to her, for him to find in the wee hours of the morning on November 22. So, this is a complete roadblock to the official story that Oswald killed Kennedy. Ralph Cinque: So, she didn't say anything about him bringing a rifle?

Correct. Ruth Paine did not testify that Oswald brought a rifle, a rifle case, or any long package with him when she drove him to the bus station on April 24, 1963.

Her testimony consistently described his belongings as:

• Two green duffel bags
• Two or three suitcases
• A tan portable Russian radio
• A zippered bag

When Commissioner Jenner questioned her in detail, he specifically went through the inventory of what Oswald had taken into the station. At no point did she mention a rifle or any object that could reasonably be described as one. She was also emphatic that everything he brought was taken into the bus station and remained there.

This has been noted by researchers because, according to the Warren Commission's timeline:

• Oswald allegedly ordered the Carcano rifle in March 1963.
• It was allegedly delivered to his Dallas post office box before he left for New Orleans.
• If that account is correct, then the question naturally arises: how did the rifle get from Dallas to New Orleans?

Ruth Paine's testimony does not answer that question, because she did not report seeing a rifle among his belongings.

 Let's be clear about something: Oswald was NOT spying for the U.S. government, or even for the CIA, when he was in the Soviet Union. An intelligence spy is an intelligence agent. It is a profession. It is work, and dangerous work at that, for which the person gets paid.

And there is no evidence that Oswald got paid a cent.

If Oswald was a spy in Russia, then for nearly three years, he was on the payroll. Imagine how much they would have owed him when he got back to the U.S.. Ironically, Oswald was provided the money by the U.S. State Department for him and Marina to travel to America. We've been told that he paid that money back after he started working in Texas, but I have my doubts. We know that all Oswald's jobs were very low-paying: minimum wage. We know that they lived hand to mouth. We know that they often had to depend on the largess of others to survive. The idea that Oswald could hvae saved up enough from working to pay off that debt seems doubtful to me.

But, I do think that Oswald was given money when he traveled to Russia. He reportedly stayed at two fancy hotels in Helsinki, Finland, the Hotel Torni and then the Klaus Kurki Hotel, as he awaited his Soviet visa. Supposedly, he paid his travel expenses from personal savings, but I doubt it.

Once he was in the Soviet Union, and for nearly 3 years, he didn't receive a penny of money from the U.S., not until the State Department fronted him his travel money to return. And it looks bad. It looks like they wanted him back because he was already the designated patsy in the upcoming JFK assassination. But, if he paid them back, that cleans it up some; hence, my suspicions.

But still, if he was a spy in the USSR, they would have owed him a lot of money, and he was never paid. So, I say that whatever connection he had to the CIA was informal. He definitely was not their employee, since he wasn't paid. He definitely was not an intelligence agent, but you might call him an intelligence groupie.

And the fact is that he didn't do any spying in the Soviet Union. He worked his job at the radio factory in Minsk. And when he wasn't working, he was socializing, chasing girls, etc. There are claims that he took photographs of some buildings with his Minox camera, but I just put that to Chat GPT and got this: "There is no verified evidence in declassified files confirming that Oswald used a subminiature Minox camera to photograph Russian buildings or conduct intelligence activity of any sort."

I think all the stories about Oswald spying in Russia are false.

So, what is the bottom line on why Oswald went to Russia and why the CIA wanted him to? It wasn't to spy. It was just to see how the Soviet government would respond to it. And maybe they had real spies there at the time, and maybe they thought that having a publicly disclosed defector would distract the Soviets and keep them busy. There is no evidence that Oswald had any espionage assignments when he was in the Soviet Union. And there is no evidence that he did any espionage when he was there.

It's all very murky. They could not have had any plans of using him as the patsy in the upcoming JFK assassination because it was 1959, and JFK did not formally declare his candidacy until January 1960, which was months after Oswald arrived in Russia.

So, I am not saying they had any plans of killing JFK then. But, maybe they had plans to use Oswald as a patsy for something in the future, that he would be a saved-up asset that could be expended at will.

We're talking about the CIA here, and it has always been a sick, twisted organization. I am currently reading The CIA as Organized Crime by Douglas Valentine, which I highly recommend.

But, the bottom line is that Oswald was an intelligence groupie but not an intelligence agent, and he did no spying in the USSR.