Jason Trachtenburg

• I do believe Oswald is the man in the doorway, but I also believe Judyth Baker. Everyone can have their own opinions but it's best not to argue amongst ourselves with name calling, etc. Lee would not have approved of such behavior.

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 7h
  •  · 
    Edited
• Ralph Cinque

  Jason Trachtenburg

   Jason, I'm quite sure Lee wouldn't like it if he knew he was being accused of having a torrid love affair with a woman while his wife was home with his daughter, and she was pregnant with his second daughter. And not just having an affair, but planning to run off to Mexico with this woman and abandon his family. All of that is part of Judyth's story. Lee would not have approved of such behavior. He would not have done such behavior. And all of the evidence points to the fact that he loved his wife and kids. I defend Lee Harvey Oswald, and I defend him against all charges, whether it's murder or adultery. He isn't here to defend himself. You need to stop thinking of Judyth's claims as a sweet love story but as a case of both libel and slander.

It has reached the point of lunacy for anyone to deny that it's Oswald in the doorway.  You might as well say that the Earth is flat. Not only do the shape of the face and the facial features match, but so does the length of the neck (which varies a lot among people) and the slender build, and THE CLOTHING! 

You realize that they didn't wear uniforms at the TSBD; they just wore street clothes. And the world of clothes is huge! It's not as big as the world of men, but it's gigantic. So, the idea that Oswald and Lovelady, not only looked alike, but just happened to dress alike on the same day is insane. The likeness of the man and the clothing in this collage is uncanny, and it is due to one simple fact: IT IS THE SAME MAN!

And note that the top margin of the t-shirt is ruffled and sunken on both, and that is not a fashion design. It is due to the fact that Oswald had the habit of stretching his t-shirt; he pulled on the opening. Lovelady didn't do that. He didn't have that habit. In every photo we have of him, going to 1977, the collar of his t-shirt looks fine; undeformed. And before anyone blabbers about the shirt "pattern" being different, it is not a shirt pattern that we are seeing there on Doorman. It is a combination of light reflection and distortion due to the extreme blowup of the image. Would you design a shirt with a pattern like that? Of course not. And nobody else would either. It is the same shirt.

So, Oswald was in the doorway during the shooting of JFK, just as he said he was. He told law enforcement that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front" and Will Fritz wrote it down. 

Now, to anyone who is tempted to post a glib response, saying "It's Lovelady" I urge you not to. That's because a guy tried it last night, and I had the Admin expel him, and I'll do it again. Stop denying reality. Oswald was in the doorway.  

 
  

I was sent this view of Elm Street by the Wizard. You see the Obelisk. Note that the Croft ladies were down from the Obelisk. 

That's a nice clear shot, isn't it? So, the Croft Ladies were down the hill, a little past the Obelisk. 

So, there they are down by the retaining wall, and they are below the Obelisk. But, where are the Croft Ladies in the Zapruder film? Answer: they are close to the intersection of Elm and Houston.  But first, pick up their visual cues. 

So, you have a short, heavy set AA woman who is wearing a blue dress. Next to her is a tall, thin AA woman in a dark outfit. And further down, clapping, you have an AA couple who are both in white or at least light clothing. So, let's look for them in Zapruder. 

Do you see a short AA woman in a blue dress and next to her a taller woman in a dark outfit. And a little further down, you see an AA couple in white or light clothes, presumably the husband and wife. Let's add one more: Note that in both, on the other side of the AA man in the white shirt is an AA woman in red. 

So, that is a heck of a lot of confirmation that they are the same people. But, the question is, why are they so much higher on the hill in Zapruder? They are practically at the corner of Houston Street and Elm in Zapruder, while in Crofts, they are down below the Obelisk. How is that possible? It's not. So, what's the explanation? The explanation is that they cut out a large part of the Z-film that included the Croft area. But, they went ahead and moved the spectators from the part they cut out into the part that preceded it so that if anyone went looking for them, they would find them. It's like they slid them up. 

So, the Zapruder film wasn't just altered; it was scrambled. It was a very sophisticated job, especially for the time. It was very complicated what they did. It wasn't a simple alteration; it was more like something Dr. Frankenstein would have done if he disregarded anatomical correctness. It was much more extreme than most researchers ever considered or imagined. 

And I don't think it was done all at once. They had 12 years to get it "right." It wasn't until l975 that it was shown to the public, and that was on national television with Geraldo Rivera. 

I am going to give you the link to that presentation, but first let me point out that it included that great deceiver Robert Grodin, and no explanation was given as to how Grodin obtained the Z-film.  But second, it wasn't just the Z-film; it also included network footage of  the motorcade before it got to Dealey Plaza, and then pieces of the Muchmore, Nix, and Martin films which were spliced with the Zapruder film. How did Grodin obtain all that? It was 1975; there was no internet. Those films were all in government hands. I think we should stop thinking that this was "leaked." 

Also note that in showing the film they stated what it shows that JFK was fine, that he was smiling and waving, until he reached the freeway sign. Then he was shot behind the freeway sign, and when he emerged from it, he was reacting to being shot. 

So, it all happened behind the freeway sign. That is the story of the Zapruder film, but it is a grotesque lie.  It is not what really happened. What really happened is that he was first shot high on the hill, and he stopped smiling and waving long before he got to the freeway sign. 

So, showing the Zapruder film on national television was an act of propaganda. It's purpose was to sell the Single Bullet Theory. The ones discussing it all sounded skeptical of the Warren Commission, and I'm not saying they weren't, but it was a manipulation that included them.   

One guy, who was a researcher, brought up Jack Ruby, and he went full bore into making the claim that Ruby not only killed Oswald but was deeply involved in killing JFK.  And he quoted Ruby's doctor who claimed that Ruby admitted that he killed JFK.  He claimed that this doctor claimed that Ruby claimed that you might as well say that he, Ruby, killed JFK, not Lee Oswald. And that is ridiculous. It's ridiculous to claim it, and it's ridiculous to claim that Ruby ever said it.  Ruby absolutely loved JFK.  There is no doubt about that. The idea that he was involved in killing him is preposterous. 

The allusions that Ruby made to knowing something about the JFK assassination all came from a book he was given to read,  A Texan Looks at Lyndon by J. Evetts Haley.  

I keep telling you that the "alternative" story about Jack Ruby, that he was a Mafioso and a CIA operative and an insider in the whole operation, that he killed Oswald to silence him, was sown by the plotters. It was done to sway people to the extreme opposite of the truth, the truth being that Ruby did not kill Oswald at all, that he was set up and bamboozled into thinking that he did, as we all were. 

I am giving you the link now, and it is entirely a puppet piece. These guys were all puppets, perhaps unwittingly, and perhaps not. Throughout it, there is no disputing that Oswald acted to kill President Kennedy. It is only questioned whether he acted alone. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxCH1yhGG3Q

But, let's finish on the Zapruder film because that is what this post is mainly about. The Z-film was, essentially, in government hands. It was owned by LIFE magazine for a while, but you might as well think of them as an extension of the CIA. So, they had 12 years to alter the Zapruder film, and it probably underwent a series of alterations. Why did they wait 12 years to show it to the public? Because it took them 12 years to make it tell the right story, that JFK wasn't shot until he passed behind the freeway sign. It's not true. He was shot high on the hill. 

And I hope you believe me that they didn't mind one bit if you wanted to believe in conspiracy- so long as you kept Oswald as "a" shooter, and as long as you kept Ruby as Oswald's killer.  And it's still the case. It is a very safe counter-story that has been fostered from the very beginning. They knew there were going to be disputers, and that there would always be disputers. They wanted to wind those people up and point them in the direction they wanted them to go, which was far away from the truth, which is that both Oswald and Ruby were completely and totally innocent; as innocent as you and I.   

This frame from the Zapruder film tells it all. You can see that the limo is still at the top of the hill. It is directly across from the reflecting pools. You can see the corner of Houston Street right behind it. That white car at the top is on Houston Street. It hasn't even begun to turn yet onto Elm. And it is just 3 cars behind the limo, which has just rounded the corner. And yet the freeway sign is right there?  That's impossible! It was much farther down the hill than that. They cinched that up. And I mean a lot. They cut out a huge swath of the film.  And they did it because JFK rode down that hill already shot in the back and reacting to it. He stopped smiling. He stopped waving. And Jackie, herself, said that he acquired a quizzical look on his face. That freeway sign so close to the top of the hill in the Zapruder film is a smoking gun. It is evidence of extreme malfeasance in the handling of the Zapruder film. They altered it. They butchered it. JFK quickly reaching that sign should have jumped out at researchers from Day 1 that the Zapruder film underwent major surgery.  

I've said before that a huge swath was cut out of the Zapruder film. In it, it appears that the limo reaches the freeway sign almost immediately after passing the TSBD. JFK waves a couple times, and then he disappears behind the sign. But, it wasn't like that. There was a long hill there and still is. And the limo was moving very slowly down it. The distance between these "x's" marks what was cut out. 

Isn't that huge? It may have been 10 seconds or more. Now think about the implications of it. The Warren Commission assumed that the whole shooting spree lasted 6 seconds or less. But, that was based on the idea that JFK wasn't hit until he passed behind the freeway sign. Not true. He was hit high on the hill, just past the TSBD, and before the Croft photo was taken.  And there is irony involved because they had to limit themselves to three shots. That's because there were the three shells, ever so conveniently, found, in the Sniper's Nest, and also because if you start at the the freeway sign and then go right across from Zapruder for the fatal head shot, that that defined the Kill Zone, officially speaking, and Oswald couldn't have gotten more than 3 shots off in the span of time. But, the irony is that since JFK was hit much earlier and much higher on the hill, that Oswald would have been under no such time restraint. Of course, he wasn't even in the Sniper's Nest; he was in the doorway. So, it's a moot point but still ironic. 

But, I can guarantee you that if you went to Dealey Plaza, and you stood on Zapruder's pedestal, which you can do, and you shot a car slowly moving down Elm Street, which you can do, that it would take much longer to cover the distance than what we see in the Zapruder film.

And if someone held up a piece of cardboard on the sidewalk on Elm Street to serve as a proxy for the freeway sign, the result would be that the "limo" wouldn't get to the sign nearly as fast as it does in the Zapruder film. And that's because an absolutely huge swath of the film was cut out. I'm telling you that they had to cut out the part in which JFK was shot only in the back and rode down the hill that way. They had to cut it out because they were espousing the Single Bullet Theory.

                 

If you look closely at this hook nose of Ruby at the DPD, you'll see that it's not really hook. What it is is an artifactual white mark that's right below his nose. There is also a white mark above his nose in the black and below his lip. That's all it is. His nose wasn't hooked, and that mark isn't part of the image.

So, this is the real Jack Ruby. And you can see that he was actually quite lean at the time. And remember that he was taking a hefty dose of amphetamines, which are slenderizing. Also, notice how little hair he had, that he was almost completely bald on top. And that belies all the photos we have of him with abundant hair. So they lied about Jack Ruby, and the only reason they would do that is if the whole story about him shooting Oswald was a lie. He really and truly did not do it, but he was tricked into believing that he did. And the whole country was tricked into believing that he did. I could even say that the whole world was tricked into believing that he did.

For a long time, I doubted that this guy at the MPP was Ruby, and that's because of his hook nose. 

But, then I realized, that it really is the same nose, and they just added the hook. Except for the hook, it's exactly the same nose. And it's easy enough to get rid of. So, I did. 

Isn't that a lot better? All I did was mess with the tip. I just got rid of that absurdly exaggerated hook, and you can see that it is the same nose. 

So, why did they add the hook? I can only guess, but what I think is that they went to a lot of effort to emphasize that Jack Ruby was Jewish, and there is this awful rumor that all Jews have hook noses. It's not true. I'm sure that some do, but probably fewer among Jews than Italians, which I am. Ruby didn't have a hook nose at all, but they figured that it would be easier to get people to dislike him if he had one; so they gave him one. If you don't like that explanation, then see what you can come up with. But, in the meantime, these are definitely the same guy. Look how well the ears match.