It is important to realize that when we say that Lee Harvey Oswald was standing in the doorway during the shooting of JFK, that inherent in the claim is the charge that government, at multiple levels and times, committed crimes over it, at the very least: obstruction of justice. Fraud, lying, and evidence-tampering took place. 

So, this is not a case in which they mistakenly identified the Doorway Man as Billy Lovelady. On the contrary, they consciously and willfully committed fraud over it. 

The Warren Commission, which was a government commission, handled the Doorman controversy by getting a few select people to say that he was Lovelady. But, Lovelady was NOT one of them. Lovelady never told W.C. Attorney Joseph Ball that he was Doorman. Lovelady's testimony was bizarre, and his exchange with Ball was like an Abbott and Costello routine. Neither one of them ever said who they were talking about. It's obvious that Ball wanted to know if Lovelady would identify Doorman as himself. So, why didn't he just ask him? "Who is this guy?" Instead, he played a game with arrows. But, what's clear is that SOMEBODY MUST HAVE WARNED BALL THAT LOVELADY WAS NOT BEING A TEAM PLAYER. And that's why Ball was so gingerly with Lovelady. And as for Lovelady, he, it seemed, just wanted to avoid pissing off the 800 pound gorilla. And it's funny how it ended. When asked if he wanted to sign the transcript, Lovelady said, "I just want this to be the last one." I hear ya, Billy.  But, with the others Ball talked to, he must have been given a heads-up that they were team players, so he could ask direct questions. But, the point is that it had all the earmarks of a Stalinist Show Trial. 

Fast forward to the HSCA, who felt that they had to do more to quell the uproar over Doorman.  So, they got clever: they hired Robert Groden. It was clever because he had a reputation for fighting the government story. But, even though he was fighting it, overall, he wasn't fighting the part about Doorman.  So, they must have brought him in and first established (which is to say: got from him) that he vouched for Doorman being Lovelady. And then they must have told him that they would hire him (and I presume for big bucks) if he could prove it with images. As far as we know, Groden NEVER put an image of Oswald side by side with Doorman. The only element of Oswald that got entered was a picture of his shirt, and get this: there is NO CHANCE that it's actually Oswald's shirt. 

Why couldn't they at least have had the decency to use an image of the shirt in which it was on Oswald's back? But, that image on the left is the what Groden used, so in reality, he used NOTHING of Oswald's. The rest of the images he compared were of Lovelady. The likeness of the man and the clothing between Oswald and Doorman is ultra-great. 

Why didn't thy put a collage like that in the HSCA Final Report? The answer is obvious: it screams Oswald. 

Robert Groden is a disgrace. He is former military intelligence. He was put there to lead the JFK opposition and make sure he led it nowhere dangerous- to the authorities. Think of him as an undercover cop. 

So, that was half the HSCA inquiry about Doorman. The other half involved these goofy anthropologists who supposedly were going to take highly precise anthropometric measurements based on photos. They started by saying that Doorman's image was too blurred to measure anything.  So, they spent most of their time comparing Oswald to Lovelady- comparing and distinguishing their facial features.  But then, at the end, they made a general statement that overall, Doorman looks more like Lovelady. The irony is that all the images of Lovelady they used were either complete fakes or altered. They had not even one bonafide image of Lovelady. And get this: the images they used of Oswald and Lovelady were both flipped. I mean left-to-right flipped; mirror images. At least, that is what they published. The corruption went so deep. Those anthropologists were like circus monkeys. And again, as like Groden, they knew what was expected of them; they knew what the Committee wanted to hear, and  they delivered. The HSCA went completely to Hell, and I mean to the point of being truly Satanic. 

So, government has been totally, utterly corrupt in handling this Doorman matter, but the same is true of the media, particularly CBS. In their case, I don't know if it could be considered criminal. It's an interesting question. But, morally, it was just as bad. 

So, as we discuss it today, and point to the obvious matching points between Oswald and Doorman including the perfect match of the shirt, and even the same stance of clasping his hands in front, which was Oswald's habit, that subsuming it is backdrop of this terribly, evil, wicked legacy that again, has been nothing short of criminal and Satanic. It's no wonder they fight it so hard. But know this: there isn't even .0000000000000000001% chance that Doorman was anyone but Oswald.  

  

I really like the song Martha My Dear by Paul McCartney because it's fun. It's fun to play, and it's fun to sing. And I think it's very original, meaning that there's no other song like it. It's sung to his sheep dog, Martha, but many people believe that it's really about his long-time lover the actress Jane Asher. They almost married but didn't. But, she is amazingly attractive today at 72. I played around with this song, altering the tempo, trimming some of the lyrics to accent it differently, and changing the ending completely. I hope you like it.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZhDM3AC-Ng&feature=youtu.be

This is staggering. You know that the United States attacked Afghanistan in October 2001 because the Taliban government refused to hand over Osama bin laden. But, what is the evidence that Osama bin laden was responsible for 9/11? It's mainly a video tape which purportedly shows bin laden boasting and bragging about the attacks he planned, and in a jovial manner. The problem is that the guy in the tape is clearly not bin laden. On the right is an undisputed photo of bin laden from 2001. You can see that he looks much older than the other guy, and he's much thinner. bin laden was sick. He had numerous ailments, the most serious of which was kidney failure. 

   
So, can you see that the guy on the left is not bin laden? You can see that his face is fatter and that he's younger, right? But, here's the thing that leaves me staggered. Supposedly, the video was found in a house in Jalalabad, Afghanstan in November 2001. BUT, WE STARTED BOMBING AFGHANISTAN IN OCTOBER. So, as phony as the video is, the U.S. government didn't even have it when they launched the war. They could not have been basing the war on that video. So, what were they basing it on? To this day, we don't know. And that war will be 18 years old as of October 7 with hundreds of thousands dead. 

And there's something else to consider: How do you think this crappy video would have held up in court? What do you think bin laden's lawyers would have been able to do to it? The fact that we released it tells you that BIN LADEN WAS NEVER GOING TO TRIAL. That was never part of our plan. We were never going to let it happen.  

It's no secret that I am appalled with the U.S. wars of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries, in which hundreds of thousands, and very likely over a million people have been killed. And I am fighting back with a movie which decries the killing of innocents in U.S. wars.

In it, a Mujahideen warrior is sent to the U.S. to kill a warmongering U.S. Senator, and it settles on a small town in Texas where the Senator is visiting. It falls on the local sheriff there to stop it, and it comes down to a "clash of titans" between the sheriff and the warrior. But, along the way, we learn what drives the warrior: the terrorism of the U.S. in its criminal wars. This is a politically incorrect movie, designed to wake Americans up to the fact that our unheroic and horrific post-9/11 wars have been nothing short of genocide. So, will you watch it? It's called My Stretch of Texas Ground, and it is coming out soon on Amazon, and I mean next month: April. You can watch the trailer right now. Please do, and please share it with others. This is an anti-war movie, the first of the 21st century, and I hope it's not the last.

https://mystretchoftexasground.com

My latest post on Facebook has really struck a chord.  283 views in just a few hours, with plenty of likes and engagements. That is not Oswald on the left. It was a reenactment. They also did a reenactment at the hospital. Why all this faking and falsifying? Because the story was a lie. Oswald was NOT shot by Jack Ruby.  And why does the Mainstream Media keep spreading the lie that Ruby went to watch the "fireworks" in Dealey Plaza? It's to keep people far away from the truth that Ruby was completely and totally innocent and didn't know a damn thing. So, 283 people read what I put up 3 hours ago. 283 people haven't read what Mark "Pink" O'Blasney has written in the last year. The pinks and the punks, denizens of the JFK underworld; they can't stop the truth.  

So, my thesis is that it's a staged photo that was shot at another time, which means that they didn't have Oswald, hence that can't be Oswald in it. So, let's compare the guy on the stretcher to Oswald, using his autopsy photo. Notice that the guy on the left doesn't have the 2 days beard growth that Oswald had. Notice that his nose looks different with no arch to the tip; rather, it is uplifted; and the nostrils look capacious. Oswald's nose had character and arch, and his nostrils were narrow but flared. In a word, he had a mature nose. The other guy's nose looks immature, like a long version of a child's nose. The nose changes throughout life, and it is affected by gravity. That's why children will have uplifted noses which later acquire some arch. It's because of gravity. But, this other guy's nose looks like that of Pinocchio. It doesn't look real. It's very possible that an artist drew it. There is no way that that is Oswald's nose.

Tom O'Hanlon pointed out that Leavelle's face is blurred. And I didn't blur it. It came that way. But, from this comparison, I am satisfied that it's the same ear as Leavelle. So, that's really him. Therefore, why did they obscure his face? I suspect the reason is that they put that guy in who is in front of him, whose head looks like a drawing, like art, and if there was a sharp photographic image right next to him, the deficiency of his image would stand out more. So, obscuring Leavelle's face helps to sell the guy in front of him.