This issue of Ruby wearing different shoes and socks than Bookhout really is very damning. 

 Obviously, they are not the same socks, but they aren't the same shoes  either. On the left, it's a dressy wingtip. On the right, it's a high-top utility shoe, for working or walking. It was a set production error. I'm a filmmaker, and I know all about set production errors. It's easy to make them because there is so much you have to get right, that it's easy for something to fall between the cracks.   

The way they responded to this dire situation was to claim that they changed every stitch of clothing on Ruby's body, down to his underwear. 

My father, Mark John Cinque, was a policeman his whole working life. The only exception was the 4 years he served in WW2. And part of his career, he worked as a jailer in a city jail. He spent time as a jailer in New York City, and also his last gig before retiring was being a jailer in Los Angeles. He talked about it. They didn't give detainees uniforms. That's because they were Constitutionally entitled to a speedy arraignment before a judge. And the outcome of that arraignment was going to be either bail set, or released on their own recognizance, or charges dismissed, or being remanded to County Jail without bail. But, no matter what it turned out to be, they weren't going back to the City Jail, which this was. 

And we know for a fact that Ruby was transferred to the County Jail at Noon the very next day. So why WHY WHYwould they be changing his clothes, let alone his underwear? The underwear claim is so laughable, comical, and ridicuous that it warrants no credibility at all. If you are going to believe that the Dallas Police did that, replaced Ruby's underwear, then you get on your hands and knees and start cleaning their toilets, because that's what you're doing. 

So, this collage means something: it means that Jack Ruby wasn't the Garage Shooter. It's what I call a dealbreaker. It just breaks the whole connection. And it means that anything else that you've been leaning on to claim that Ruby did it, goes out the window. This beats the shit out of it. So, all the "So-and so said this, and So-and-so said that, and So-and-so said he saw Ruby here, and So-and-so said he saw Ruby there" all that shit goes out the window in the light of this picture:

You don't ignore this in favor of other stuff. This is the dealbreaker; the other stuff is just lipflapping. You need to have the maturity, the objectivity, and the integrity to realize that. And even if it's discomforting to you to admit that Ruby was innocent, and that you've been lied to about the Mafia ties and the gunrunning and his working for Richard Nixon etc., you do it. If it involves turning on a dime and reassessing years and decades of past work, you do it.  Because: you're not doing this to indulge yourself; to give yourself good feelings. This is just about one thing: an uncompromising, relentless pursuit of the truth.  And it is as certain that Ruby was innocent as it is that Oswald was innocent, and this collage is telling you that.  

 Afghanistan has fallen completely off the news radar. We fought a war there for 20 years, and now, it's like we didn't. And there is no investigation of what happened in Afghanistan. No one is being held to account. Imagine if you were the loved one of an American who got killed or maimed there. How would you feel about the erasing of this God-awful war from the national consciousness? 

Do you think there is going to be a monument built in Washington to the Americans who paid the ultimate price in Afghanistan? I don't think so. 

I still glance at the Taliban website. Today, they pointed out the suffering of the Afghan people is being worsened by the sanctions still being imposed by the United States on Afghanistan. They pointed out that the Doha Agreement, which the US signed, laid out that there would be no sanctions, that Afghanistan would be entitled to full international recognition, participation, and eligibility for loans, etc., which has not happened. 

So, our news outlets ignore Afghanistan, and while I'm sure the CIA has spies within the country. I don't think we have any plans of attacking again, considering how bad it worked out for us the last time. Maybe a future generation of Americans will want to try to fuck with Afghanistan again, but not today's. 

Still, our resignation to having been defeated in Afghanistan is amazing because we went there saying that the Taliban was involved in 9/11; that they supported Osama bin laden and Al Qaeda, that they were knowingly a part of the plot to attack America. So, if we really believed that, how could we ever let them prevail? How could we possibly forgive 9/11? How could we let 9/11 perpetrators off the hook?

I think we know very well that the Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11. I think our willingness to accept the existing situation in Afghanistan proves it. I think we know that the puppet Afghan government, the one that we set up, where we turned the spring and let our stooges run around and do their thing until they needed another cash infusion- that's all over, and it ain't coming back. And I don't think anyone in the U.S. government wants to talk about our 20 year debacle in Afghanistan. I think they want to shut the door on it for good. 

However, if they were going to talk about 9/11- if they were backed into a corner and forced to- I think they would admit that the Taliban wasn't involved in 9/11, at least not directly. Otherwise, how could they tolerate the current reality? How could they let a government get away with killing 3000 Americans? 

So, we know they didn't do it. But, think about what it means for the war because our ENTIRE justification for invading, attacking, and taking over that country was: 9/11. 

So, now do you understand why we don't want to talk about the Afghanistan War? We can't talk about it because if we talked about it, eventually it would come to admitting that our war was illegal, which of course it was. 

The war on Afghanistan, which was based entirely on lies, was a criminal enterprise by the United States. And all the deaths, including all the children's deaths, and all the maiming and all the suffering, are on us.  

And what about our compassion for the Afghans? Oh, that was just temporary, and now it's gone. We've moved on. Now, it's the Ukrainians we feel compassionate about. So, we have pumped over $100 billion into that war, urging the Ukrainians to fight. Instead of telling them to negotiate for the best deal they could, and be willing to accept the loss of Crimea and the Donbas permanently, we told them that they could beat the Russians militarily and get it all back. The result is over 100,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed; Ukraine is being utterly destroyed, and very likely, the worst is yet to come.  But don't worry: it won't go on forever. That war will end too. And when it does, whatever is left of Ukraine will be be built up again from scratch, on the backs of American taxpayers. And, with no lessons learned, the deranged militarism of the United States will continue unabated until the whole evil system collapses. 

A previously unknown recording has been found. It's of the Dallas Police discussing their plan to kill Oswald with the help of Jack Ruby. 

Detective1: All right, so the plan is to have Ruby get there and put a bullet into Oswald.

Detective2: Yeah, we'll sneak him in. We'll open a door for him. And he can say he entered through the ramp. 

Detective3: Then afterwards, we'll arrest him, testify against him at trial, get him the death penalty, and then he'll fry.

Detective4: Does he know about that part? 

Detective3: We brushed over it lightly. 

Detective4: Yeah, but don't you think that when it comes down to it, he's not going to like it, and he's going to squeal on you? 

Detective 2: Nah, he's not going to do that. We threatened to kill his sister.

Detective 4: Then, he can squeal on you about that too.

Detective 1: Nah. We're always going to address him warmly as Jack, like he's our buddy. He'll fall for it.  

Detective4: It sounds like you guys don't think much of Ruby, like he's a complete idiot.  

Detective 2: Have you met him? He's a scatterbrain talkaholic who loves being the center of attention. 

Detective 4:  What do you know about his shooting ability? Has he ever actually fired a gun that you know of?

Detective 3: Well, not that we know of, but this will be an easy shot. 

Detective 4: Yeah, but that doesn't mean that nothing could go wrong. What if Oswald spots him? His left wrist is not going to be shackled, So, he could swing at him. Or he could kick him in the balls. What if there is a commotion but Ruby fires anyway? Oswald isn't big; he's thin as a rail. Who's going to be on the other side of Oswald when Ruby makes his move?

Detective 1: That's supposed to be me. 

Detective4: All right, let's say you. So, you've got Scatterbrain Jack Ruby, who as far as you know, has never fired a gun before. He's never even shot at a target before, never mind a person. He gets there. He's nervous. He's sweating. His hand is shaking. The space is small, and it's very crowded. He makes his move. But, Oswald sees him, and he doesn't want to die. Ruby aims in the general direction, but Oswald pivots. The bullet catches him but narrowly. It traverses him with enough energy left to hit you. Or maybe it misses him completely and just hits you. Are you familiar with the expression, "the best laid plans of mice and men..."? 

Detective1: You're being ridiculous, and I've heard enough. Nothing is going to go wrong. It's a foolproof plan. Now, does anyone know where Jim Leavelle is? I've got a new assignment for him. 

 

Look at the Sniper's Nest, which Oswald supposedly built. So, we are supposed to believe that during the lunch break, Oswald enjoyed his cheese sandwich and apple in the domino room, leisurely scrolling through the newspaper, as he usually did. Then he went up to the 6th floor, retrieved his rifle, assembled it using a dime for a screwdriver, since no screwdriver was found. And then he built the Sniper's Nest out of boxes of books. But, do you know how heavy boxes of books are? Oswald was 5'9" 131 pounds. So, how strong could he have been? And it's one thing to lift a box to carry it low, but lifting the book overhead is something else entirely.  And it wasn't like a barbell that is designed to make it easy to flip your wrists to to make the snatch, to bring the bar to shoulder level. How do you do it with a box of books? And there were no ladders. 

 And what about this staged picture below? It's supposed to be Oswald being rushed into Parkland Hospital. It's supposedly the last picture ever taken of him alive.

First, that victim is too tall to be Oswald. Look at those long legs. That guy had to be 6 feet tall. But, let's examine the "story" of this picture. So, they're rushing Oswald into the hospital. That's  the ambulance driver, Michael Hardin. He is clearly pushing, not pulling. So, he is going forward. But, why is he pushing on Oswald's arm? And wouldn't he just push the arm down? And why is Detective Dhority clutching Oswald's hand? How can the stretcher go anywhere with him doing that? Think about it: Hardin is pushing; Dhority is pulling. Unless he lets go, that stretcher isn't going anywhere. And why isn't Hardin's assistant, Thomas Wolfe, the one helping him? What, was he unwilling to take part in this scam reenactment? And since it was a reenactment, obviously it couldn't involve the real Oswald. And the guy that's there at the foot of the stretcher, in the sunglasses, are we supposed to believe he actually walked backwards the whole way, and that he could move as fast backwards as Hardin could move forward? Parkland doctors said that Oswald was exsanguinated. They transfused 5.5 liters of blood into him, which is a full body supply. So, do you really think that Oswald, who was on the cusp of death, looked as good as that? That he was capable of making a fist? How do you do that without blood? This picture is screaming out loud fake.  They must have had a terrible set director. And here's the icing on the cake: notice that LC Graves is wearing a tie pin. Well, now look at this:

No tie pin. Oops. Hey, I'm a filmmaker. I know how easy it is for stuff to fall through the cracks. The same thing happened over Ruby's socks. Nobody bothered to coordinate the socks that Ruby wore with the socks that Bookhout wore.

And because of that blooper, they had to conjure up the story that the Dallas Police changed Ruby's underwear, down to his socks, even though they knew the next day he would be transferred to the County Jail. Are you buying that, are you? 

Below, the image on the left was 3:00 Sunday afternoon when they brought Ruby down to the 3rd floor for his first interview with Fritz. But, on the right is how he looked when they led him through the jail office for the first time after the melee. What happened to his jacket? Since the first thing they did was handcuff him, and that's according to 3 detectives, (Clary, Archer, and McMillan) how could they remove his jacket after doing that? 

Got to admit: they cleaned him up nice. They even ironed his shirt? But, look at the picture on the right. Don't we have to assume that his buttons got ripped off during the melee? Why else would his shirt look like that? They didn't deliberately unbutton the shirt, just for show, did they? Perish the thought. But then, how was his shirt buttonable afterwards? This is an enigma, sort of like the chicken and the egg. However, there are at least two detailed accounts of what transpired while Ruby was being held up on the 5th floor, one by Vincent Bugliosi in Reclaiming History, and the other by Elmer Gertz, Ruby's lawer, in Moment of Madness, and neither one wrote anything about Ruby being cleaned up. 

 The main picture below is supposed to be Oswald being removed from the stretcher at Parkland. Look at those gaping nostrils. You could drive a truck through there. Did Oswald have nostrils like that? No. And neither did the other phony Oswald who is pictured upper left with his very narrow nostrils. 

And one more thing: Oswald was shot at he 7th rib, and it wasn't that lateral. It was at the costo-chondral junction, which is here:

So, in what we're seeing here, shouldn't there be some blood showing?

With all that jostling around, not one drop of blood reached any of that exposed skin? 

This is just a smattering. The contradictions and incongruities in the JFK assassination imagery are endless. To get away with it, they were counting on people being as blockheaded as they were. 

Here's a view of the area below the obelisk. There's the low retaining wall, the paved walking path, and then the obelisk.

 Now, let's look at Croft. 

So now you know where they were; well below the obelisk. Now, on to Altgens. 

In Altgens, the Croft people are much higher, and the woman in white and black is blocking the doorway, even though she was well below the obelisk in Croft. It doesn't make sense. 

And then in Zapruder, the same Croft people are all the way up at the intersection. On the left, the short woman in blue is the same one in the center of Croft. 

I can't tell you how they did it, but I know why they did it. It was to remove the section of the film in which JFK was shot in the back and rode down the hill that way. Now, why would a person who was shot in the back, and very shallowly, and without damage to any vital structure, just sit there and do nothing. How could he not know that he was shot? And how could he not take evasive action? It was no ordinary bullet. JFK's behavior- his failure to respond- tells you that. 

Vincent Salandria said that in the very shaky case that authorities had against Oswald, that he was "conveniently" killed before due process could take place. Others have also observed that Oswald dying was very "convenient" for the authorities. But, let's state precisely what it means. It means that authorities were in a heap of trouble, which the killing of Oswald instantly got them out of. And since they were the "Cui" and "Cui Bono" it means that they were behind it. 

It does make sense, as many have recognized. However, the way that most people have picked up the ball and ran with it is to claim that the Dallas Police and Jack Ruby were working together. And that is ridiculous. 

How could the Dallas Police be working with Ruby? The Dallas Police lied about Ruby. Chief Curry made a statement on 11/24 that none of his men saw and recognized Ruby in the garage. But, on that same day, Jim Leavelle told a WFAA reporter that he recognized Ruby perfectly well in advance; that he knew Ruby well; and that he tried to take evasive action to save Oswald. Every word of it was a lie. We have the films, and Leavelle never even looked "Ruby's" direction until after the shot. And he tried hard not to.

Leavelle needed to be looking left because to his right was a wall of cops. So, unless he thought a cop was going to shoot Oswald, he needed to look left. But, he looked right precisely to give the Shooter an entrance. 

But, people have got to stop thinking that Dallas Police went to Ruby and said, 

"Hey Jack, how about killing Oswald for us? Then we'll prosecute you, testify against you, seek the death penalty, and hopefully, you'll fry. And the night of it, we'll insist that you have a rectal exam on the ruse that you might have shoved a handgun up your butt. Sound good? What do you say, Jack?"

And even if you want to think that Ruby's reply was, "Yeah sure; that sounds great to me" how could they trust him even if he said that? And even if he followed it with, "And don't worry, I'll lie through my teeth until they flip the switch, including to my lawyers; they'll never know a thing" how could they trust him? Even if they thought he meant it at the time, weren't they aware that people change their minds? If that's what it involved- trusting Jack Ruby to keep his mouth shut- wouldn't they have killed him right away, just to be safe? 

So yes, the killing of Oswald was "convenient" meaning that the Dallas Police did it. And don't forget the FBI because they are the ones who fabricated the phony evidence against Oswald, including the rifle ordering, the phony prints, and very likely the phony P.O. Box. And yes, it did involve "recruiting" Ruby, but not the way you're thinking. It was more like the way they recruited Sirhan Sirhan. They didn't tap Sirhan on the shoulder and say, "Hey Sirhan, we're killing RFK Friday night, and we need your help." Of course not! They manipulated him to be at the Ambassador Hotel, as high as a kite on Friday, in a totally helpless mental state. And they framed him to where even he thought he did it. It was exactly the same with Jack Ruby!

Well, it was almost exactly the same with Jack Ruby. They manipulated him to be at the Police Garage on Sunday morning. But, the difference was that they did a rendition with him an hour before. It involved no shooting- not even a blank. Since I'm a filmmaker, let's say it was the rehearsal- since the camera wasn't rolling. And then, when they were ready for "Action," they got an actor to fill in for Ruby by the name of James W. Bookhout in his debut role. 

It would be awfully stupid to think that the DPD and the FBI just got lucky that Jack Ruby came along and solved their Oswald problem. Might as well say they won the lottery. But it's just stupid to think that Ruby conspired WITH the Dallas Police- or with the Mafia to kill Oswald. Ruby was NOT in the Mafia. He knew some Mafia people, casually, but that was because the Mafia was deep in the nightclub business, which was the business he was in. His nightclubs were not Mafia nightclubs. Ruby raised the money from private sources, and not Mafia people. There is no basis to think that the Mafia ordered Ruby to kill Oswald. And there wasn't even a timeslot between 11/22 and 11/24 that they could have done it because we know everything Ruby did , from minute to minute, from Thursday, November 21 to Sunday, November 24, including everyone he talked to. You can read it yourself right here. 

http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Jack_Ruby/Timeline_of_Ruby.html

He never went to the DPD on Friday afternoon. He never went to Parkland Hospital. He never went to the Texas Theater. There are so many false stories told about Ruby, it's worse than for Oswald.

I know people who have spent years and decades, in some cases, many decades, studying the JFK assassination, and they still don't get it that Jack Ruby was innocent. And therefore, they are still in the dark. If they don't know that Jack Ruby was innocent, they might as well not know anything about the JFK assassination. 

 

   

Which of these bullet holes was the real one? One is above the rear view mirror, and the other below.

I can absolutely assure you that the throat shot hadn't happened yet at the time of the Altgens photo because that photo was taken when the limo was high on the hill, long before JFK was shot in the throat. The imagery of JFK reacting to the throat shot in the Altgens photo is fake. He was reacting to the back shot. 

But, returning to the bullet hole, most witnesses described a lower bullet hole, located just 2 inches above the hood. Vince Palamara publshed audio of SS Agent Joe Paolella saying that. 

 

 

Others have shown the Altgens bullet hole much lower than Larry did. This is from Vince's video.

As I look at Altgens, I say they are both right. There are two marks that can be interpreted as holes.

So, who is right, Vince or Larry? Neither! I guarantee you that the throat shot had not been taken at the time of the Altgens photo. It was taken high on the hill before the limo reached the Kill Zone. Kennedy rode down the hill affected only by the back shot. That fact had to be hidden- from the Altgens photo and the Zapruder film. 

Larry also published this image:

This resolves the problem of the throat shot being taken from on top of the triple underpass when there were 18 men up there. 

The alternate theory is that the throat shot was taken from the cubby hole on the far side of Commerce Street. 

This diagram was also provided from Robert Cutler. 

But, that was very close to where James Tague was, so how could he be unaware of it? He did not report any shots taken from behind him. Here he is standing on the island between Main and Commerce.

So, the shooter would have been across Commerce directly behind him. But, let's go back to the diagram.

It takes my breath away when I look at that diagram. Do you understand how small the target was for the throat shot? Recall the CBS experiments in which they got the best marksmen they could to shoot at a moving target of Kennedy's head (which they made much larger than life) and most missed it completely. And that was a whole head! Here we are talking about the vertical space between your chin and the notch in your neck. And when your head is in neutral position, it's not very much, maybe 3 inches. And surely, it was the lower part of the throat that was desired, so we are talking about a target area that was less than 2 inches. Do you really think that from that distance, and at that angle, shooting at a moving target, and through a windshield, that someone would expect to be able to hit such a tiny target? Imagine if the bullet had gone through Kennedy's chin. That would have ruined everything. The same goes if it hit him in the chest. Remember: they knew they were going to claim there was only one shooter from the rear. So, how did they expect to get away with taking a frontal shot? It must be that they planned beforehand to claim that it was an exit wound. 

They knew beforehand that the presence of a very shallow bullet wound in his back without a bullet in it was going to be a problem. After all, where could the bullet go when he was wearing three layers of clothing? Bullets can't go out the same way they came in through clothes. So, by shooting him in the throat in the right spot, they could claim that the bullet traversed him, and that was their plan all along. 

But, the point is that NOBODY would assume they could accomplish this shot of placing a bullet in Kennedy's lower throat under these conditions.

We should ask Craig Roberts about this because he went up to the 6th floor and looked out the window and knew instantly that he couldn't have accomplished Oswald's supposed fatal head shot, and Craig was a military sniper and SWAT team shooter. Let's see if he thinks he could place a bullet in Kennedy's lower throat from that distance, at that angle, with the car moving, and through tinted glass.  

 

I presume that those who think JFK was shot through the windsheild believe the shot was taken from the Triple Underpass. This video consists of Mark Lane's interviews with many railroad workers who were up there, including SM Holland. As you watch it, ask yourself how a shooter could have been up there without them knowing it. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEq63vTOwcI

This is the view from the TU as per the video.

You can see the elevation. So, if a bullet struck low on the windshield, just 2 inches above the hood, at that angle, how could it reach the back of the limo? Don't you think it would impact the interior of the limo before that?

"...a couple of inches above the hood of the car." 

How could such a shot have hit Kennedy in the throat? In the video, the speaker said he thinks the shooter was aiming for Kennedy's chest but hit him in the throat. But, how were they were they going to explain that if the story was going to be just one rear shooter?

I don't claim to know if there was a hole there, or if it was something else, but regardless, I don't see how a bullet could go through the windshield there and hit Kennedy in the throat. I don't believe it was the source of the throat shot. 

It's easy to misconstrue the distances in a photo due to parallax, but this photo shows the distance between the obelisk and the small white retaining wall. 

 So, on the right, is the obelisk, and then farther down, beyond the path, there is the retaining wall. The woman in the red wrap is between them. In other images, it looks like they are very close, the wall and the obelisk, but above, you see there is a bit of a separation. Now, let's look at Croft.

You know that I maintain that JFK was already shot in the back here. On the far right, you can see the path a little behind the grey-haired older man, and further up from that is the obelisk. Note the woman in white and black who is just to the right of Kennedy. She is also in Altgens6.

In Altgens6, the woman in white and black is to the right of the obelisk. 

She is actually blocking the view of the doorway. How is that possible? Here is my Altgens recreation:

We see the retaining wall and the obelisk, but there is no way that a person standing at the end of the retaining wall, west of the obelisk, could block the view of the doorway. Therefore, it is impossible to correlate the Croft and Altgens photos. 

But, let's look closer at Altgens:

It's always bothered me that the obelisk in Altgens is leaning a little bit. To me, it seems to be leaning a little back and to the left. Compare it to mine again.

So, there is a little pitch there. The Croft people have been called the Croft ladies, but it includes a man. Let's compare him in Croft and Altgens.

Is that the same man? To me, the man on the right looks older. His shirt is a different color. And the man on the left seems to be wearing white pants. 

I have said for a long time that the Altgens photo was taken high on the hill, right after the back shot, and long before the throat shot. Yet, the imagery within the limo shows a crude rendering of JFK reacting to the throat shot. I maintain that it is fake, and that they did things to make it seem like the limo was lower on the hill than it was. 

Now, I want you to compare sizes on the right side of the photo to the left. In particular, look at the size of Hargis and Martin on their motorcycles on the right and compare them to the Croft folks on the left. Size is determined by distance from the camera. Was the distance to Altgens that much greater to the Croft folks than it was to Hargis and Martin? Below is a photo taken from a similar perspective.

Notice that there is little difference in size between the motorcycle cop on the right and the people on the other side of the street on the left. Compare to Altgens:

Do you see how that right/left size disparity is a bit too extreme? 

So, could they have had another image, perhaps one that we don't even know about, in which they harvested the imagery that we see on the left, left of the vehicles, and replaced whatever was there with it? And it would have been done to create the optical illusion that the limo was farther down the hill than it was- far enough down for JFK to have been shot in the throat already- which he wasn't when the Altgens photo was taken.   

I admit that this is just a hypothesis at this point, a mere speculation. And if you want to call it a wild speculation, so be it. But, I think it's fair to assume that Dino had the most crack team of photo-alterers in the world. They were photographic surgeons, and I don't put anything past them. 

 This image shows how high the Triple Underpass was, such that a bullet striking low on the windshield could never reach JFK"s throat in the back seat. The alleged bullet hole was only 2 inches above the hood. Bullets are not like heat-seeking missiles that can change direction. And, this image shows how unobtrusive the Stemmons freeway sign was to Zapruder. I am baffled that researchers didn't scream bloody murder as soon as they saw the location of the sign in the Zapruder film. 

 I did not colorize this, but I think it's colorized correctly. It shows how ridiculous JFK's forearm is in the Altgens photo. It isn't connected to him. It goes on forever. It looks like a vacuum wand. If his elbows were bent to bring his hands up, how could his arm go out like that? It couldn't. The imagery is fake. It's art that was very misconceived. 

And while you are looking at it, observe the boy in the wool cap. It's bad enough he is wearing a wool cap on a sunny, 71 degree day, in which Jackie complained about the heat, but, he has it pulled down over his ears. The purpose of putting him in the photo was to obscure the man behind him in the Fedora hat, who may have been FBI Agent James Bookhout. I am quite sure the man's back was to the motorcade, and he was facing Oswald in the doorway. Bookhout testified that he was at the Mercantile Bank on Main Street and hung around to see the motorcade. But, he never got to see the President because there were people in front of him. I strongly suspect that tale was a lie. 

Mr. Stern. Were you working on November 22? 

Mr. BOOKHOUT. Actually, I was on leave on that particular date. However, I had been requested to come to the office to handle some expedited dictation in a particular case. Having completed that, I left the office and proceeded to the Mercantile National Bank, where I transacted some personal business. Upon leaving the bank, it was momentarily expected that the President’s motorcade would pass that area. I stood there for a few minutes, and as the motorcade passed I was actually unable to personally observe the President, due to the crowd on the sidewalk.

The imagery of JFK and Jackie in the Altgens photo is fake, and I can prove it. 

JFK has his left fist raised, but it's hard to make out his right fist. Jackie is holding his forearm with her left hand, several inches back from the wrist. Her right hand seems to be behind his forearm. We don't see her thumb. But, could his upper arm be way out there? We can see the round of his shoulder left of that. So, how could his upper arm be as far out as her right hand? And notice that JFK is not rotating his head. His head seems to be centered and neutral. So, we need to find a Zapruder frame that matches that. Here is 253.

Jackie has placed her right hand on his upper arm; so, above his elbow, which is very flexed. Her left hand has not yet reached his forearm, but it's heading there. 

In 254, Kennedy is still turned left. Jackie's left hand has been placed on his forearm. And it looks like, instead of a fist, JFK has his hand jack-knifed. Notice how straight his index finger is. We'll be seeing more of that.

In 255, JFK's head is still rotated left. Here is the comparison.

Here is another version using the frame from "Image of an Assassination."

255 is blurry compared to 254, and it's hard to tell what JFK is doing with his left hand. But, he is definitely turned towards Jackie, while in Altgens, he is dead center neutral and not turned at all. On the left, notice how close her hand is to his wrist. There is very little space between his hand and hers. She is farther away in Altgens. Below, in 256, we're back to seeing the jackknife again. You can see plainly that his index finger is extended and not curled up into a fist. Now look at 256.

In 256, he is still turned towards her, so it doesn't match either. Realize that JFK was practically gone mentally, but surely, he was still being affected by her. She was inputting his nervous system. So, it was natural and spontaneous for him to be turned towards her, even in his drug-affected inebriated state.  

Notice that you can see his extended index finger again. So, it was extended in 254 and extended in 256. Therefore, don't you think it was also extended in 255, even though we can't see it clearly?

So: extended, blurred, extended. From that we can conclude that his index finger was extended in 255 too, which means that it's no match to Altgens. 

In 258, it's clear that there is no fist, that his hand is flexed at the metacarpo-phalanygeal joints, but his fingers are straight. 

In 260, it's clear that his other fingers are flexed more than the index finger, which is apart from the rest. 

In 262, Kennedy has lowered his head some. 

The reason Jackie is grasping his arms is because she is discomforted by what he is doing, and she is trying to get him to relax; to put his arms down. And she is pressing down on them. She has no success getting him to relax, but she does tip him a little bit. She does get his elbow to come down some, as you can see in 268.

Compare 258 to 268

So, she has gotten his elbow down a bit just by pressing down on his arms. But, he is no less tense. It's just the opposite: he is more tense. He is hunching his shoulders more and tightening his posterior cervical muscles more. He really is a mess. This reminds me of my dog when he had a grand mal seizure.  I rushed him to the vet, and she immediately said, "he needs to be put down." 

It just gets worse and worse for him. Look how she towers over him as he hunches and contracts more. 

We'll jump to 300, which is the frame they say corresponds to the Moorman photo. Obviously, it doesn't. If Mary had taken the Moorman photo then, the Kennedys would be centered, and the back of Jackie would be all we see. Jackie is blocking Mary's view of JFK.

Here, he is totally internalized. All he is experiencing are the painful contractions that are racking his body. When Jane Stanford was dying of strychnine poisoning, she said it had to be the worst way to die. I don't know if this was strychnine or another nerve agent, but it was one of them. 

By 310, she is really leaning in on him.

Look at the extent to which the flexion of his right forearm has progressed. His hand is all the way up by his ear. 

Do you understand now that this was a progressive, global, tetanic spasm? It really was like a seizure. And there is absolutely no chance that the trauma he received to this point could have caused it. It was the effect of a nerve agent. 

Then, a few frames later, he was hit with the fatal head shot, and his suffering was over. 

But now, we know beyond a shadow of a doubt, that this imagery inside the limo from the Altgens photo is fake. It does not correspond to frame 255 or any other Zapruder frame. It is a crude fakery.  

Not just the imagery of JFK and Jackie, the imagery of Connally is fake too. 

The hair at his sideburn is too long; it sweeps back too far; it's too dark. And they went easy on themselves by not trying to draw an eye.  They didn't expect anyone to look closely at it. And in 1963, it would have been very difficult. There were no home computers. Technology has been the death knell of JFK's killers.  

The reason they created this phony imagery is because what the Altgens photo showed was very different. It showed JFK right after he was shot in the back high on the hill. So, they had to change that imagery and relocate the limo down the hill.  

Someone made this collage to show where the limo was, but obviously, it's not where it was when Altgens took his picture. And for some reason, they left out Hargis and Martin, the motorcycle cops. But, if they were there, would there have been any room for Altgens in the street? He took his picture from the street. So obviously, the limo had to be high on the hill at the time, long before JFK was shot in the throat.