Plagiarist plus stringer of obscure lines found in dusty library books
hoping his fans will give deep meanings.

My vote stuffed multiple times in the ballot box, for best version:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=ZBiH5fsKJB8

“Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?” –Lincoln

I get your point BUT ! I can’t see healthcare worldwide, I can see it around me and in socialist Britain it’s crap. Chemical cures that often maim and faceless committees so no one gets the blame.Capitalism creates monopolies,of which socialism is one of their best. All the perks and none of the blowback. Central bank, covertly owned privately farms the tax base, a nice little earner protected by earnest believers in their PR jive.

Just to add, John. Oswald is very important in my book because if his shooting was staged that is clear evidence that he really was a patsy – he’s like WTC-7. Just as Graeme MacQueen says about the destruction of WTC-7, “There’s no room in the official story for controlled demolition,” there is no room in the official story for the staged shooting of Oswald.

To be precise re photo. The photo isn’t faked (as far as I can tell) but the shooting is staged.

John, you’re making it so much more complicated that it needs to be. I took the stills from the video (linked to on the webpage) from the CNN YouTube channel – thus I think we can safely say that this is the “genuine” video of the LIVE SHOOTING ON TV although, of course, it’s faked. The video is 58 seconds long and the shooting starts at about 20 seconds in. It is a tiny bit of footage that is easily compared against the famous photo – no doubt that that is the “genuine” famous photo … except obviously faked too.
 
CNN 58 second video



 
As I keep sayin’, over and over and over and over, John, they TELL us so there is no doubt whatsoever that no still matches the photo. No serious study is required. There is no way at all to match photo against any still. None at all. No serious study required. It is in-your-face like the Emperor’s New Clothes.
 
There were at least two takes of the Oswald shooting. The evidence is incontrovertible and little study is required to determine this in-your-face fact. As this fact is incontrovertible then the only question remaining is did they kill Oswald regardless of the fact that they staged the shootings? I’d say no.

I certainly agree with those two principles, and its paramount to keep them in the forefront.

Those stills are etched indelibly on my memory from long ago, and I also was witness to the event live on TV, not a refreshing memory!

Although I want to oblige you with a solid answer about the discrepancies, I haven’t studied the “evidence” yet enough. (It’s rash of me if I said I knew this to be pristine stuff!) The reason I haven’t studied it too deep in 50+ years, when I have read so much about this, simply put is that I don’t think all the Oswald data is very important, though it interests me, for sure. Other than the fact he has been ultimately identified as an Intel operative, his part, or lack, in the murder is peripheral.

I’m interested in all the OTHER CIA involvement on 11.22.63.

If it’s any worth, I will say this much: the stills you present (and I have no way of judging their authenticity) look very stagey. It looks like what they call in TV Show Biz “dramatic re-enactments.”

The gestures and expressions on faces look forced and not genuine.

Ill have to postpone my 2¢ til later.

From what you show, it seems they were two separate events!

Whatever future other things you wish to say let’s just establish a simple fact, John. There were at least two takes of Oswald’s shooting, OK?
 
In my previous comment I mentioned the psyop principle of only doing what is wanted for real and faking the rest. But then there’s another very important psyop principle that I have also mentioned:
 
They always TELL us.
 
So not only can we determine that there were at least two takes of Oswald’s shooting, the two takes are made very, very clear! The people are positioned differently around Oswald in both the “live” shooting and the photograph. Not only can no still be matched against the photo, no still can be remotely matched. Please examine the photo against the stills and give your opinion.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/lho-shot-tvphoto-comparison.html
 
Please just answer: do you agree there were at least two takes of Oswald’s shooting which strongly suggests Oswald wasn’t killed?
 
 

I can’t respond in entirety right now (and after 56+ years of CIA micro-managed obfuscation, not necessary) but for starters, I’ll say that I really agree with all your principles 100%+

In particular, the refrain: “nothing would surprise me.”

(And please add to that the most valuable lens of my personal store: “Nothing is ever what it appears to be.” Or, nothing but the holiest. And accept no substitutes, for that!)

That too may seem unnecessary, or “appear to be”, but clearly it is not –given the near universal tendency of almost everyone to not challenge very much at all (at least initially) of this bovine manure that is readily and steadily chucked at us from well-funded sources, it really IS necessary, and salubrious, and “hygienic”, to challenge ALL the “stories” –early and often (i.e., “instantly and incessantly”)– and to stay after people to do so, for “as long as it takes”. That last item is especially vital, since the High Cabal has had a clear Game Plan for the Home Team that “money is no object” in their suppression of truth and evidence et al. “in toto” when it comes to JFK. In toto encompasses not just the physical assassination, but ongoing any possible or feasible character assassination they can muster 24/7/365. I also note many many other psyop techniques they bring to bear to discourage our “revisionism”.

All of which argues that we should always take heart and efforts to ramp up our scrutiny, of it all, echoing what was a classic and charming refrain of that Bostonian himself, “with vim and vigor”.

( I’m not sure that I have heard either word used since his utterances, but their spirit, and his, certainly still apply, in all the best of their epic American nobility. Yes, we have had at least a little! Here.)

I’ll have to address your valuable points a little later when I can afford to give them attention that they deserve.

Just sayin’

Just rememberin’

(His birthday was May 29, and I choose always to mark that as my “early voting” for Memorial Day, as it always crowds our national one. –Also the birthday of his fellow impassioned Catholic, GK Chesterton, KC*SG, so another “memo” of the Eternal Flame that illuminates their graves. I’ll stop there, if I’m any more observant I may draw comparisons to Jack’s namesake among The Lone Gunmen of X Files, John Fitzgerald Byers.)