To hide the back shot, which was the first shot and occurred very early, I'm sure they removed the exact frame or frames of it. Here he is in 180, and clearly he wasn't hit yet, and the image is relatively sharp, It isn't great, but you can see how much better it is than 194 which is very blurry. And it stays blurry until he disappears behind the scene. They also put his hand over his face to cover up his distraught look from being shot, as you can see in 206. Those are the main things they did to hide the fact that JFK was shot in the back high on the hill.

 Do you realize that every single photo and film taken in Dealey Plaza was confiscated by the authorities? We don't know of a single one that wasn't. Think about what that means. It means that they had an army of agents there who monitored everyone with an imaging device and then went up to them afterwards; said they were with the law; and took possession of their camera. And they could not have been men in uniform because if that were true, then the street crowds would show it. They must have been in street clothes, or at least most of them. They really must have been diligent because not one person went home with their pictures.

And what they told them was that the FBI would develop the film and study the images, for national security purposes, and then return them. Names and addresses were taken. You've heard ot Bob Croft, the guy who took this photo? He was from Wyoming, and he said that he didn't get his photo returned until the end of January.

That is over 2 months. Why on Earth would they have to retain it that long? Well, I can answer that quesition. It's because they had a lot of work to do on it. You see, the Croft photo was taken very soon after JFK was hit in the back, and they had to cover that up. JFK is not waving, and he's not smiling. They had to expand Jackie's hair to make it partially cover his face. And you notice that his eyes are closed. I'm sure they weren't closed, but they closed them because I'm sure he had a distraught look on his face.

And Jackie is a joke. That face was not hers on that day. It's a pasted in face, and I know where they got it from. She went on television on January 14, with Bobby and Teddy, to thank the American people for their cards and letters. That is how her face looked, and how her hair looked, all plastered down in front. It wasn't like that on November 22. It wasn't anything like it. The reason they did that is because she was already concerned and looking at her husband, and they didn't want that.

Note that they horizontally flipped her somber face from the tv program. Her hair was going the other way. You can see how morose she is, and you understand why. But, why would she be morose in the Croft photo? Supposedly, he hasn't been shot yet. Supposedly, all was well. And on the right, you can see how her hair was that day, not plastered down at all. It was blow-dried and wind-swept.

So, that tells you why Croft didn't get his photo back until the end of January. They didn't even figure out how to fix it until the middle of January.

I tell you, the evil that was wrapped up in all this is staggering. They were monsters afoot.

On the left, using Google Earth, I obtained this image of the Dal-Tex building, taken from the west side of Houston Street, which is where James Altgens took his picture from. And on the right is the Altgens2 photo.

So, there were 3 columns of double windows. In Altgens2, there was a young black boy sitting alone on the fire escape. He had to be a boy because he is much smaller than the adults on the ground. Plus, he is wearing shorts. You can see his bare legs. Could it be a girl in a skirt instead? I suppose. But, what is a child doing alone on the dangerous fire escape? And this was an office building and warehouse. Why would there be a child there at all?

And it is the exact same spot that we see an adult on the fire escape in Altgens6. So, what is the explanation for that? It was middle set of double windows, and in front of him, to our right as we look at the picture, should be the window with the three girls in Altgens6. But, not only are the girls not there: neither is the window. That isn't legit, but neither is the boy. It just isn't plausible that a young boy would be sitting alone on that fire escape.

So, you can't defend the building; you can't defend the boy, and you can't defend the fire escape either because it is just too freaky.

JFK was shot in the back from the missing window, which is why they took it out. It was the first shot; and it hit him in the back. tt was not a bullet, and it did not penetrate deeply within his body. It caused no serious physical harm. But, what it did was deliver a nerve agent, the effects of which we can see, conspicuously, in the Zapruder film. I am referring to his severe muscle spasms and his complete cognitive collapse, both of which are readily seen in the Zapruder film.

And once you realize that the Single Bullet Theory is a lie, you have to go to this because a metal bullet could never have stopped this short in his back. And if it could have, it would have been there. They would have found it in his body. But, there was no bullet in his body. And no, it didn't fall out, and it wasn't dug out. It burst on contact, and it was gone. Just a little moisture was all that was left.

The Altgens2 photo with the missing window is a smoking gun.

 I have assembled images here of the Dal-Tex building to get a clear idea of its form. On the left is a later image after the fire escape was removed, and you can see that it consists of 3 sets of double windows, with rectangular vertical columns in-between.

Next is the Phil Willis slide, and you see the 3 sets of windows, but the doubling of the windows doesn't stand out because of the angle that it is. But notice that there is a vertical rain gutter on both sides of the 3 sets of windows. And they are rather far apart, which makes sense because how many rain gutters do you need?

Next is a photograph from 1963, so with the fire escape, and you see the 3 sets of windows. You only see the one rain gutter, on the south side, because the other one was cut off.

And finally, there is the Altgens2 photo, with the black boy on the fire escape. In it, you don't see any windows at all. You presume there is one deep to the boy, but I don't know that you can claim that it is visually displayed. If it is, it is barely so. But, you definitely do not see the sets of windows south of him, including the one with the girls in the window of Altgens6. And you don't see the windows behind him either. In fact, what you see behind him is the other drainage gutter, which was much farther down in the Phil Willis slide.

So, look at everything in-between the drainage gutters in Phil Willis, and then go to Altrgens2 on the right and look at what it has between its drainage gutters. Are you going to tell me that there are 3 sets of double windows there?

And what do you think would happen if you went there today and re-shot it from Houston Street? You know it's not going to look like Altgens2. And I may just go there myself and do it.

 We should look at the child on the fire escape in Altgens4, who is top center in the middle photo. I say "child" because I don't know if it's a boy or a girl. Is it a boy in shorts or a girl in a skirt? It definitely is a child and not an adult because you can see the adults on the sidewalk below who are so much larger.

But, what is he or she doing there? The Dal-Tex building was an office building not a residential apartment house. And where were the kid's parents? Why is there a child alone on a dangerous fire escape?

I put the other fire escape next to it to demonstrate how wacky the fire escapes are in Altgens4 and Altgens6. Notice on the left that the fire escape only went to the 2nd floor. Below that, there was a drop-down ladder that had to be released. The idea was to avoid having an obstruction on the sidewalk and to avoid providing access to the building from the sidewalk. Fire escapes were for going down, not for going up. If criminals could access a building from a fire escape, that could mean peril.

But, don't ask me to explain the weird contraptions that we see in Altgens4 and Altgens6. They are just more weird JFK assassination photographic shit.

You see the drainage gutter on the right side of Altgens4. It's in Altgens6 too, but on the other side of the window with the girls, which is completely missing from Altgens4.

As you reflect on why a young black chlid would be perched alone on the fire escape of the Dal-Tex building, read this overview of the building in 1963. I don't know how strictly accurate it is, but you'll get the idea that it was no place for kids, let alone a lone kid on a fire escape. "In 1963, the Dal-Tex Building in Dallas, Texas, housed various companies, most notably the Dallas Textile Company, hence its name. The building was also a center for the textile business in Dallas. Additionally, the KIngman Texas Implement Company used the building as a warehouse. Abraham Zapruder's Jennifer Junior clothing manufacturing company occupied the 4th and 5th floors."

 This is one of the biggest discoveries of my career. The Dal-Tex building in the Altgens4 photo is structurally different from the Dal-Tex building in the Altgens6 photo. Take a look:

So, on the left in Altgens6, there is the weird woman on the fire escape, then the long rectangular column, then the recessed window with the girls, and then there is wall, then the rain gutter, then more wall, and it never reaches the corner. But, in Altgens4, there is a young black boy sitting on the fire escape. Then there is the long column, but not showing as much depth. And then there is the rain gutter, and then it gets to the corner of the building. THE WINDOW WITH THE GIRLS IS MISSING!

And we don't see the other open window in Altgens4 either. If you look below and to the left of the woman in Altgens6, there is an open window with no one in it. So, we don't see that window in Altgens4 either. SO, THERE ARE NO OPEN WINDOWS IN ALTGENS4, BUT THERE ARE TWO OPEN WINDOWS IN ALTGENS6.  

They definitely removed those windows from Altgens4. They didn't remove them from Altgens6 because they couldn't. So, what is the significance of those windows? The significance is that JFK was shot in the back from one of those windows, and I am 99% sure it was the window with the girls because that would have been the straighter, less angled shot to JFK's back. The idea was to shoot him straight in the back with that ice dart, which happened as soon as the limo completed the turn from Houston to Elm. 

So, the girls in the window weren't real in Altgens6, and neither was the weird woman on the fire escape. Considering how much trouble the alterers went to, I have to wonder why they didn't just have their artists close the windows; paint them shut. It wouldn't have been any harder to do than what they did.  

 Two of the young gals are looking off in the wrong direction, and the Towner frame doesn't show them at all. The window looks empty, and it was just a few seconds before. So, doesn't that settle it that they are fake?

 All right, are you ready for the punchline? And the joke is not on me. Here are the two open windows in the Dal-Tex building in the Altgens photo. So tell me: why are they dark? Why wouldn't the lights be on inside? It's completely dark in the empty open window on the left, and even on the right, it is completely dark behind the three young gals. And I mean that it's jet black.

The 2nd floor of the Dal-Tex was occupied by Texas Instruments. So, wouldn't the lights be on? Why should it be dark? Isn't it much like Lovelady's blacked out face in the doorway, the guy visoring his eyes with his hands atop his head with no face?

 We can look at frames from the Zapruder film and get a very good idea of when JFK was first hit, and it was before he disappeared behind the sign.

These images are taken from the Images of an Assassination disc that I have, which I believe is the best rendering of the Zapruder film that there is. 

Let's start with frames in which he is clearly not shot. Here is 180.

So, he is smiling and waving, and there is no reason to think he has been shot yet. 

It is a little blurrier, but I am satisfied that all was well there, that he wasn't yet shot.

Next, let's look at 193, which is worse yet. Notice that JFK's arm looks less anatomical. It has a crudeness to it. And if you glance at all 3 images, you'll see that Jackie was turning to face him. 

So, 193 is suspicious, but 194 clinches it. Perhaps you already knew that there is great variation in the sharpness/blurriness of Zapruder frames. But, what excuse is there for it? None that I can think of. Now, we see the complete obscuring of JFK's face. 

And that complete obscuring of his face continues in every frame that follows until he disappears behind the sign. We NEVER see his face again until he emerges from behind the sign. 

I tell you that 193/194 marks when JFK was hit in the back. 

195 and 196 are bad, but let's jump to 197.

Oh My God, that is a mess. why is that such a blur? Give me the technical reason, not that I'll believe it. I realize that it doesn't look that bad when you watch the moving film, but that's because each frame is just 1/18 second. 

Frame 200 below is one of my favorites, showing JFK's hand over his face. You can see that it's a little less blurry.

In 202 below, notice that the little girl on the grass in the red shorts in the upper right corner looks a lot sharper. And if you want to blame it on the motion of the motorcade, just remember: it wasn't going that fast. 

It's the same story in 205, with the hand over his face. He had been shot in the back. Rapid changes were happening in his body, overwhelming him. He must have looked distraught. The adjective that Jackie used in her testimony was "quizzical." She didn't say he put his hand over his face. No one did. 

207 is very last one. It is the last time we see him until he reemerges.

208, 209, 210, and 211 can't be stopped on with my player. If I go to the next frame, it goes  to 212. And it's the same way on Youtube. So, they must have really shortened the time of the frames in-between.  

So, when was JFK shot in the back? I suggest at frames 193/194. That is my best estimate. And when was he shot in the throat? It was just a few frames before 225. I'll say 222, when he is completely out of view. But, don't think you can just subtract 193 from 222 because a great many frames were cut out. What was the time lapse between the back shot and the throat shot? I think it was as great as 10 seconds.  
 

The alteration team got the Altgens photo, and they saw that Oswald was in the doorway. They also saw the exposure of the two open windows in the Dal-Tex building, one of which may have contained a shooter. And they saw that JFK was reacting to having been shot in the back from that window. 

So, why didn't they just destroy it? It would have been so easy.  No one knew about it except Altgens, and he was a team player. If they told him that they had to destroy it for "national security reasons" he wouldn't have balked. It wasn't going to affect his pay-check. 

I think what tantalized them about the Altgens photo was the Secret Service agents peering at the TSBD. Of course, they weren't looking up at the 6th floor. They were looking down at the doorway, and the shots definitely didn't come from there. But, that didn't stop them from writing a caption that said that Secret Service agents were looking at the source of the shots. 

But then, they got the idea to change the story of the photo; to make it that it wasn't taken until after JFK was shot in the throat. It was close to 1 PM on Friday when they got the photo. JFK may not have taken his last breath yet. Nothing was issued yet about the shots. But, they knew that the first shot, which delivered the nerve agent, was never going to be part of the story. And they knew that the throat shot, which was frontal, was going to serve as the exit wound for the back shot that never exited. 

If you look closely at the Altgens photo, you can see that it was taken high on the hill and not far from the intersection. 

Let's consider the car lengths. The limo was 21 feet long, but JFK was sitting in the back of it. So, for his distance from the intersection, you would only count the length of the trunk, which was about 5 feet. The Secret Service car was approximately 18. Then there was a gap of an average car length of 16 feet. And then both LBJ's car and his SS car were smaller cars; probably about 16 feet each. His SS car was still in the intersection. 

So, that's 16 x 3 = 48 + 18 + 5 = 71 feet. But, there was also space between the cars that I haven't accounted for yet. So, let's bump it up to 90 feet. So, that means that JFK, himself, was about 30 yards from the intersection. 

In his description of the Zapruder film, Dan Rather said that it showed that the first shot hit JFK about 35 yards from the intersection, and caused him to lurch forward. We don't see that in the Zapruder film. It must have been cut out. And I know why it was cut out. It's because that was the back shot, which was never going to be allowed into the story. It was going to be claimed that the back shot and the throat shot were one, and the throat shot came later. 

Here is Dan Rather acting out the lurching forward that he saw JFK do. It must have been from the back shot. JFK's response to the throat shot was not to lurch forward, but rather, to panic and raise both his hands to his throat. This other had to be from the back shot, which came first.  

The artists went to work anc came up with this as a replacement. Doesn't JFK look like he could be lurching there? The long vacuum wand arm with Jackie's gloved hands on it is fake. 

 

 I have made a big find. It is that the females at the window in the Dal-Tex building in the Altgens photo are fake. On the left, you can see the photo, and I have added an enlargement of the them at the window. There is also a weird extension of the fire escape that angles up. It looks strange and is different from the rest of the fire escape.

In the center is the Hughes film. We don't see the window, and we don't see the extension of the fire escape either.

And on the right is the Towner film, in which we see the weird extension of the fire escape, but it is much shorter. And we see the window too, but the gals aren't in it.

Hughes and Towner were taken just a few seconds before the Altgens photo. In both of them, the limo was at the intersection, and the Altgens photo was taken just a few seconds later on Elm.

That window where the females are, is of course open, but I don't believe they were there. I think they were put there afterwards, either because the open window was empty, which looked bad, or because the Dal-Tex Shooter was in it. The Dal-Tex Shooter was the one who shot JFK in the back with the drug-laced ice bullet as soon as the limo finished the turn. Let's look closer at the window.

So, there are three gals there. The ones left and center are very slender. Their arms look like those of a child. The gal on the right has a thicker arm, but it is very short. How could her arm be that short? And her head is disassociated from her body. The white arrow is pointing to an extraneous hand and arm that must belong to a 4th person. But, it is ridiculous to have just a hand and arm. It reminds me of Thing from The Addams Family.

My impression is that the girls are black and young. The Dal-Tex building was an office building. It was not an apartment house. It wasn't one of the projects. It was a business facility. The full name of it was the Dallas Textile Building. Abraham Zapruder's company Jennifer Juniors occupied the 4th and 5th floors. There were a variety of different businesses there, including lawyers, insurance companies, and more. However, the second floor, where the girls are, was occupied by Texas Instruments. So, what are those girls doing there? Do you think they worked for Texas Instruments? I doubt it.

I strongly believe that JFK was shot in the back from that window. And since the Altgens photo was taken just a split-second after he was shot in the back, the Shooter was probably still there.

There is another open window that is left of the one with the gals. And it is empty. However, there is a man on the fire escape. We can't really tell it is a man. The image is undecipherable. But, we know it isn't an animal or an inanimate object, so we presume it is a man.

So, you see the gals. You see the werd extenson to the fire escape. And on the upper left is the weird man. Or is it a woman? Who knows. It is undecipherable. And below and to the left of him or her is the open window. So, there were two open windows right next to each other. The story of the one on the left is probably that the person on the fire escape came out that window to get there.

So, there are two open windows, and either one could have been the location of the Dal-tex shooter who fired the drug-laced bullet into Kennedy's back as soon as the limo completed the turn from Houston to Elm. The person who made the image below believes it was the empty window from which the shot was fired.

So, he has the red arrow pointing to the empty window on the left, and he may be right. However, if I were going to bet, I would put my money on the window with the girls because it is more directly behind JFK, and the idea was to shoot him straight in the back. It was a preparatory shot to make sure he would not take evasive action. And it worked.

So, take your pick. The shot could have come from either window.

 

 John Ziehm figured it out about Kellerman. It's not that he lied; he just remembered it wrong. What he heard was Connally saying "My God, they're going to kill us all." And Connally admitted saying that. It is in his testimony.

[https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/conn_j.htm](https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/conn_j.htm)

We can't assume that both JFK and Connally used an expression starting with "My God". That is extremely unlikely.

The reason why this is important is because JFK really was incapacitated. I don't know what they put into him that triggered such a complete mental collapse so quickly, but that is what we see in the Zapruder film, his complete mental collapse.

I know he was hit with a nerve agent because of his tonic spasms, and there are nerve agents that can cause mental collapse. For instance:

"Nerve agents, including sarin, soman, tabun, and VX, can cause mental collapse due to their rapid and widespread effects on the nervous system. These agents disrupt the normal function of nerve cells, leading to a variety of symptoms including agitation, confusion, seizures, and even coma."

JFK was fine that morning. He spoke in Ft. Worth at the breakfast where they gave him the cowboy hat- which he refused to put on. He also gave a short speech earlier that morning outside his hotel, in which he was funny. Then, they flew to Dallas where he engaged with the crowd at the airport, and he was fine, both physically and mentally. And if you watch the motorcade, for which there is a lot of footage, he was perfectly alert, focused, and engaged.

So, what can explain his complete mental collapse in the limo on Elm Street? The physical trauma can't explain it. All he suffered was a shallow wound in his back that was physically trivial. And in his throat, he suffered some damage to his trachea and had a mild contusion on his right lung. But, those injuries could not have affected his brain. He simply had to have been poisoned. And the source had to be the first shot that hit him in the back high on the hill, soon after they made the turn from Houston.

It is a deduction we have to make. There is no place else to go.

 It doesn't make sense, and it never made sense for us to believe Roy Kellerman that Kennedy yelled, "My God, I am hit!" That's because either one has the ability to speak, or one doesn't. And if Kennedy had the ability to say, "My God, I am hit" he would have said more than that. He would have kept speaking. But, from the Zapruder film, we know that he didn't speak or try to speak.  

And remember, that the official story is that Kennedy was hit with one shot in the back that went through his neck and exited his throat. And we know that the immediate effect of that shot, that is, the throat part of it, was to cut off his breathing. Of course, I don't believe it was one shot, and I don't think the two shots were close temporally. I think the back shot came first, high on the hill, and the throat shot much later. 

When we first see Kennedy, post-sign, he is in a panic, and it's from that shot or shots, depending on what you believe. Something is obstructing his airway. Was it the missile? it may have been just a bolus of blood. But, whatever it was, he did clear it by putting his right hand over his mouth and coughing. 

Then after that, his breathing was OK. It was the only thing that was OK, but that was fine. But, he didn't speak. We can see that with our own eyes. Nor did he try to speak. And he didn't have the look, the focus, and the countenance of someone who could speak. He seems detached and distant, like he's in his own world. 

And why didn't Jackie speak to him? Why didn't she say, "Jack, what happened? What's wrong? Are you hurt? Why are you so stiff? Why are you holding your arms like that?" But, in her testimony, she said that she didn't say anything until after the fatal head shot, when she said:

"Oh, no, no, no," I mean, "Oh, my God, they have shot my husband." And "I love you, Jack."

Her testimony is bizarre because she said she was turned to her left, working her side of the street, when she heard the "terrible noises." She said her husband didn't make a sound, so she turned to look at him, and he had a "quizzical" look on his face. But then, she spoke of seeing a piece of his skull. But wait: we have the Zapruder film which shows that she turned and looked at her husband early- before they disappeared behind the sign. Here is frame 206, in which you can see she's turned and looking at him already. 

His face is obscured by his hand, but I think that was done to it to hide his distraught look. But, how could she go from that to talking about the piece of skull when there was a lot in-between? 

So, I'm wondering if they excluded some of her statements. But regardless, she didn't speak to him until after the fatal head shot. And she made it clear that he never spoke. 

But, the point is that if he had the ability to speak, he wouldn't have said, "My God! I am hit!" and then shut up. He would have acted on his knowledge that he was hit, which would have included communicating with the others to get down and communicating with the driver to get going. 

But, it is obvious in the Zapruder film that he did not have the mental wherewithal to do any of that. The film shows us that he just sat there in a dazed and confused state. He definitely had a disorder of consciousness going on. His awareness of himself, his environment, and his situation was impaired. in fact, he seems totally vacant mentally. So, how could such a person speak? 

And when could he have spoken? We can see that he doesn't speak before disappearing behind the sign, nor after emerging from behind the sign. We can see JFK up to 209, and then we don't see him again until 225. That is 16 frames, which is less than the 18 frames to cover one second. Since it is the only time that JFK could possibly have spoken, could he have said "My God! I am hit!" in less than a second? But, speech doesn't occur in a vacuum. Since he isn't geared to speak before his disappearance or after it, you can't plop those words in his mouth, even if you think he could get them off. In other words, it would have to have continuity, and there is no continuity. 

I hope I've convinced you that there is zero chance that JFK said, "My God, I am hit!" because an intelligent analysis of everything we know and everything we can see in the Zapruder film tells us that he didn't say it, and he couldn't say it, that he didn't have the mental aptitude to say it. 

So, what I am saying is that the people who put stock in what Kellerman said were being very stupid and obtuse. And it's time for them to admit that it was very gullible of them to believe him. They were conned. It's time for everyone to admit that the last thing JFK said was in response to Nellie Connally about Texans turning out for him. JFK was mentally gone. He was out of it. And we can see it with our naked eyes in the Zapruder film. 

 

The decimation of the mind of John F. Kennedy

 

There is tremendous significance to JFK not speaking after he was shot. It’s widely accepted that the last words he spoke were in response to Nellie Connally, when she said to him, "You certainly can't say that the people of Dallas haven't given you a nice welcome.”  And he said: "No, you certainly can't.”  That is according to Jackie Kennedy.  She said that those were his last words. He never spoke again after that. He never spoke again after being shot. And none of the limo occupants said that he spoke after being shot, except for one outlier: Roy Kellerman. In his WC testimony, Kellerman claimed that JFK yelled out, “My God, I am hit!”  That is absurd. The idea that JFK would get so theatrical is ridiculous.  And how is it that no one else in the limo heard it? Jackie was sitting right next to him, and the Connallys were right in front of him. If Kellerman heard it, wouldn’t they have heard it? Jackie said that after being shot, “my husband did not make any sound.”  Does that not settle the matter?  

So, Kellerman lied, and he may have been put up to lying. I mentioned that Postal Inspector Harry Hines claimed that, at the final interrogation on Sunday morning, Oswald waxed on and on about his trip to Mexico City. No one else but Hines claimed that, and we know for sure that Oswald did not go to Mexico City. When asked, he said he didn’t. He said that once he went to Tijuana, but that was his only foray into Mexico. So, Hines lied, and maybe he was put up to lying, since Oswald was dead, and they wanted the trip to Mexico City to be part of the story, as it is to this day. So, Hines lied, and maybe Kellerman was put up to lying too.

So, why didn’t JFK speak after he was shot the first time? It was just a shallow wound in his back that damaged no vital tissue. And there is no doubt that the back shot was the first shot, not the throat shot. In the Z-225, we are seeing his instantaneous reaction to the throat shot. So, he had to be hit with it just a few frames before. And if that was the first shot, then we’d be seeing the back shot in the frames that followed. But, we don’t, and it’s because he was already shot in the back before he disappeared behind the phony freeway sign. I showed you how in the Z film they put his hand over his face to hide his distressed look. And he stopped waving before he reached the sign. Likewise, in Crofts, Betzner, and Willis, he isn’t waving. JFK stopped waving in all those images because he was shot.

So, the back shot was the first shot, which struck him high on the hill and caused no significant physical damage, and no brain damage at all. But, didn’t he know that he was shot?   If you were shot in the back, wouldn’t you know  it? So, why didn’t he respond? Why didn’t he take evasive action, getting down low in the limo, and telling others to do the same, and telling Greer to floor it? He didn’t do any of those things, or anything else. And he did not speak. So, why not?  

It was because changes were occurring rapidly in his body that were overwhelming. When the ice bullet burst inside him, it was like an injection of the toxic payload into his bloodstream.

I remember once making a toast at my parents’ anniversary. I raised my glass, made the toast, and then wet my lips with it. I didn’t consciously swallow. But within seconds, I felt tipsy. You see, I wasn’t used to drinking alcohol at all. So, I wasn’t used to it. And I’m sure JFK wasn’t used to whatever was put into him.   

We need to look at JFK’s muteness as a sign of his intoxication. The back shot didn’t prevent him from speaking. And even the throat shot did not damage his larynx. It did damage his trachea, and if that compromised his speech, he could have at least tried to speak. Plus, he could have communicated non-verbally by pointing and gesturing. He could have grabbed Jackie and lowered her in the limo. But, he didn’t do anything. He was mentally torpid. So, how did he get that way? You can’t tell me that a shallow back wound and a throat wound had any effect on his mind. And it must have been from the back shot because he stopped speaking before he was shot in the throat.

So, JFK stopped speaking, and it was not from any physical or mechanical damage. It was from cerebral damage. It wasn’t his voice-box that was at fault; it was his mind. His cognition was gone. His knowing, understanding, and awareness were gone. He was suddenly like an extremely inebriated person. I don’t know what they put in that cocktail, except that I’m sure it included a nerve agent that caused the tonic spasms that we see in the Z film. What they put in there to decimate and obliterate his mind, I can’t tell you, but it had to be something.  And I can’t be wrong about this because at that point in time, nothing had happened to his brain.  It had to be chemical because it definitely wasn’t anything physical.  

 

 I said yesterday that the imagery of JFK reacting to the throat shot in the Altgens photo must be fake because the photo was taken in "the city" not "the country." JFK was shot in the throat in the country, meaning the grassy area. And even in the Willis photo, which was in the country, he was not yet shot in the throat. So, how could JFK have been shot in the throat in the Altgens photo, which was taken in the city?

So, let's look at the imagery of him and Jackie in the Altgens photo. First, look at that humongous fist on him. His hands weren't that big. That is his left fist, but why is it so crude? It looks more like a sledge hammer than a human fist. And why is his right fist so shriveled? And what is Jackie holding on to? His arm? But, his arm wasn't going way out there? His arm was bent at the elbow tightly. It wasn't extended out like a vacuum wand. And it does not look anatomical either. It is too straight; too long; and it doesn't look like a human arm. And how long was his arm? If that's just his forearm, how long did his whole arm go? You can see where JFK's shoulder ends, so how could his arm be extending out like that? It couldn't. It is fake imagery. It is art. Crappy art.

At the time of the Altgens photo, JFK was reacting to having been shot in the back, and his face must have shown a lot of startle and distress. So, they had to cover up his face, including his eyes. So, they have the mirror in front of it, as well as his humongous fist. All we see of Jackie is her hands, but look how long and pointed her left thumb is. In reality, she was closer to him and her hands were closer to his wrist. Look at Z-255.

So, the imagery of them in the Altgens photo is fake. He was not yet shot in the throat at the time. And he was reacting to the back shot, which was a preparatory shot to prep him for the coming slaughter and make sure he didn't move or take evasive action. In 255, Jackie is trying to get him to relax his arm, but he can't do it.

 This image really is a work of genius, even though the guy who made it didn't know what he was doing. What the image does is remove the left side of the image showing the Croft people and then the doorway people behind them, looking small. The effect it has is to add a lot of depth to the photo, which makes your eye think that there is a lot of distance involved, that the limo had traveled far.

But, with that white banner in place, it reduces our view to just Elm St., and you can plainly see how close the limo was to Houston St. It is way too close to Houston St. for JFK to have been shot in the throat yet.

So, this image really is a Godsend because it exposes the fraud of JFK reacting to the throat shot and Jackie attending to him in the Altgens photo. That was faked. It didn't happen yet.

And the reason they faked it is because they knew ahead of time that they were going to claim that the back shot traversed Kennedy. That's why they needed the throat shot. It was to account for the fact that no bullet was found in JFK's back. "So, what happened to it? Simple: it passed right through him." In reality, the ice shattered and melted.

 Take a look at this image because it is telling us something. The Altgens photo shows Kennedy reacting to the throat shot. But, that is impossible because the limo is still high on the hill and not far from Houston Street. The Altgens photo was taken before Crofts, Betzner, and Willis, and in none of those photos is Kennedy reacting to the throat shot.

I am attaching the Willis photo because it, supposedly, was taken just before the Magic Bullet hit. So, according to Officialdom, Kennedy hasn't been hit at all yet in the Willis photo. That isn't true. He was already hit in the back. But, he certainly wasn't hit in the throat yet. But, how could Kennedy be hit in the throat in Altgens and not be hit in the throat yet in Willis? Can't you see that Willis came much later than Altgens? IN ALTGENS, THE LIMO IS STILL CLOSE TO HOUSTON STREET, WHILE IN WILLIS, THE LIMO IS NEXT TO THE GRASS AND CLOSE TO ZAPRUDER. So, how could Kennedy be reacting to the throat shot in Altgens but not in Willis? That is impossible. THE IMAGERY OF JFK REACTING TO THE THROAT SHOT IN ALTGENS IS FAKE. It didn't happen yet.

When the alterers first saw the Altgens photo, two things jumped out at them. One was Oswald in the doorway, and they made the decision to convert him into Lovelady by blacking out Lovelady's face and whiting out his striped shirt, and then transferring the top of Young Lovelady's head to Oswald. They also stuck Black Tie Man in to hide the unique form of Oswald's Russian shirt, and they put the black guy in below him to hide the fact that Oswald was clasping his hands in front as he stood in the doorway.  

But, they also saw that JFK was reacting to being shot in the back high on the hill, which was not going to be part of the story. That had to remain a secret. But, they already knew about JFK"s reaction when he was shot in the throat by Umbrella Man, with him lifting his hands up in a panic. And they knew that Jackie started tending to him, taking his arm. So, they made a crude imitation of what we see in the Zapruder film. And be aware that Babushka Lady was working for them, and I'm sure she turned her camera over to them, and they saw what she captured.

So, they decided to make it that the Altgens photo was taken later than it was. Altgens said he took it simultaneous with the very first shot. But, the Altgens photo shows JFK reacting to the throat shot.

But, besides changing JFK and Jackie in the limo, they had to make it seem like the limo was farther down the hill than it was. One of the things they did was move the Croft people up, and I can prove it. This is the Croft photo, and in the upper left corner, I put the same Croft people as they appear in Altgens. 

I drew lines to correlate the various persons. So, that is definitely them. And on the right, I added a little image to show you where the monument was in relation to them. So, you can see that they were quite a bit down from the monument. But, in the Altgens they are higher on Elm Street, in front of the monument. I circled the black woman who had her hair up in a bob in both photos. In Croft she is well below the monument; in Altgens she is well above the monument.

Don't try to attribute it to different angles. Yes, it was a different angle, and that had some effect, but it couldn't have had this much affect. This exceeds what parallax could have done.

So, I think they moved those Croft people into the Altgens photo. I don't know what photo they got them from. But, they pasted them in there, and the purpose was to make it seem that the limo was lower on the hill than it was. Make no mistake: the Altgens photo came before the Croft photo. The limo was higher on the hill in the Altgens photo than it was in the Croft photo. And JFK was not shot in the neck yet in the Croft photo. So, since the Altgens photo came before the Croft photo, how could JFK be shot in the throat in the Altgens photo?

Let's end by considering what Altgens said. He said he was up on Houston Street, and he took a few pictures there as the limo made the turn from Main. Then, he said he hustled down to lower Elm. He said he stood on the west side of Elm, but he meant the south side of Elm.

“I took a picture, and at the time I heard a noise that sounded like a firecracker. I did not know it was a shot, but evidently my picture was almost simultaneous with the shot. The shot was just a fraction ahead of my picture.”

So, he is talking about the first shot there, which I believe was the shot that hit JFK in the back. He heard the shot, then he took the picture, and therefore, he captured the look on JFK’s face when he was hit in the back with that shot. That’s what the real Altgens photo must have shown.

Then, he was asked if he had any idea where the shot came from, and he said “it came from behind the car.” Well, that’s what I’m saying that the shot was taken from directly behind the car from the DalTex building.

And Altgens made it clear that he took his famous photo at the time of the very first shot.

Mr. LIEBELER - Now, you don't think that there could have been any other shots fired prior to that time that you wouldn't have heard, you were standing right there and you would have heard them, would you not?
Mr. ALTGENS - I'm sure I would have yes, sir.

So, the Altgens photo was taken at the time of the first shot, but the throat shot certainly was not the first shot. So, why should JFK be reacting to the throat shot in the Altgens photo? He shouldn’t be.  And even if you are going to endorse the Single Bullet Theory, it wasn’t the first shot. There was definitely a shot before it. According to Officialdom, the first shot was the shot that missed; the second shot was the Magic Bullet, and the third shot was the fatal head shot. So, even the Single Bullet Theory can’t rescue you.

In reality, there were more than 3 shots. I am not going to try to tell you what the total was, but, it was definitely more than 3. However, the first shot was the shot that hit JFK in the back, high on the hill, when the limo was still adjacent to the TSBD. It was an ice bullet that delivered a toxic payload that brought on spastic dyskinesia and a total mental collapse. That was before JFK entered the Kill Zone. He rode down the steepest part of the hill having been shot in the back, and he stopped smiling and waving. And that is why we don’t see him smiling or waving in the Croft, Betzner, and Willis photos. And even in the Zapruder film, he stops waving well before he disappears behind the sign. And they covered his face with his hand to hide the look of distress that it must have had. And Jackie too was totally focused on JFK before  they disappear behind the phony sign. So, why did she stop her politicking and start focusing on him? It’s because she knew that something was wrong with him.  

 If the back shot was just a bullet, why shoot him on the right side of his back? Why not shoot him on the left side of his back, where his heart was? Or why not shoot him in the head? Shooting him on the right side of his back made no sense, unless they were trying to avoid killing him.  And think about when the back shot occurred. It occurred early. It wasn't after the throat shot. That is ridiculous. If it were after the throat shot, then we would see it go down in the Zapruder film, after 225. Of course, the official story is that the back shot and the throat shot were one, and it happened behind the sign. But, if you know they weren't one shot, then don't assume they happened close together either. They did not. The back shot happened high on the hill, soon after the limo completed the turn from Houston. So, why don't we see it in the Zapruder film? Because: it was massively altered to hide it. But, there are still traces of it there. Look at frame 205.

He isn't waving. His hand is covering his face, but he didn't do that. And look at Jackie. She is turned looking at him. Why isn't she engaged with the spectators? Why is her focus on him? It's because she knows something is wrong with him. In her WC testimony, she said that the first she knew something was wrong was when she saw a "quizzical" look on his face. Well, this is her seeing the quizzical look on his face, which they covered up with his bogus hand. He was already shot in the back there. I think he was shot about 190, but they removed so many frames, you can't go by the numbers at all. JFK isn't waving in the three photos: Croft, Betzner, and Willis. It's because he was already shot in the back. He was shot right before Croft. 

So, what was the purpose in shooting JFK on the non-lethal right side of his back high on the hill? And if it was a metal bullet, how did it stop so fast? From flight speed to stillness in an inch and a half? There isn't even a word for that span of time. If I said it was "instantaneous," even that isn't fast enough. There is no word that captures the speed that it happened. 

This is to everyone who rejects the Single Bullet Theory.  To those that don’t reject it, just talk amongst yourselves.

If you are going to reject it, you have to replace it with something else. It’s like with Oswald in the doorway. The vast majority of people who say, “I know Oswald was innocent, but that’s not him in the doorway” say it without saying where he was instead. It goes right over their heads, as if he didn’t need to be anywhere. And if I pin them down about it, they might say, “he was in the 2^nd floor lunch room,”  but then, I point out that Oswald was just getting to the 2^nd floor lunch room when Officer Baker first saw him. So if Oswald was just arriving there at the lunch room at that time, how could he have been there a minute and a half earlier? You can’t say that he was there and then he left and came back. You have no right to claim that because you have no basis to claim it. You can’t make things up.

So, if the Single Bullet Theory didn’t happen, what did? The best way to answer that question is to look at what we are left with. And what we are left with is what the Bethesda doctors found at the autopsy. And what they found was a shallow wound in JFK’s back at the level of T3. Many of the doctors probed it, and they said that it seemed to come to an abrupt end. One doctor said it was as deep as the 2^nd joint of his pinkie. I measured that distance on me, and it's 1 ½ inches. Humes wanted to dissect Kennedy; open him up and track it. But, the Admirals in the room wouldn’t let him do it. So, all we know is that it was a shallow wound, adjacent to the spine, going through skin, fascia, and muscle, and seemingly coming to an abrupt end, and with no bullet in the wound.

That is all the back shot was; nothing more and nothing less. But, why wasn’t the bullet in the hole? I reject all the claims of the bullet falling out and getting stuck in the seat back or falling to the floor of the limo. For the bullet to fall out, it would have to back out through the same holes in his clothing that it made going in. And that is preposterous. So, I reject Paul Landis’ tall tale, as well as the one told by the friend of the driver Will Greer. They are bull shit artists, just like Robert Groden with his story about Oswald getting change during the shooting. 

So, a missile struck JFK in the back. It traveled an inch and a half. And then it stopped and disappeared.

Well, a metal bullet could not disappear. And a metal bullet could not stop in 1 ½ inches. That’s because the flight speed of the metal bullet was 2000 feet per second. So, how could a metal bullet traveling at that speed reach zero velocity in 1 ½ inches? What makes the bullet stop is the resistance of the victim’s tissues. Remember: the bullet is acting on the tissues, but the tissues are also acting on the bullet. That is Newton’s 3^rd Law of Motion: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Do you think an inch and a half of JFK’s connective tissue provided enough resistance to stop a metal bullet traveling that was traveling 2000 feet per second?  Of course not.

So, there’s the problem of the rate of deceleration, and there is the problem of the missing bullet bullet.  So, how can we make sense of this?

Well, if the bullet was ice instead of metal, that would explain why there was no bullet. And an ice bullet would also explain why it only traveled an inch and a half. And I say that not because I think it would melt that fast. It’s because ice is hard but also fragile. Ice can burst. It’s happened to me. I can remember it happening when I was a small boy in the mid-1950s. I was digging ice cubes out of a tray, and one of them exploded, leaving nothing but shards. It startled the heck out of me. What happens is that impurities in the water, such as minerals, interfere with the hexagonal crystal lattice structure of the ice, weakening it. Then if stress or pressure is applied, such as digging an ice cube out of a tray, the whole structure can shatter. And an ice bullet could be designed for that to happen.

So, when we consider the enigma of JFK being struck in the back with something that only traveled an inch and a half and then vanished, an ice bullet is the only thing I can think of that could do that.

And we know that such a gun existed. It was referred to as “the heart attack gun” because it could deliver a toxic agent that could mimic a heart attack and kill the victim.  But, it could also deliver other toxins, including paralyzing nerve agents. You should watch the Church Committee inquiry about it from 1975. Here is a 2 minute synopsis:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LO6tiD5Dy0

What about the throat shot? Likewise, no missile was found. There was more damage done. The coils on the left side of his trachea were damaged, and there was a mild contusion in the apex of his right lung. JFK would have required surgery, and it would have taken him several weeks to recover.  Dr. Perry did poke around trying to find a bullet. The reason he looked for one is because he knew there was no exit wound. Of course, he didn’t find any bullet.  

It’s interesting that the diameter of the back wound was 7 mm, while the diameter of the throat wound was 5 mm. I have to laugh because the Single Bullet people have to explain how a bullet could make a hole 7 mm wide going in and only 5 mm wide going out, even though the bullet was pushing tissue along that would be expelled along with the bullet. But, what I take it to mean is that the missile that hit JFK in the throat was different from the missile that hit him in the back.

I believe that Dr. Alen Salerian is right that what caused the throat wound was a dissolvable missile that was fired by Umbrella Man using his umbrella.  We know with absolute certainty that such a weapon existed. The engineer Charles Senseney testified to the HSCA about it, and I read his 20 pages of testimony. He was contracted by the CIA to make an umbrella gun, and he said that he did, and it worked. Here is his testimony:

https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf

And speaking of testimonies, that of Louis Witt, who claimed to be Umbrella Man, stinks. He said that he just went out on his usual lunchtime walk that day, not seeking the JFK motorcade. But, he just wound up at the Kill Spot? I don’t believe in coincidences like that, do you? And then, there was his story about carrying the umbrella so that he could taunt JFK with it. Witt actually claimed that he thought that upon seeing him with an umbrella that JFK would think, “he is mocking my father.”  You see, many people, then and now, consider Joseph P Kennedy Sr. a traitor and a Nazi supporter because he sought to prevent World War 2 and met secretly with the German ambassador to the UK to strategize a peace plan. I do not believe that. I think that having seen the insanity of the first World War in which 45 million people died, that he just wanted to prevent another catastrophic world war. But, the thinking, then and today, is that if you tried to prevent World War 2, you were an anti-Semite.  I consider him a hero. But regardless, the idea that in 1963, Kennedy would catch on in seeing someone with an umbrella, that it was meant to mock his father, is preposterous. Also, how did Witt marry his story of just going out for a walk to exercise with mocking JFK? Isn’t that also a contradiction?

So, the guy claiming to be Umbrella Man was an absolute phony. But, it was still a very cunning and conniving thing to do. Who put him up to it? And why would they do such a thing? They were obviously trying to hide the truth about Umbrella Man.

I admit that my mind was closed to it for a very long time too. But now, I believe that Dr. Alen Salerian is right, that Umbrella Man used his gun, that was designed by Charles Senseney, to shoot a dissolvable missile into JFK’s throat.

But, here is the most important thing: There is simply no doubt that JFK was poisoned. We can see it in the Zapruder film. The trauma to his back was so little that you could call it a scratch. No vital tissue was hit. The trauma didn’t incapacitate him physically or mentally.

However, that back shot did incapacitate him, both mentally and neurologically. Whatever was in the ice bullet completely devastated JFK’s mind. He suffered a complete cognitive collapse, losing his ability to speak, to be aware, to communicate in any way, and to understand what was going on. He became totally and completely helpless. It’s like he suddenly became infantile.

But, his mental collapse was only half of it. The other half was his muscular dyskinesia, his tonic muscle spasms that just grew worse as he sat there.  They were not the result of physical trauma. They were the result of a nerve agent.

It is perplexing to me that the medical profession has never reckoned with JFK’s clinical condition in the Zapruder film. Not only haven’t they explained it; they haven’t even acknowledged it. JFK is in a bizarre pathological state, both mentally and neurologically, in the Zapruder film. It is like the elephant in the room that they have all ignored. The idiot Doctor John Lattimer tried to claim that JFK exhibited a “Thorburn position.”  First, that is not a medical term. It is only used in the JFK world. And second, I looked up the 1896 paper that Dr. Thorburn wrote about his patient whose spinal cord was crushed at the level of C5, and it has no relevance to JFK’s condition whatsoever. They had nothing in common at all.  I could expound on it, but I won’t. But, it doesn’t surprise me that we rarely see reference to the “Thorburn position” any more.  It was a cockamamie idea from the start.

But, what is clear as a bell is that JFK shows signs of nerve agent toxicity, and he also exhibited a complete mental collapse. And the physical trauma he incurred to that point can’t possibly explain those phenomena. You can see it plainly in the Zapruder film: JFK’s mental morbidity and his severe muscle spasms. He can’t put his arms down. And mentally, he is completely gone. He has been reduced to an infantile status.

Poor JFK. And poor Jackie. She is trying to get him to relax his arm, but he won’t do it. He just can’t do it.