Putting aside the SBT, think about unlikely it is that TWO shots would impact JFK so shallowly: the back shot and the throat shot. That is not the purpose of bullets. Their purpose is to cause lethal damage. 

And the idea that they shot him shallowly in the back just to establish a rear shooter (as one prominent researcher suggested) is stupid. They would have established that just as well by shooting him in the back of the head and killing him. There is no rational for a shallow shot to the back- except the one that I've given: to deliver a pharmaceutical that would immobilize and mentally incapacitate JFK.  

When you've got gunshots causing a scratch to the back and a scratch to the throat, something is wrong. And then when you throw in a complete, total, mental derangement, which scratches can't cause in the slightest, you know that something is super-wrong and super-different, that we're not in Kansas any more. 

Would you believe that Jim Fetzer is listening to a guy who claims the shot to the throat hit the hyoid bone and caused a spicule of bone to go flying upward- not through air, of course, but through tissue- into the brain? How could that have been missed at the autopsy? And how could a bullet with so little momentum impart so much more to a spicule of bone? 

And that takes us back to the reality of two very shallow shots causing a complete, total mental collapse. I don't understand how intelligent people can fail to see that IT DOESN'T ADD UP. We're talking about an equation here. 1 (shallow back shot) +1 (shallow throat shot) doesn't equal 8 (referring to the spasmodically bound and mentally deranged monstrosity that JFK became, as seen in the Zapruder film). Something is missing on the left side of the equation. A lot more was going on than two shallow shots.  

I was asked about the staging of an inquest for Oswald, to get the State of Texas to exonerate him. Of course, not for real, just an enactment. And I quickly expressed my opinion that such an inquest should NOT go into the Single Bullet Theory to discredit it. That's because it does Oswald no good. Even if it established multiple shooters, what good would that do Oswald, since he could still be one of them? They would fry him just the same whether he shot JFK alone or shot him with other shooters. So, I say: forget about disputing the Single Bullet Theory if your goal is to defend Oswald. 

You see, there are two very separate and distinct things: there is the disputing of the official story of the JFK assassination to establish conspiracy; and there is the defending of Lee Harvey Oswald. You have to decide what you want to do.  I want to defend Oswald. Establishing conspiracy is all well and good, but it's not what I'm in this for. I'm doing this for Oswald, as if he was my brother. So, don't call me a conspiracy theorist. Call me an Oswald defender. 

So, I would leave out the disputing of the SBT completely and just focus on the the evidence that supports Oswald's innocence. So, what follows is a hypothetical start of such an inquest, and it covers the arguments that I would make to prove to the Court that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent; completely and totally innocent. 

*       *        *        *       *      *        *        *        *

Defender: Your Honor, we are asking you to rule in favor of granting an inquest concerning Lee Harvey Oswald, whom we believe was wrongly found culpable in President Kennedy's murder.in two federal investigations  We believe the evidence will show that Oswald could not possibly have done it. We think this is appropriate because, had he lived, Oswald would have been tried in the state of Texas. 

Prosecutor: Your Honor, the killing of a President has been deemed a federal crime, and it does not fall within the jurisdiction of my office or the state of Texas.

Defender: Your Honor, it WAS not a federal crime in 1963, and plans were underway to prosecute Oswald in Texas. They were interrupted only by his death. 

Prosecutor: Your Honor, those plans were never formalized nor filed. The fact is: you cannot reopen a case that was never opened. 

Defender: Your Honor, there is a precedent for this in Texas. In 1985, a Texas State Judge ruled that the official cause of death of Ag Commissioner Henry Marshall in 1961 be changed from suicide to murder. No criminal charges were filed since the presumed culprit Lyndon Johnson, was dead. But, for the sake of history and the record, an inquest was conducted. :  

Judge: Give me a moment. 

He looks down, thinking. 

Judge: OK, I am going to allow this to proceed. Mr. Prosecutor, your argument is duly noted. Now, let's get started.  

Defender: Thank you, Your Honor. The Defense shall present multiple streams of evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent. It includes photographic evidence that Oswald was standing in the doorway of the Texas Book Depository at the time of the shooting, which means he could not have been up on the 6th floor shooting at the President.  It will include written evidence of a statement made by Oswald to investigators that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front" during the shooting. Hence, that was Oswald's alibi. And the very fact that he knew that Shelley was out in front at the time is evidence that he, Oswald, was there, because how else could he know that Shelley was there? 

We will examine the fingerprint evidence against Oswald, showing how suspicious it is after the Dallas Police were unable to find any fingerprints. We will argue that his prints allegedly found on boxes of books mean nothing since handling such boxes was the nature of his work, and he worked on the 6th floor that morning. We will bring on an expert witness who will testify that the claim of finding a partial print on the trigger-guard of the rifle that was found on the 6th floor does not rise to the level of certainty, and that the palm print allegedly found on the butt of the rifle was not found until after his death, and therefore, is highly suspicious. The fact is that the print evidence is paltry and unpersuasive, and that is an understatement.  

We will argue that the eye-witness testimony against Oswald, such as that of Mr. Bremer, involved pressure by police, and is fraught with doubtfulness. We will argue that the ballistics evidence will prove that there were multiple shooters, including a shooter from the front, while the case against Oswald was built around him being a lone gunman.  

Prosecutor: Objection, Your Honor. A second federal investigation, that of the HSCA, found that there was a frontal shooter, that Oswald was NOT a lone gunman, and therefore, there is no need to revisit that issue.  

Judge: Give me another moment....(he thinks)  All right, I'll sustain that objection. The issue of whether there were other shooters besides Oswald will not be considered.  I will not hear arguments about it since even if true, Oswald could still have been "a" shooter on the 6th floor, hence, his guilt would be the same. We shall only deal with the question of whether Oswald was on the 6th floor shooting at the President. Is that understood? 

Defender: Yes, Your Honor.

Judge: Very well. You may continue. 

Defender: Thank you, Your Honor. We shall provide evidence that Oswald came down from the 5th floor at the start of the lunch break, which began 11:45, and that there is no evidence that he ever went back upstairs to the upper floors. We will impugn the claims of the one witness who claimed to see Oswald back on the 6th floor, Charles Givens. We will impugn the claim of Buell Frazier that Oswald brought with him a large long package, presumably a rifle, and entered the building with it, which is contradicted by the testimony of Jack Dougherty, who saw Oswald when he came in.  We will impugn the FBI claim that Oswald mail-ordered a rifle from Chicago, showing that the very timeline of Oswald's supposed actions on March 12, 1963 to obtain and mail a money order are impossible to rationalize ,as well as the impossibility of Oswald receiving a rifle mailed to his P.O. Box but addressed to A. Hidell. We will also argue that the very claim that Oswald had a P.O. box is highly suspect, as is all the testimony of Postal Inspector Harry Holmes.   

We will argue that the testimony of Officer Marrion Baker is very exonerating of Oswald because Baker claimed to first see Oswald in the vestibule to the lunch room on the 2nd floor, entering it from the office side. 

That is highly significant, Your Honor, because there was no access to the 6th floor from the office aide. There was only one flight of stairs on that side, which went from the first floor to the second floor at the southeast corner of the building, close to the doorway. We will argue that Oswald could not have come down the same stairs that Baker used, which were at the northwest corner, because Baker would likely have seen Oswald and surely would have heard him. Plus, the smallness of the vestibule and the extreme brevity of Oswald's passage through it, tell us that if Oswald had gone through the swinging door on Baker's side, through which Baker saw him, that that swinging door would still have been in motion. But, it was NOT in motion, and that proves that Oswald must have entered the vestibule from the office side, going through the door on the other side. And therefore, the argument that Oswald could not have come down from the 6th floor is valid. 

Your Honor, we will cite the testimony of James Jarman which proves that Oswald had no knowledge that JFK's motorcade would be passing the building, that he only learned of it that very morning, at approximately 9 AM, when Jarman told him. There has been a longheld belief that Oswald must have learned about the motorcade route "somehow" but Jarman's testimony proves that Oswald did not know about it. And one cannot argue that Oswald was cunningly trying to establish an ignorance alibi because he didn't use it. He said nothing to the police about his conversation with Jarman. We learned about it from Jarman. 

Your Honor, we will argue that the claim that Oswald stole wrapping paper from the TSBD to make a paper bag to transport the rifle is without merit, that there is no evidence that he did that. And since the rifle was allegedly brought into the building disassembled, we will demonstrate the impossibility of Oswald having had the time and means to disassemble it at the Paine household and also to reassemble it at the TSBD, not having so much as a screwdriver to do it, let alone not having the time to do it. Note that there were three persons who should have been aware of Oswald having brown wrapping paper: Frazier, Ruth Paine, and Marina Oswald. But, none were aware of it.  

Your Honor, we will point to the fact that Oswald claimed to have brought with him only his lunch in a brown paper bag, consisting of a cheese sandwich and an apple, which he claimed to eat in the 1st floor lunch room prior to the motorcade.  We will point to the fact that Dallas Police had the means and opportunity to look for the remnants of that lunch, which would have been easy to find in the lunch room, which either they did not do, which was negligent, or which they did but kept the results to themselves, presumably because they confirmed what Oswald said. Either way, it shows corruption on the part of Dallas Police.  

Most importantly, Your Honor, we will cite the testimony of Carolyn Arnold on November 26, 1963, just 4 days after the assassination, in which she told an FBI agent, Richard Emberley, that she believed she saw Oswald standing at the doorway, looking through the glass, at approximately 12:15, which rules out any possibility that he had sufficient time to get up to the 6th floor, and reassemble the rifle, and build the Sniper's Nest, etc. And what is especially damning about it is that all the while, Bonnie Ray Williams claimed to be on the 6th floor, eating chicken and drinking a Dr. Pepper, his bottle from which was found. 

And finally, Your Honor, we have a forensic expert who will testify that the Backyard photos of Oswald brandishing the murder weapon are crude forgeries, that it is Oswald's face but not his body, that the man holding the rifle and newspaper was several inches shorter than Oswald. And there are other problems with those photos indicating forgery, and since those photos were produced before the assassination, it means that the framing of Oswald began well before November 22, 1963. Thank you, Your Honor.    

  

Wayne Steagall Jr Why dose it seem as though Oswald is looking at the Agents and they are looking at him???

• Like
•  · Reply
•  · 27m

• 

  Ralph Cinque That's a good question. And let me add that the other agent in the Fedora hat behind the woman and boy is also looking at Oswald. He is not facing the motorcade. He is completely turned around. That's his back that we're seeing. And that's why they put that woman and boy in there, to hide the fact that he was turned around looking at Oswald. And as to why they're looking at Oswald, it's because he's supposed to be up on the 6th floor, according to the official story.

  • Like

    Like

    Love

    Care

    Haha

    Wow

    Sad

    Angry
  •  · Reply
  •  · 1m

Wes Stover Right and I guess the person in front of Oswald was supposed to be simple minded. The President is going by and he’s not even looking in his direction, he’s looking down the opposite street smiling and oblivious to what’s taking place.

• Like
•  · Reply
•  · 28m

• 

  Ralph Cinque That's a good, Wes, and you're funny. That image of the black guy looking the wrong direction (I like to say that he's hailing a tamale vendor) was actually taken by Phil Willis and plugged in there. Here is where it first occurred: It is the same image

I can cite more proof that the imagery of the doorway in Hughes is fake. Look at the location of Oswald and the black guy. Of course, officially, he's supposed to be Lovelady. Bu, regardless of who he was, he was not hovering over the black guy and breathing down his neck.
People referred to the Man in the Doorway being next to the white column, but he really wasn't. That is just a parallax effect due to the angle from which Altgens was shooting, where the west side of the doorway got cut off from his camera. Doorman was in the center of the doorway.
But, parallax was not an issue for Hughes. Doorman was in the center of the doorway, and would have appeared as such, as he does in Wiegman. The Doorman in Hughes is very crude and has no facial features and has an abnormally round head like Charlie Brown. And if you watch the clip of it, his image is very unstable, fading in and out. He wasn't there. He wasn't in that spot. He was put there artificially. It's art, not photography.
They thought they could get away with this because it resembles what is seen in the Altgens photo, and they assumed, correctly, that most people would not think about the physics and the optics of the situation.The real Doorman (Oswald) is being covered up by the phony image of Toni Glover and her mother standing on the pedestal. That's where he is. Smack in the center.

This is amid some correspondence that is going on between me, the Wizard, and some others. 

You made an interesting point about multiple patsies being an option until very late. Let me give you my perspective on that. If you accept David Talbot's thesis that the whole JFK assassination plot was conceived within the anti-Castro community, specifically: by Morales, Phillips, and Harvey (BIll), and it was probably Bill Havey who went to Dulles with it. Then Dulles had to go to LBJ. 

But originally, it was to be killing Kennedy as a pretext to invade Cuba. And that meant Oswald had to have co-conspirators. And if he had to have co-conspirators, then he could also have co-shooters. But, as LBJ got closer to becoming President, he rose to the top of the power grid. And I think that he is the one who nixed the Cuba angle and made it a crazed lone gunman story. And when you consider the phony trip to Mexico City which Oswald never made, the purpose of it was to link him to Cuba. But, that became moot once the decision was made (by Johnson) to nix the invasion of Cuba. They didn't need the Mexico City story any longer, but they were stuck with it. 

I've often wondered why they shot JFK in the throat if they were planning a lone gunman from the rear. There are only two possibilities: one is that they planned the SBT all along, and the other is that it wasn't going to be a lone gunman all along. But, if it wasn't going to be a lone gunman, then the other gunman would have to get away and never be found. And that is exactly what the HSCA settled on years later, which I refer to as Government Story #2. So, maybe that was on the drawing board all along. 

Now regarding Tina Towner saying that they responded to a published request for filmers to turn over their media, I really doubt it. They knew going in that what people were going to capture was likely to be different from the story they were going to tell. They knew in advance that they had to get their hands on all amateur films and photos. Why would they risk depending on people to respond to newspaper ads they might not even see? 

So, I suspect she remembers it wrong, that her father turned over their films on the very day, just as Mary Moorman did. We know it was Jim Featherstone who led MM to turn over her film. They must have had people like him combing Dealey Plaza. And it worked because they got their hands on everything. Everything, that is, except Babushka Lady's film. But, as you may know, my position is that BL was an insider; that she was working for them; that she was there specifically to capture the kill on film. They sent a woman because who would suspect a woman? And she stood back standing well behind Brim, never going up close to the curb. And she wore that scarf as a disguise. The official story is that she disappeared into the woodwork, but I believe they used an image of hers to replace the one that MM took. 

And speaking of witnesses who remembered wrong, there is also the Girl in Blue from the Hughes film, Dr. Toni Glover. She is not recalling it correctly either. They needed to cover the doorway because Oswald was in it, and the big looming image of her on the pedestal is fake. And it's not just her, but her mother too; a portly middle-aged woman.

I have stood on that pedestal. It's pretty damn high. And when you're standing on it, the whole fear of heights thing hits you. You get a bit nervous. I did.  A limber kid might stand up there, but not a portly middle-aged woman. If you look at Toni and her mother in the Dorman film, you can see that they are standing on the ground, and that's right when the limo was approaching the intersection and about to turn from Houston to Elm. 

They were on the ground there. They were not on a pedestal. And not even a little girl would be as boisterous as Toni was while standing on the pedestal. As you look at this picture, there is no reason to think that they were higher than anyone else. 

So, then the story would have to be that they quickly climbed up on the pedestal to face Elm Street, but that is ridiculous. A frumpy, middle-aged woman wouldn't do that. A kid, yes, but not a frumpy, middle-aged woman. 

You need to realize that the image from Hughes entails Toni facing the back of her mother. 

Here, you really get the impression that they are looming way above everyone else. But, you don't get it from the Dorman film. 

 

The idea that they could climb up there so fast is ridiculous. It is preposterous. But, even if they could have, Toni wouldn't be able to see anything through her mother's back anyway. If anything, her mother, who was taller, would have put Toni in front, facing Elm, and she would have hugged her from behind, not vice versa. 

But, the point is that Toni has cooperatively remembered the story according to what the Hughes film shows. It's an Orwellian thing. She must have done it since the film shows it. Right? So, of course, she remembers it that way.  Ralph 

After pointing out that the cigar smoker in the Jackson photo, who to me looks like he is doing a Groucho Marx impersonation, looks more like FBI Agent James Hosty than Detective Blackie Harrison, Mary-Ellen wonders whether he was even there.  She thinks he may have been pasted into the photo. Technically, it's possible. There is no reason why he couldn't have been. 

What is his story? What is he supposed to be doing with his right arm as he smokes with his left one? I have been told that he is "reaching for the gun." But, you can see where the gun is, and his right hand can't be anywhere near it. And who reaches to disarm a gunman while continuing to puff on a cigar? It seems to trivialize it, doesn't it? Then there is the officer behind Oswald in the white hat. If you look closely at his face, you'll realize that he is not looking at Oswald, that his stare is distant. He is looking at the camera. He is glancing right through Oswald and the others. I wonder if Jackson said, "Cheese." 

Notice how the jet-blackness of his suit contrasts with how the other dark suits look. Is that even a suit jacket? See if you can see a lapel. Why isn't it shiny like the other suits? It seems more like a black sweater. There are a couple of buttons on the sleeve, but suit jackets typically have four, and the two that are there aren't even the same size. And what about the convenient lapses in the photograph above and below him. Is it possible that they were put there in order to reduce the amount of him available for inspection? Is it possible that his trousers were nothing like Blackie's? And did they add the little lapse above him just for balance? It does seem awfully convenient, much like the white thumbprint in the Moorman photo. Note also that his right arm is way too thick. 

And while we're here, let's note that the entire image is completely ridiculous because a gunshot has supposedly gone off. An explosive, startling, unexpected gunshot. And when I say "gone off" I mean just gone off; less than a second before. So, how  could no one be started? That guy doesn't look the least bit startled. NBC reporter Tom Petitt doesn't look the least bit startled either. 

Perhaps I should take a moment to discuss startle. It is in an automatic, involuntary response, and it is something that affects your face, your neck, and your shoulders, mostly.  Tom Petitt in the white coat isn't startling at all. Detective Lowery on the left, who is clasping his hands in front, looks as cool as a cucumber, and if he could be more relaxed than he is, I don't know how. Fritz on the left is supposedly showing startle with his hand, but he is not startling with his neck and shoulders either. Meanwhile, we've got Leavelle with his hand in Oswald's pants in the groin area. Have you ever seen or heard of a cop doing that? Don't you think it's likely that this is the only time in police history that a cop ever grabbed a prisoner that way? 

Then there is the cop in uniform standing behind Oswald. If you look closely at his face, you'll see that he is not looking at Oswald and the others, that he is glancing through them. He is looking at the camera. I wonder if the photographer said, "Cheese." 

There is no one in that entire photo who looks startled. And as for Oswald, is this the only time in the history of gunshots in which a victim reacted by slapping his arm to his chest? I suspect so. But, the fact is that Oswald doesn't do it in the films. And consider how fast his arm had to be moving to get there in a fraction of a second. And if it was moving that fast, how could it stop that fast? 

And what about the kick of the gun? I mean the recoil. That's a powerful little gun, and the very short muzzle gives it a lot of kick. But notice that the Shooter looks like he is ABOUT to shoot, about to pull the trigger, rather than having already done it. He looks frozen. He looks like he was posing. 

The whole photo is just plain ridiculous, and the story that it is telling is absurd. Yet, it won the Pulitzer Prize. The photo is staged. It is pap for the masses; incredibly stupid pap for the masses.