We can see in the Zapruder film when Kennedy got hit in the back. Here he is in frame 188, and he's fine. He's looking at the spectators and waving. Note how sharp the image is. And it's really not all that sharp, but compared to the ones that follow, it is. 

What's phony about this frame is the sign, which is completely bogus. And anyone who hasn't seen the video of my experiment in Dealey Plaza proving that the sign is fake, really should:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiJMrM_QKyc&t=1s

But, notice how high he is on the hill. That's the corner right behind him. It starts blurring up right after this. Let's jump to frame 196, which is less than half a second later. 

Now, it's blurry and distorted, and his hand seems to be over his face. I'm sure that was done by the alterers. Kennedy was shot between those two frames, and he reacted to it. 

Now, if you just compare the two frames, you know that that much forward progress could not have been made in half a second. They removed frames- a lot of them- but, they tried to keep the jumps small, whatever they could get away with. But, the goal was to get him to that sign fast to obscure the fact that he rode down the hill having been shot only in the back. And I don't believe he put his hand over his face. That's something they did to cover up what was surely a distressed look on his face. 

And it continues with his hand covering his face until he disappears behind the sign. Here he is in 206

This is another half-second later, and obviously, that much change could not have occurred in a half-second either.  Notice that Jackie is turned and looking at him. Why isn't she working her side of the street like a good political wife? It's because she knows that something is wrong with him. She said he had a "quizzical look." She did not say that he put his hand over his face.

So, the Zapruder film tells us when JFK was shot in the back and his location when he was shot in the back. 

Here is Zapruder 230:

So, this is post-sign, and JFK is reacting to having been shot in the throat. And at the center-bottom of the frame, we see Umbrella Man's friend. That throat shot was such a tiny target, requiring perfect accuracy, it had to have been taken up close. There is no way it was taken from hundreds of feet away. I agree with Dr. Alen Salerien and researcher Karen Clift that the most likely person who took that shot was Umbrella Man using his weaponized umbrella, which we know existed.  

 The Betzner and Willis photos are practically identical, which gives us the opportunity to do something: compare the spectators on north side of Elm and make sure they are the same.

First, note that the humongous figure in Betzner is probably bogus. Remember that people look through viewfinders before they snap the shudder. And if that's what Betzner saw, he would have stepped a little to his right. Wouldn't you? So apparently, there was something they didn't want us to see. But now, let's compare the spectators. 

Let's start with Betzner, which is the lower one. Right at the point of Godzilla's shoulder, you see the umbrella of Umbrella Man peaking out. Now, isn't that convenient? That umbrella establishes that he was there, but look how easy it would have been to paint that in. And I'm not disputing that he was there. What I'm starting to think is that the reason they needed Godzilla there was to cover up what Umbrella Man was doing. 

Note that the detail of the spectators is completely lacking, with no facial details at all. Why would a camera do that? But, if they took to painting, which is how they photoshopped in those days, it's pretty hard to draw details of a face at that distance. It was better to go with nothing. 

So, in Willis, you see Umbrella Man, and he's just standing under his umbrella, as if it were raining. When Louis Steven Witt testified to the HSCA that he was the Umbrella Man, he said he was making like Neville Chamberlain to debase Joseph Kennedy Sr. for being a Nazi sympathizer. And to this day, Joseph Kennedy Sr. is debased for that reason. But, Neville Chamberlain was famous for standing or walking with his umbrella, not actually standing under it. 

I say Louis Steven Witt was a phony, an impostor. I don't believe he was the Umbrella Man, and I don't believe the real Umbrella Man was there to make a statement about World War 2. I'll add that every single person who has tried to insert himself or herself into the JFK assassination years later is a fake and phony. That includes Judyth Baker, Beverly Oliver, Louis Steven Witt, and you name it. 

But, getting back to Willis and Betzner:

So, in Willia, we have the dubious Umbrella Man standing under his umbrella. Let's compare the people under the sign in the two photos. In Willis, we see several people who look young. The young man who stands out the most in Willis- is he wearing a tuxedo? Is there a boutennier pinned to it? That's what it looks like to me. Next to him is a space before it gets to a lady in a hat. But, in Betzner, there is no space. The space is filled with a short person. Glance at both and see for yourself. Next, we have to look to the right of the SS men. In Willis, there is a lady in a hood or a hat next to a man in a fedora hat. In Betzner, the hood or the hat is more prominent, and there is another person to her right. We can't discern the man in the fedora hat at all. And then past the next group of SS men, there is complete divergence. They seem to be different people. A big difference is that in Betzner, there are a lot of arms waving, but not in Willis. Also, in Willis, there is a man in a hard hat. But again, the biggest difference is that in Betzner, the group looks very enthusiastic and rambunctious, while in Willis, they look staid and reserved.

That's enough to establish that there is no accord between the spectators in Betzner and the ones in Willis, and that makes both images very suspect. It's very possible that some of those spectators are fake. We know that was the Kill Zone, and we know that they actively sought to keep people out of it. And I can understand why the abrupt change in population density is something they would want to hide. 

But regardless, it is very compelling to conclude that all the spectator images are suspicious and untrustworthy. 

And let's review what we have of Umbrella Man. In Betzner, it's just an umbrella peaking out above Godzilla's shoulder, for the sake of the roll call. And in Willis, he's standing there like it was really raining, but the image is so crude, so lacking in detail, that it could easily have been accomplished with paint. 

So, what if Umbrella Man was pointing his umbrella at Kennedy and delivering the throat shot? There really was a functioning umbrella gun. The CIA contracted with a man to create it, although I forget his name. Some have speculated that the throat shot was taken either from the TU bridge or from way over by Main/Commerce, but that is ridiculous. NOBODY could have accomplished that shot from that distance.  There is this thing that happens in marksmanship that people forget when they analyze this stuff: people miss! And then, these boneheads want to claim that from hundreds of feet away and shooting through the glass of the windshield, someone placed a bullet at the bottom of JFK's throat, right above his suprasternal notch- as if anyone could do that. Huh. Not even Annie Oakley could have done it.  

The throat shot had to be taken from a lot closer than that. So, maybe Dr. Alen Salerian is right that it was Umbrella Man who took the throat shot- from a very close, manageable distance.  And if so, maybe that's why Godzilla got put into the Betzner photo, and the convenient umbrella peaking out is just a decoy. 

 

From when it was first shown to the public in 1975, people should have realized that the sign was fake. Just from driving all their adult lives, they should have realized that it couldn't be a real road sign. 

And in this case, not only is the angle of the sign wrong (it should be 90 degrees to the road) but the size of it is wrong (it is way too large) and the location of it is wrong (it was lower on the hill). So, why didn't people scream bloody murder the first time they saw this?

I mentioned in my first report that the sign became a curtain, like a magician's curtain, blocking the view and fostering the desired illusion. You've heard of the Magic Bullet? Well, like at a magic show, the magic had to happen behind something. The magician at least has to turn around to get the magic done. And in this case, the magic was that a single bullet traversed the bodies of two men, causing 7 wounds between them. 

But, it wasn't just that. The other purpose of the phony side was to hide the fact that Kennedy was wounded long before he reached the sign, that he rode down the hill having been shot in the back, long before he was shot in the throat. It meant that they had to cut out a large swath of the film, which undoubtedly showed Kennedy in an altered state-in which he was not smiling, not waving, and obviously in distress. That's the reason he had to get to the sign right away. They couldn't show how he really looked as he approached it. 

The fact  is that the Stemmons freeway sign in the Zapruder film is the centerpiece of the whole film. It is like the bull in the proverbial china shop. 

It is also clear and unmistakable evidence of a crime: tampering with evidence and obstruction of justice. The Zapruder film is evidence of the murder of President Kennedy, and it is also evidence of the cover-up of his murder. So, who committed that crime? Essentially, it was the same people who committed the first crime; the people who killed him. The film was in the possession of TIME/LIFE, but just think CIA. Henry Luce was another ultra-right-wing magnate, like David Harold Byrd, the Hunt Brothers, Clint Murchison Sr., Prescott Bush, etc. Luce did not make the decisions about what would be done to the Zapruder film. He wasn't going to take that responsibility. So, who did? I suspect it was Dino Brugioni, the head of the CIA's "National Photographic Interpretation Center" (a euphemism if there ever was one). It comes down to the undeniable fact that if Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill Kennedy (and he didn't) then the U.S. government did. And I don't mean "rogue elements" of the U.S. government. I mean the very institutions of the U.S. government, including top officials within Kennedy's own National Security Council. As Vincent Salandria told us, it was the National Security State that killed Kennedy; not Oswald, not the Mafia, and not just a few rogue elements within the CIA. It was a coup d'etat. 

I don't say that everyone high in government knew. But, those that didn't quickly figured out that they needed to go along with the official story in order to survive. And when I say survive, I mean survive in government and survive in life, because, as you know, accidents happen. 

We are in the year of the 60th anniversary, so what should happen this November? I think there should be a march on Washington, and I can think of two shouts for the maching activists. One is: "Stop the Lies! Oswald outside!" The second is: "The sign's a phony! Blame Brugioni!" 

 

 I get it that when people hear that JFK was shot in the back with a nerve agent, it triggers their most critical reaction, as if it is as harebrained as the Flat Earth Society. And often, they will shut their minds completely and refuse to give it further thought. 

But, do they not realize how totally deranged Kennedy is in the Zapruder film? He completely lost his ability to speak and to communicate in any way. He can't express himself with words, nor with a look, nor with his hands, nor with a head gesture. He is completely devoid of the cognitive ability to do it. Remember that in order to communicate, you need to have something to communicate. You need to be conscious; you need to be aware; you need to be able to understand the situation you're in; and you need to be able to form cogent thoughts and express them. Kennedy couldn't do any of that. So, what happened to completely devastate his mind? 

It's not just that he couldn't speak because of his throat wound, because if that were the case, he would have communicated with his hands and by pointing and gesturing with his head. He would have tried to do something. It wasn't just that his voice was gone; rather, his mind was gone. 

And then, there was the extreme muscular dyskinesia, in which his muscles seized up and solidified him. He became like a statue. So, what caused that? He had suffered no damage to his brain or spinal cord, so what caused such extreme cerebral and neuological manifestations to take place?

The JFK assassination was a once in a lifetime event. It was a once in a century event. There were other assassinations in the 20th century, including other political assassinations, including another Presidential assassination: William McKinley. But, nothing compares to JFK's assassination in the way it registers on us. We've become accostumed to looking at the Zapruder film with a JFK mindset- which is a mental realm in which the story of the Zapruder film- that JFK rode down the hill smiling and waving, and then disappeared behind the sign, and then re-emerged from behind it a different man- not just in the fact that he was wounded, but a different person- different as day and night. We accept his weird muscle contractions and his vacant mental state as normal for the JFK assassination, even though there is no way that his physical trauma could have caused it.

It is a clinical presentation crying for a diagnosis. Dr. John Lattimer tried slapping the term "Thorburn position" on it, but either Lattimer was a very stupid man or he was evil. I read Thorburn's paper about his patient who whose spinal cord was crushed, and I mean flattened, at the level of C5. What does that have to do with Kennedy? Nothing. Kennedy suffered no spinal cord damage. There are no parallels whatsoever between Kennedy and Thorburn's patient. 

I can very easily explain to you what happened to Thorburn's patient. He was paralyzed from C5 down. Most of his muscles were completely paralyzed, as in denervated. Now, you understand that there is such a thing as "muscle tone," right? And you understand that there are opposing muscles, such as the biceps and the triceps, which oppose each other. So, what do you think happens when your triceps are paralyzed and your biceps aren't? What happens is that the tone in your biceps is eventually going to contract it all the way to closure. Every time you twitch, it closes a little more, until it closes all the way, and there's no reversing it. 

So, the position of the arms of Thorburn's recumbent, unconscious patient was the result of muscle tone working unopposed. That is the most succinct way to put it. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Kennedy.

So, we have a man, JFK, who has experienced a complete mental collapse, where he is incapable of comprehending his reality, and incapable of communicating from lacking the ability to form coherent thoughts, and at the same time, he is experiencing tetanic spasms throughout his muscles in a spreading fashion. 

That is a hell of a lot of pathology to occur instantly, so what could have caused it? Let's review his injuries. He had a shallow puncture wound in his upper back on the right side at the level of T3. Only the skin, fascia and muscle were affected. It had no clinical importance or significance. He also had a wound in his throat from a small missile that damaged his lower trachea on the left side. Dr. Perry also saw a slight contusion over the right lung, and because there was free blood there, he requested and got a suction tube for it. 

Now, that's it. That is the totality of the physical trauma that Kennedy had to that point. How could that have caused the clinical situation that Kennedy is in, where his mind is completely gone, and his muscles are completely out of control? It couldn't.   

Something happened to Kennedy that caused that bizarre clinical picture, and we are obliged to find out what it was. The idea that it was a poison-laced ice bullet is very reasonable because:

1) only an ice bullet could have gone from flight velocity to zero velocity in a distance of one inch. A metal bullet couldn't do it. It might stop within a person's body but not in an inch. It takes more tissue resistance than that to stop a metal bullet. 

2) we know that the ice gun which could deliver a nerve agent did exist in 1963. CIA Director William Colby told us so in 1975 with the gun on display.  

3) no bullet was found in Kennedy's back, and the claim that it fell out or was dug out is entirely speculative and unbankable. 

This comes down to what is called in Medicine "differential diagnosis." And there is no doubt that Kennedy's pathophysiology can be explained by the introduction of toxins into his sytem, and nothing else comes close to explaining it in a credible, plausible, and rational way. 

The toxin-lain ice bullet isn't the harebrained theory; it is the alternatives to it that are. And the truth is that there are no alternatives to it that are even remotely plausible. It stands alone as the only cogent deduction that you can make. 

So, the automatic rejection of people when they first hear this is a misfiring. It is much more emotional than it is cognitive. And they don't think about the fact that what they have instead is absolutely nothing. All they have is JFK going berserk and losing his mind for no reason at all. It just happened because it happened in JFK-land where such things happened. That is the best way I can articulate their sub-conscious thought process, and it is pitiful. 

 

 

 

• Paul Stevens

  Ralph Cinque So, there is no way looking at the Ariel image that the Stemmons sign can appear face-on to where Zapruder was standing?

  • Like
  • Reply
  • Share
  • 23m
• Active

  Ralph Cinque

  Author

  Admin

  Paul Stevens Well, it's obvious from the aerial photo that if Zapruder pointed his camera at the top of the intersection, he was not going to capture that sign at all. Eventually, he would capture it, just as I did. Now, the amazing thing is that Zapruder watched his film along with the SS agents, and then he watched it again with the people from LIFE..So, when they published the November 29 edition with frames from the Zapruder film, including that humongous and obstructive sign, he had to know that they did that, unless he was an extremely stupid person. That sign is like the bull in the china shop. What's it doing there?

Road signs are placed 90 degrees to the road, so that they are most readable to motorists. We positioned our sign at 90 degrees to Elm Street, but in the Zapruder film, the phony sign they installed is much less than 90 degrees to the road, as you can see here:

 

I did it. I went to Dealey Plaza with a surrogate freeway sign, and I placed it where it was at the angle that it was, and then I reshot the Zapruder film. And guess what? The freeway sign in the Zapruder film is completely, totally fake. They tampered with evidence. They obstructed justice. And no one can ever again doubt that they altered and falsified that film. Watch it on youtube, and please share it.

The bottom image in this collage had the freeway sign in its proper place, at its proper angle, and it did not register at all at the top of the hill, as we see in the Zapruder film.

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

This was tampering with evidence and obstruction of justice. I have sent it to the Attorney General of the United States. 

This collage includes new images of Jack Ruby from the Sixth Floor Museum collection. At least, they're new to me. 

On the left side, his hair was painted in quite fully. However, bottom center, his hair is divided like the Red Sea, with bald scalp separating the two swaths of hair. Then on the right, there are two captures from 11/24, however they look nothing alike. Lower right is another sparse showing, but it was enhanced too. The reality was that he had very little hair on top. 

So, why did they always get their artists to enhance Jack Ruby's hair? It's because James Bookhout wore a thick, rug-like toupee at the Garage Spectacle.

Now, that is obviously not Jack Ruby's hair. He never had hair like that. And remember, this was 1963, which was pre-Beatles. Not the young guys, and certainly not the middle-aged men wore their hair that long. Notice that you see no hair growing out of his scalp. That's because it was a wig. 

Here's the closest image we have to Ruby's real hair.

Even this one was enhanced some. He did not have that much hair in front or strands that long. Look how low his rim is, which is the hair that remains even on a bald man. That's the permanent hair. On the vast majority of men, that's the hair that stays put until you die. It is genetically programmed not to fall out. But, his rim is actually very low, even for a bald man.  And any man with a rim that low, is not going to have that much hair in front. What you're seeing there is something that you might see today in a man who has had some hair transplanting done. But, hair transplants did not exist in 1964, which is when that was taken at Jack Ruby's trial. But, that image fell through the cracks. They usually imparted much more hair to Ruby than that, and again, it was all because of Bookhout's wig.  

Do you think this is a real photo from the weekend of the assassination? It's supposed to be. It's from the Dallas Times Herald Collection at the Sixth Floor Museum. 

 How could it be? Who would ride in a moving convertible like the guy in the back seat? How dangerous would that be? How could that car be moving, and yet, why is it stopped?  It obviously isn't moving because notice that there isn't the slightest bit of motion blur. And look at Zapruder up on his pedestal. What's he doing there? He never returned there to retake his throne. And look at the freeway sign at the far right of the picture, which is much farther east than it actually was. And where is the light pole? There is no way it would not be visible in this picture. 

Between 1964 and 1967, they took it down and replaced it, so the image in question must have been take between those dates when no light pole was there. 

We are never going to uncover all the photographic fraud in the JFK assassination. I have resigned myself to that.  

  

I agree with you, Dr. Todd Grande, that the Chappaquiddick Island tragedy was an accident due to drunkenness. But, Ted Kennedy could not have been staggering drunk because he had the wherewithal to plot his own self-interest. An ordinary man who did what he did would surely have been prosecuted, convicted, and sent to prison- at least for a short while. It is an outrage that he was let off by the courts and that Massachusetts voters kept re-electing him. It is also an outrage that the Kopeches didn't lambast him at the time. 20 years later, they expressed their bitterness and rancor towards him, but their love for their daughter should have caused them to do it at the time. Certainly in a life or death situation, one has the moral and legal obligation to do everything in the interest of the stricken person, but he thought only of himself. And granted, even if he had gone to the closest neighbor to get help and to call the police, it's very unlikely that Mary Jo could have been saved. Still, he had the moral obligation to try, no matter how slim the odds were. In an emergency, you go all-out to try to save the sticken person, period.

But now, Dr. Grande, after doing that excellent analysis, there's another case I'd like you to tackle, and that is: why didn't Robert Kennedy stand up to the men who killed his brother John? Robert Kennedy was good friends with Attorney Mark Lane, and no doubt, Lane was sharing with him all the reasons to doubt the official story. And let me point out to you and your readers that the way the JFK assassination is postured today is that either Lee Harvey Oswald did it as a lone gunman or he did it within a conspiracy. The idea that he didn't do it at all (which is the truth) is never recognized as a possibility within media circles. It's a forbidden thought. But, Oswald's innocence was Mark Lane's position which he laid out in writing on December 7, 1963 in "A Lawyer's Brief." So, why did Robert Kennedy choose to capitulate to the men who murdered his brother? Thank you.

  I am satisfied that this really is James Altgens in this photo.

So now, let's look at the whole picture. 

So, the sign isn't visible. We can barely see the lightpost on the far right, and the freeway sign was to the right of that. So, is it just out of view?

So, you see the sign, and you see the space that's west of the sign. So, if that other image is real, it means that all of it had to fit in west of that sign. 

Wait, that's impossible. It doesn't work at all because the lightpost is on the left, and everything in the image with Altgens is east of the lightpost. So, I'd have to move it there, to the left of the lightpost, and yet, it would take the whole pergola with it. So, it means that this image below is just plain bogus. 

The implication is that it's parallax that is keeping the sign out of view, but the parallax could not alter the visibility as much as this. It couldn't bend the image that much. It's just a bogus image. 

And by the way, Altgens said he left for the Dallas Morning News Building on foot right away, and you can see from his rotund shape, that sprinting wasn't a possibility. So, if he was milling around Elm Street at this late time, how could the Altgens photo in his camera have been wired out to the world at 1:03, as the story goes?