It is glaringly obvious that the Garage Spectacle was staged. On Sunday morning, Dallas cops went on Dallas talk radio saying that they feared that Oswald was going to be attacked during the Jail Transfer. Oh really? Then why were they doing it? Why not move him in the dead of night without any fanfare and just announce the next morning that he had been moved? How smart did they have to be to think of that? They said that that were dozens of calls from people threatening to kill Oswald. Oh really? Why would someone bent on murder forewarn the police? How does that make sense from the perspective of the criminal? What’s in it for them? One cop even said that he answered a call in which he could tell that the caller was Jack Ruby. Oh really? Then why didn’t he go pick up Ruby? It’s a crime to plot to kill someone. But, there’s no chance that it’s true. Ruby’s roommate George Senator testified to the Warren Commission, and he said that Ruby made no calls before leaving for Western Union.

Why is there a discrepancy between what Ruby said and what Roy Vaughn said/ Vaughn said that that Lt. Rio Sam Pierce didn’t stop, that he came up the ramp, which caused Vaughn to check for traffic and then wave him through. They didn’t speak. But, Ruby said that when he was there, that Pierce was parked at the top of the ramp, and the officer on foot was leaning into the window talking to him. And, he said that he didn’t recognize the officer on foot, while he knew Roy Vaugh. Vaughn had been to the Carousel Club on police business, and he also pulled Ruby over once for a traffic violation, but he let him off with just a warning, since he was a “friend of the Department.” That’s what Vaughn said. And Ruby was very good at remembering the names of Dallas cops.

So, what explains the discrepancy? Vaughn and Ruby were there at different times. Ruby was there first. And once he was tucked away up on the 5^th floor, Vaughn started his shift guarding the Main Street ramp. The whole idea was to frame him for, negligently, letting Ruby in. In other words, out of stupidity, rather than plotting. But, it turned out that Vaughn wasn’t so stupid. When he was issued a reprimand for letting Ruby in, he hired a lawyer and sued the Department. He knew God-damn well that Ruby never slipped by him. And the Department settled out of court. That is, they paid Vaughn money in damages. Vaughn went on to become the Police Chief of Midlothian, Texas, a mid-sized city. And after that, he went on to become a Municipal Judge, which he did until he died. And he swore, to his last breath, that Ruby never got past him.

Why didn’t the Dallas cops handcuff the Shooter in the garage? Why take him somewhere without first handcuffing him? He was violent, right? He killed somebody, right? So, why not get him in cuffs immediately. And their story was that after getting him into the Jail Office, several of the penguins, I mean, the detectives got the idea to handcuff him at the same time, but it was McMillan’s cuffs that went on him. They didn’t remove his jacket first. They just put him in handcuffs. Therefore, how is it that in the WFAA footage, which supposedly shows Ruby being taken upstairs for the first time, he is in just a shirt and no jacket?

The whole story is a lie. Ruby didn’t kill Oswald. He was just tricked into believing that he did. The Dallas Police killed Oswald. And I don’t say it was their idea. Rather, it was an order that they got from LBJ.  He was the Commander in Chief, and all Fritz’ men were WW2 vets except for Charles Dhority. When the Commander in Chief gives you an order, you obey it.

Why did the cops have the ambulance go all the way down to the Pearl Expressway, only to come back on Main from whence they came? They made a big loop. Why did they do that? To kill time so that Oswald would bleed out.  They had to make sure that it would be too late for doctors to save him.

Again: the whole story is a lie. The Dallas Police killed Oswald, and they tricked Ruby into believing that he did it. It had to be one of the worst things any Police Department ever did. It was the monstrous end to a monstrous weekend.

 I got to do another song with the legendary guitarist Rick McRae, who is the lead guitarist for George Strait. The song we did is the classic Bob Dylan tune, DON'T THINK TWICE IT'S ALL RIGHT. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iznhYIVBmb8

 DOVEY’S PROMISE is now streaming on Tubi, where you can watch it for free. It is the true story of the Towpath Murder Trial of 1965 in which the victim was Mary Pinchot Meyer, the lover and very close confidante of JFK. She was brutally murdered 11 months after he was. Right away, a poor, hapless black man, Raymond Crump, was arrested and charged with the crime- even though there was not a speck of forensic evidence against him. The famous Civil Rights lawyer Dovey Roundtree went to see Raymond at the DC Jail, and she was so convinced of his innocence, that she offered to defend him for one dollar.

And thus began the Trial of the Century which put Dovey Roundtree up against the entire U.S. Department of Justice. It wasn’t a fair fight- but they asked for it. That tiny, little, deeply religious woman gave them hell in the courtroom. I have the transcripts of the trial, and I wrote the script from it.

And let’s face it:  this is suppressed history. It is all wrapped up in the dirty secret that the CIA murdered JFK in Dealey Plaza, and then 11 months later, they killed Mary Pinchot Meyer to cover their tracks. And if not for Dovey Rountree, they would have the won the case and put Raymond Crump to death without flinching.

But, they never dreamt that he was going to get Dovey Rountree to be his lawyer, and that was their undoing.

It's been 60 years, but the spin that government and media give it is that, even though he was acquitted, Raymond Crump was guilty. Well, that is impossible. You can’t even conjure up a motive for Crump. And he had a rock-solid alibi because his consort, a woman named Vivien, confirmed to Dovey Roundtree that she was with Raymond at the time- cavorting. Vivien was unwilling to testify because she was married, and she was afraid her husband would kill her. But, Vivien did provide an affidavit that Dovey filed. The Prosecutors definitely knew about it, and they could have easily gone to Vivien themselves- to test her credibility. But they didn’t. They ignored it.

And there was another piece of very exonerating evidence, which is that the FBI determined that Crump’s jacket never contained a handgun because it would have deformed the pocket and left residues. The case should have been dismissed on that basis alone.

The CIA murder of Mary Pinchot Meyer was such a monstrous evil, and its cover-up continues to this day.  So please watch Dovey’s Promise and encourage others to watch it. It’s free! You can help me spread the word about it without spending a dime.

https://tubitv.com/movies/100039797/dovey-s-promise

 What is wrong with people? Don't they know anything about vision? That you don't just see straight ahead, but you also see to the side? Do you want to know how far you see to the side? It's about 180 degrees. It's called peripheral vision, and it is particularly sensitive to movement. And of course, the Shooter was moving.

There is NO WAY that Oswald and Graves did not see the Shooter, who was James W Bookhout pretending to be Jack Ruby. Oswald and Graves are just faking that they are unaware of him. It’s all an act. The whole thing was theater.

 

And poor Oswald was tricked into doing it. I'm sure they told him that they believed him, that he was innocent, but they needed to fake his death in order to protect him. And he,
unfortunately, trusted them and went along with the ruse. However, he was not shot in the garage. He was shot in the Jail Office afterwards.

 

This photo was published in LIFE magazine on November 29, 1963, and people should have known instantly that it was staged, and that everyone in it was acting. The whole story of how
Oswald died is a lie. He wasn't killed by Jack Ruby, but rather, by the Dallas Police, with the help of the FBI. Even the Secret Service pitched in because SS Agent Forest Sorrels babysat Ruby up on the 5th floor while they were busy putting on the Spectacle, while other SS agents had taken custody of Marina Oswald BEFORE Oswald was killed.

Do you remember that weird story, where LIFE reporters took Marina to Dallas to visit Lee on Saturday but then, instead of returning her home to the Paine house, they inexplicably settled her into a hotel on the outskirts of Dallas, the Executor Inn, and that's where Secret Service agents took over. Marina never returned to the Paine house again. How could they confiscate the wife of a defendant? It's simple; they knew the defendant was going to be dead.

 Did Jackie Kennedy speak to her husband during the assassination? I did a Yahoo search about it, and this is what Yahoo generated:

"Jackie Kennedy did not explicitly state whether she tried to talk to her husband, President John F. Kennedy, during the assassination on November 22, 1963. In interviews and accounts following the event, Jackie described her feelings and actions but did not confirm any attempts to speak to him during the shooting. Some historians and biographers suggest that her instinct was to shield him rather than communicate verbally in that moment of crisis. Overall, while Jackie Kennedy's immediate actions are documented, her specific attempts to communicate with JFK during the assassination remain unclear."

 Notice how overly defensive that is, that it goes overboard in making excuses for her not talking to him.

 I have to think that she did talk to him because it would have been insane if she didn't. When there is a crisis, when a person is obviously struggling and in trouble, and you're trying to help him, you speak to him, as in "Jack, what's the matter? What happened? Are you sick? Are you hurt? What's wrong?" She would have done that instinctively. Anyone would. He was her husband. Of course, she would try to solicit information from him about what was going on with him.

 And let's remember, that after he was dead, and I mean after the fatal head shot, which effectively killed him, even though it took a little while for all life signs to cease, then they admit that she started talking to him, including "I love you, Jack." But, she would not have waited until then. Her first response would have been to query him about what was going on.

 So, I think she spoke to him, and I think that any honest, rational person will concede that she must have. And I think an effort was made to delete any statements she made about having spoken to him prior to the fatal head shot. They didn't mind reporting that she spoke to him AFTER the fatal head shot because he couldn't possibly respond then. But, let's go back to the beginning when she first turned and looked at him and saw that he had a "quizzical" look on his face. That is when she first would have said, "Jack, what's wrong? You don't look right." And I believe that's what they deleted.

 So why did they delete it? It's because it added another component of derangement to JFK's behavior. We know that JFK exhibited bizarre muscle spasms after emerging from behind the phony sign in the Zapruder film. We know that he never said anything, and Jackie was very clear about that, that he didn't speak or make a sound. And we also know that he never looked at her or made eye contact with her. We can see that with our own eyes. But, her speaking to him, and undoubtedly asking him questions, and him not responding? Not answering? Just ignoring her? That is yet another manifestation of JFK's severe cognitive impairment. Yet, he had suffered no brain damage to that point. His injuries were limited to a shallow, harmless wound in his back, and a shallow wound in his throat that damaged his trachea but did nothing to his brain. He had suffered no brain trauma. So, how could his relatively minor physical wounds have caused him to lose his cognitive ability completely?

 This demands an answer, and the only answer is that he suffered a chemical, attack that shut down his brain. His inability to respond to her when she spoke to him; his inability to focus on her when she looked at him; and his inability to communicate in any way, or to show any sign of awareness, alertness, and lucidity, is proof-positive that he was utterly gone mentally. And it was most certainly not the result of physical trauma.

 Look at this poor guy: all contracted in painful spasms due to a nerve agent and lacking the mental wherewithal to communicate or in any way, or even to acknowledge, to the slightest degree, the attention he was getting from his wife. The extremeness of his derangement is so apparent, and I lambaste the entire medical community for choosing not to see this very obvious pathological manifestation. Shame on them.

 Stefano Cardarelli sent me this other version of the Oswald shooting that is seen less often. I believe it is the 2^nd KRLD film. He sent it to me because it does not contain the hat falling off, and the Shooter’s bare head being exposed and then covered up by Detective Miller.

And I first want to say that, in that film, I don’t think the head that we see is real. I think it’s art. The Shooter was FBI Agent James Bookhout, and knowing that his son Jim has a thick, full head of hair, he probably did too. The incident was definitely real, but they doctored that head to make Bookhout’s head look like Ruby’s.

But, in the other version, which you can watch below, they were able to remove the incident of the head-covering completely.  You should watch it, but I want to give you some bullet points about it first.

1 Oswald turns his head and looks directly at the Shooter just as he starts rushing in. It proves that Oswald was in on it; that he was acting. I think they must have told him, “We believe you, Lee, but we can’t just let you go because someone will come gunning for you. We have to fake your death first.”

2 The Shooter crosses right in front of Graves, who didn’t see him because he was looking down? That is ridiculous. Graves had to have seen him, and he was just pretending not to. The physiology of vision says he must have seen him.

3 Fritz not starting to react until after the shot and the commotion is another piece of bad acting. Fritz had to be aware of it instantly.

4 Why would the Shooter dive into the swarm of police? Isn’t it a strange behavior? I bet it’s never happened before or since in the history of crime. But, I know why he did it. It was to get covered up.

5 From there, it’s all noise, chaos, and pandemonium. It’s like a magic trick, where Bookhout and Oswald were there, and then they were swifted away, but we don’t see how. We just see the wall of bodies of the men who did it, or as I call them: the Penguins.  

It was all an act, and Oswald was NOT shot in the garage. The Garage Spectacle was all theater. Oswald was shot afterwards under controlled conditions, with surgical placement of the bullet. I assume they knocked him out first.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orJ1AGAn4OQ

 The medical profession betrayed JFK. When they saw, in the Zapruder film, that he was coming down Elm Street, smiling and waving, and then, after being shot, he had no capacity to speak, to communicate, to respond, or even to be aware of what was happening, they should have realized that there was something terribly wrong with him that his physical trauma could not explain.

Do you understand that he became totally helpless? It was like he was suddenly severely inebriated to the point of complete mental collapse. Yet, his physical trauma was limited to a very shallow wound in his back, that involved no vital tissue, and a wound in his throat that damaged his trachea on the left side, but it did no harm to his brain.

So, there is no excuse for him being in that totally debilitated state.

That morning, he spoke to a gathering of people outside his hotel in Ft. Worth. Then he went to the breakfast in Ft. Worth where they gave him the cowboy hat. He spoke there too and he was lucid, intelligent, and funny.

Then, he was fine when he arrived at Love Field. He interacted warmly with people at the airport, shaking their hands. Then he was fine in the motorcade.

So why should he have completely lost it on Elm Street? Where he couldn’t speak, react, or respond?  How could that have come about from relatively minor wounds that were far from his brain?

And you can see it in his face, in his countenance, that he was mentally gone.

Then, there was his spasmodic muscles that his physical trauma can’t account for.  The weird spasm of his arms bothered Jackie so much, she put her hands above and below his elbow and pressed down on his arm to coax it down. You can see it here.

It was futile, but she had to try. HE WAS FROZEN! He was like a pillar of salt! And it was not from physical trauma. It was the effect of a nerve agent.

Don't you understand that JFK in the Zapruder is bizarre? He is a freak show! He is grossly pathological, and doctors are supposed to be trained to recognize pathology. Yet, none of them did. Why? In most cases fear; and in a few cases, complicity. Well, I've been a doctor my whole adult life, and I am not afraid. I will tell you that he is showing extreme impairment of his neuromuscular system and severe mental derangement, and it was due to poisoning, not physical trauma.

That first shot, taken from the 2nd floor window of the Daltex building after he completed the turn, which struck him in the back, high on the hill, before the Croft photo was taken, contained a nerve agent. It may have contained more than that, but it definitely contained that. And it caused JFK's bizarre muscle spasms and his complete mental collapse, that are so apparent in the Zapruder film.

 It is very important to realize that JFK never spoke and never communicated in any way from the time he was shot in the back with the nerve agent high on the hill.  And Jackie said he didn’t. She said that when she first turned and looked at him that he had a “quizzical” look on his face. By frame 189 in the Z-film, we can see that she was turned and looking at him, and she never took her eyes off of him after that. She said he never spoke, and if he had communicated in any way non-verbally, she surely would have said so.

Rober Scott Cathey is currently spreading the falsehood that JFK pointed to his throat in the Z-film. In 62 years, no one has ever claimed that. He most certainly did not. In frame 255, his index finger is angled to where you could try to claim that he was pointing at his throat. He was not, and I’ll explain why.

In a personal exchange, Dr. David Mantik told me that the thing that was blocking JFK’s airway and putting him into panic in 225 was probably just a bolus of blood. And JFK quickly cleared it. Instinctively, he put his right hand over his mouth and coughed, and that cleared it. It was like a reflex.  After that, he was able to breathe fine. He was no longer concerned about his throat. That wasn’t his problem any more. So, what was his problem?  It was his spasmodic muscles. He was in pain! You should learn about the murder of Jane Stanford in Hawaii in 1905, where she was poisoned with strychnine, which is a nerve agent. As she was dying with a doctor by her side, she said that this was the worst pain she ever felt, and that it had to be the worst way to die.

I don’t know which nerve agent they used on Kennedy, but they all work by destroying the enzyme cholinesterase in the neuromuscular junction, which causes acetylcholine to persist and keep the muscle in perpetual contraction. Perpetual, that is, until you die, usually of asphyxiation from your respiratory muscles seizing up.

So, there’s no reason to think Kennedy was pointing at his throat in 255. It’s just the way his spasms manifested. He wasn’t even thinking about his throat any more.

And why should he have been? He was breathing OK. And he was being shot at. If he was capable of rational thought at all, he would have made that his concern: to survive the attack by getting down low and getting the driver to floor it.

And his spasms just got worse, and they spread. By the time he took the fatal head shot at 313, he was completely seized up.  

So no, JFK did not point to his throat, and he did not say or do anything that was intelligible. Mentally, he was gone before the fatal head shot.

If you think that JFK being hit with a nerve agent is farfetched, it is not. We can see the effects of it in the Zapruder film, where JFK had uncontrollable muscle spasms that started in his arms and spread to his neck, back, and shoulders. And he also had a complete mental collapse. JFK did not speak, nor did he attempt to speak, nor did he attempt to communicate in any way. He took no evasive action. He appeared to have no awareness or understanding of what was happening. He seemed to have the mental countenance of a young child. It was like Jackie was his mother.

How could all of that have happened to him from a shallow wound in his back that did no significant damage and a shallow wound in his throat that damaged his trachea on one side but got nowhere near his brain?

Since physical trauma can’t account for the effects we see, poisoning is the only answer.

And as I’ve shown you, we know that the gun existed to deliver the nerve agent, the CIA “heart attack gun” which the Church Committee probed in 1975. And, we know who the people were who figured out the chemical side of it. They were Nazi scientists at  Edgewood Arsenal.

Do you know about Operation Paperclip? Allen Dulles spent the war years in neutral Switzerland, where he befriended a lot of Nazis. And they impressed upon him that America needs to be worried about the Soviet Union because they are not your ally. And Dulles took it to heart. The Cold War began for him long before WW2 ended. And when it ended, he saved the lives of hundreds of Nazis by harvesting them for use by the United States. The biggest number were rocket scientists, like Kurt Debus and Wernher von Braun. But, the second biggest group were chemical weapons scientists, and it was they that Dulles set up at Edgewood Arsenal.

And at Edgewood Arsenal, they did notorious human experiments, starting in 1948, and many of them involved nerve agents. One of the things they did was get nerve agents into the body through the skin. They would lacerate the skin and put nerve agents in the wound, to see how long it took for effects to register. This is what I found in a synopsis:  “Nerve agents can produce rapid effects when administered in sufficient doses, particularly when absorbed through the skin. Symptoms can appear within seconds to minutes, depending on the dose and route of exposure.”

Within seconds? Within seconds, within seconds, within seconds. And that is what happened to JFK. The reason his back wound was so shallow is because the frozen missile was designed to burst upon entry, which was equivalent to an injection of the nerve agent into his bloodstream.  

So, we know, for an absolute fact, that they developed the weapon to do this, and they sought to find out how quickly effects would manifest if they got the nerve agent into the body through the skin, which is what happened. Here is a photograph from one of the Edgewood Arsenal “experiments,” which were done on soldiers and mental patients.

I am telling you that JFK was hit in the back with a nerve agent, high on the hill, and there is no doubt about it.

 On the left is a drawing of someone from a famous strychnine poisoning in Australia. You can see how the victim is in spasm, and not just his arms, but his legs. And I put the comparson of Kennedy, whose arms are in spasm. It was due to the nerve agent, and perhaps it was strychnine. I don't claim to know which one it was. But, that's how most of them work: destroying cholinesterase, which is the neurotransmitter that turns off muscle contractions.

 The issue of the number of head shots doesn't really matter to me. But, I will point out that the Zapruder film doesn't show it. I realize that the film was massively altered, but, why would they want to remove a head shot from the rear?  That was the story they were telling. So why take it out?

As for the autopsy report, it conflicted with what the Parkland doctors said. It reported the blowout wound in a different location, on the side of the head above the ear. And it reported a small "lacerated" wound to the right of the EOP and slightly above it, which was the very location of the blowout wound according to the Parkland doctors. The report did not refer to it as an entrance wound, although I presume that that is what they meant. They said it was 15x6 mm. Isn't that unusual for an entrance wound?  

And the only other thing are the x-rays, but Dr. Mantik says that they were altered. So, how can they be relied on? 

But again, to me, it matters little. What matters to me a lot is the chemical attack on JFK. So, I have prepared these succinct points about it. 

1. The very shallowness of the back wound suggests that it was not a metal bullet because of how rapidly it decelerated and stopped. However, ice is unstable and prone to bursting.  

2. That no bullet was found in the wound further suggests no metal bullet. And the arguments that it "fell out" are simply preposterous. It would have had to exit through the same holes in the clothes that were made going in. And, there were no forces, gravitational or otherwise, to make it fall out. There were no forces acting on the inert bullet to move it.  And after falling out, it got stuck in the seatback? Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, there was nothing for it to get stuck to. 

3. Could the bullet have been removed at the pre-autopsy? Theoretically, I suppose so, but the autopsy doctors reported no signs of tampering. And, the plotters had to know that the first doctors who would see JFK were going to be untethered ones.  Of course, the Parkland doctors did not discover the back wound, but they could have. And the argument from Physics that a metal bullet could not have stopped that fast still holds. 

4. The fact is that JFK shows the signs of intoxication in the Zapruder film. He exhibits a complete mental collapse, in which he lost the ability to speak or to communicate in any way. He took no evasive action. And it appears, from watching the film, that that he did not grasp what was going on. His mental breakdown cannot be attributed to physical trauma, which was relatively minimal at the time and included no brain damage at all.

5.  JFK's muscular dyskinesia is very apparent in the Zapruder film, starting with the way he brought his hands up to his throat, followed by his inability to put his arms down afterwards. Then after that, his tonic spasms only spread to neck, shoulders and back. It was probably very painful, and he withdrew completely, as he continued to seize up. It wasn't due to physical trauma, but rather, a nerve agent. 

President Kennedy really was attacked that way, and it was to immobilize him so that he would be a sitting duck when he reached the Kill Zone. 

 Do you realize how much LIFE magazine lied about the Zapruder film in 1963 and 1964?

I have both the November 29, 1963 edition and the October 2, 1964 edition, both of which have frames from the Z-film. What LIFE said in 1963 was that there were 2 shots. It just said that the “awful moment” came when JFK was out of view because of the freeway sign- which they and the CIA added. They did not describe what it did to JFK.  They just said that his wave turned into a clutch for his throat, as seen in 225. That was a lie because he stopped waving long before that- before they reached the phony sign.  Then, they claimed that Connally was struck by a separate bullet. And that was it; 2 shots. That’s all they mentioned.

Am I saying that they omitted the fatal head shot? Yes, that is what I’m saying. They just said that the President collapsed on his wife’s shoulder, and she cradled him in her arms. That is yet another lie.  You know, of course, that he was struck in the right temple, and it sent him veering “back and to the left.” He was like a ballistic missile flying at her, and her reflexes caused her to dodge him. You can see it in 315 where Jackie jerked her head leftward to avoid colliding with him. There was no thought involved because it happened so fast. It was just her reflexes. But, after she dodged him, she went back to him. And then she did her trek onto the trunk.

So, why did they exclude the fatal head shot? Was it just because they didn’t have a spare bullet for it? They cited just 2 shots because they knew about James Tague who got grazed from the missed shot. So, they had to save a bullet for him, although they didn’t mention him.   

Then, on October 2, 1964, LIFE changed their story. They claimed the Single Bullet for Kennedy and Connally. And they included the fatal head shot, now having a bullet for it. And they published 313, with the red cloud, and they claimed that JFK was hit in the back of the head and it blew out the front of his head. They said that the front of his head “exploded.” But, that was a lie. JFK’s blow-out wound was in the right posterior of his head, which all the Parkland medical staff demonstrated with their hands. There was no blow-out wound in front.

Now, I am going to tell you how they came up with the 313 they published in LIFE in 1964. It wasn’t the real 313. It was the instant before. They just painted the red cloud over the frame that preceded the fatal head shot. The reason the back of his head looks intact in 313 is because it was. And if you look at it closely, you’ll see that the front of his head isn’t blown-out. It’s just painted over in red.

But, they had a heap of work to do after that to fix all the frames that followed 313, which needed to show an intact back of his head. I don’t think it was done manually. I think they had to wait until computers advanced enough to do it digitally. If they had done it all manually with paint, they never would have sold it. The crudeness of it would have been apparent.

So, the editing of the Zapruder film took years. It was first shown to the public in 1975, and I bet it wasn’t ready until shortly before that.

But, someone please tell me why Americans are so obtuse. Why, in 1964, when LIFE showed them 313, didn’t they scream, “But wait! You had that last November. So, why didn’t you publish it then? Why did you exclude it? Why did you withhold it from us?”

The autopsy report was included in the Warren Report, which came out in September 1964. It described a blow-out wound on the right side of his head, mostly over the parietal bone, but also affecting the temporal bone and the occiput. It said nothing about the front of his head exploding. So, why didn’t people scream Bloody Murder about the discrepancy between what LIFE was claiming and what the autopsy said?

LIFE magazine lied flagrantly both times they published frames from the Zapruder film. And they changed their story from JFK collapsing into his wife to him being shot again, back to front, and blowing out the front of his head- which never happened. But, who altered the frames for them? I don’t assume their artists did it. I assume that the CIA did it, specifically Dino Brugioni’s team at the National Photographic Interpretation Center, who were all set up at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall in Dallas on 11/22 altering the Altgens photo and more.  

So, they still claimed just 2 shots in 1964: the Single bullet that caused 7 wounds in 2 men, and the fatal head shot.

The claim that the front of his head exploded forward is outrageous. Imagine what it would have done to his face.

Here are 312 and 313. You can see how alike they are. If it didn’t occur to them to just paint their red cloud over 312 and call it 313, they were idiots.

 

 

 Do you realize that the first telling of the JFK narrative did not include the fatal head shot?

I am referring to the November 29, 1963 LIFE magazine, which has many frames from the Zapruder film. However, it does not include 313. Nor does it include JFK getting shot in the back high on the hill. There are just 2 frames of the limo before it jumps to 225, and those 2 frames are ones before Jackie turned her head to look at him.

The narrative implies that the “awful moment” occurred when he was invisible behind the sign, and they did not describe what happened. They just said that he clutched at his throat. Then, they claimed that Connally was struck (from a separate bullet) in the 230s.

Then, they claimed that Jackie became aware that something was wrong at 264, and that is ridiculous. And it was such an arbitrary lie because she was just as focused on him in 263, 262, 261, etc.

It then said that the President collapsed on her shoulder, and she cradled him in her arms. That is a lie.  What the film shows is him being struck in his right temple sending him veering “back and to the left.” He was like a ballistic missile flying at her, and what happened is that her reflexes caused her to evade him. You can see it in 315.

There was no thought involved. It happened too fast. It was strictly reflexes, like removing your hand from a hot stove. But, after she evaded him, she went back to him. And then she did her trek onto the trunk.

So, they excluded the first shot, which was the back shot. And they covered up the second shot, which was the throat shot, with the phony sign.  

And in this case, they didn’t want us to see, or even know about the third shot to hit Kennedy either, the fatal head shot. So, in this version, they only claimed 2 shots: one for Kennedy and one for Connally. But, James Tague was already known about. They didn’t mention him or the shot that missed, but they saved a bullet for it.

But, why didn’t they mention the fatal head shot? Was it just because they didn’t have a spare bullet for it? Or was it because it was a frontal shot? Perhaps it was both. But remember that this was before the Single Bullet Theory was concocted. Once they came up with that, it freed a bullet for the fatal head shot and left one for Tague.

Then, on October 2, 1964, LIFE changed the story a lot. They claimed the Single Bullet for Kennedy and Connally. And they published 313, with the red cloud, and they claimed that JFK was hit in the back of the head and it blew out his right temple. But, that can’t be right. JFK had a blow-out wound in the right posterior of his head, which all the Parkland medical staff demonstrated with their hands. There was no blow-out wound at the right temple, but that is what they claimed. And I don’t believe the red cloud is real.  

But, I want someone to tell me why Americans are so obtuse. Why, in 1964, when LIFE showed them 313, didn’t they scream, “Why didn’t you show us that in November 1963? How dare you exclude it?”

So, why did they include it? And why did they change their mind? If they made the decision not to include it in 1963, why did they reverse that decision and include it in 1964? I think the answer is that, with the Single Bullet Theory, they had a bullet to give to it. And their story was that the temple wound was not an entrance wound but an exit wound; hence the need for a blow-out there.

But, this conflicts with the autopsy, which stated that the blow-out wound was 13 cm at its longest diameter (which is over 5 inches). It said that the defect involved mostly the parietal bone, but also the temporal and occipital bones.

The autopsy also described a smaller wound in back, to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance. They didn’t state that it was the entrance wound, but that seems to be what is implied. However, LIFE magazine brazenly claimed in October 1964 that what 313 shows is a blow-out wound of the front of Kennedy’s head. They said, in plain English, that “the front part of his head exploded.” Of course, that is not true. It was the back of his head that exploded.

But again, the autopsy report was included in the Warren Report, which came out at the same time. So, why didn’t anybody scream Bloody Murder about the contradiction?

LIFE magazine was just a lackey for the CIA and the FBI. What explains all these discrepancies is simply that the United States government killed John F. Kennedy. That is the alarming and nightmarish truth. 

You can't exaggerate the significance and importance of Jackie being turned and looking at her husband before they disappeared behind the phony freeway sign in the Z-film. Here is frame 205 in which you can see it. It appears that he has his hand over his face, but he never did that. They did it. And the reason they did it was to cover up his face because he looked distraught from having been shot in the back already. You can tell that she is looking at him because her pillbox hat is pointing south, and her face is pointing north. I don't know how researchers missed that when they have been looking at the Zapruder film for 50 years.

 Why are the spectators in Bronson so different from Betzner and Willis? It's the same time and place. They tried to match Betzner and Willis, although there are subtle differences. But in Bronson, they didn't even try. Because, after all: who is going to notice?

 Let me give you the lowdown on the Willis photo, which was taken right before JFK was shot in the throat. Of course, Officialdom has it that he wasn’t shot at all until after Willis, but that is ridiculous. He was shot in the back before Croft.  

Let’s start with JFK, whose image is crude and non-photographic. In Betzner, JFK looks too burly, while in Willis, he looks too pencil-necked. I put no stock in either image.

In Willis, Jackie is looking at JFK, and they let it happen. Why didn’t they get rid of it? It’s probably because they couldn’t. There are limits to everything.

But then, there is Umbrella Man. Even though the Bronson photo and the Willis photo were taken at the same time, in Bronson, Umbrella Man is above the Stemmons freeway sign, while in Willis, he is below the sign.  Notice also that in Bronson, he was holding his umbrella higher.

So, which one is real? I truly believe Umbrella Man took the throat shot; so he must have been holding his umbrella in position to do that. But, even if you won’t buy that, surely you can see that they have him in different locations and holding his umbrella at different heights. And I have got Dark Complected Man covered up in Willis, but he was well below Umbrella Man, whereas in Bronson, he is above Umbrella Man. So, that is another contradiction. And again, I think they padded the spectators on Elm. Notice how crude their images are, with no facial features at all.

That throat shot was a very small target. Too high and it would have hit him in the face. Too low and it would have hit him in the chest. And too left or right, it would have missed him completely. I assume they absolutely wanted to hit him where they hit him. So, from what distance could you hit such a very small target?  Well, not from very far. It had to be taken from up close. Umbrella Man was very close, and we know the CIA contracted Charles Senseney to make the umbrella gun. There is no better hypothesis than Umbrella Man as the source of that shot.

 Realize that, sometimes, you are forced to conclude something. It’s like being in check in Chess. You may not be limited to one move, but sometimes you are. You either make that move or you concede.

That is the situation with the JFK assassination. We know that the plotters planned in advance to claim that all the shots came from the rear- from the 6^th floor window. So, why did they shoot Kennedy from the front- and right in the throat? How did they expect to get away with that when it was almost 180 degrees from the direction they were going to claim all the shots came from?

Well, there is only one possible answer, and that is, that they decided in advance to claim that the throat wound was an exit wound.

Now, stop and think about that for a moment. Rack your brain and see if you can conjure up any other possibilities. I know of a researcher who came up with the idea that the throat wound was an accident, that the shot through the windshield caused glass shards to fly about, and one struck JFK in the neck. I give zero chance that, especially since there was no shot through the windshield. Tell me: why would anyone shoot through the windshield when the target was riding in a convertible? You have so many directions from which to hit him from without going through glass. Why make it harder than it has to be? Plus, the safety glass of a windshield is designed not to spew glass shards.  Plus, claiming a random accidental event is always wildly speculative.

Are there any other ideas? Well, if there aren’t any, then it means that they must have planned to claim that the throat wound was an exit wound. And of course, they did go on to claim that. So, if they could claim it after the fact, why couldn’t they decide to claim it before the fact?

Of course, there was no missile found in his throat. And there was no missile found in his back either.  So, what do you make of that? Don’t tell me that they were dug out at a pre-autopsy. That’s not good enough because the plotters know that before the pre-autopsy there was going to be an uncorrupted medical exam at Parkland, and they would not expect to get past that.

Do you think the back bullet fell out? That’s more random chance. Plus, going in, the bullet had to penetrate three layers of clothing. So, do you think the back bullet fell out through the same holes?  You might as well expect a planetary alignment.

Of course, the Single Bullet Theory is nonsense, but only the part about traversing Kennedy was planned in advance. Connally wasn’t even supposed to be hit.

So, it was really just a shallow wound in JFK’s back, affecting only skin, fascia, and muscle; and a shallow wound in his throat that damaged the trachea on the left side and caused a mild contusion in the apex of the lung on the right side.

And in neither case was a bullet present. What does it mean? It means that dissolvable bullets were used. I don’t say they were identical. The one to his back was ice. And I don’t know what material was used for the throat missile. But, I do know that the weapons existed for both. For the back shot, there was the CIA heart attack gun that was showcased by the Church Committee in 1975, and for the throat shot, there was the CIA umbrella gun that was showcased by Charles Senseney to the HSCA in 1977, although in his case, there was no model for it.

But, let’s get back to the chess game. So, the need to rectify a shot from the front with the lone gunman from the rear is the conundrum.  And the only move out of check is that they were never going to claim that the throat shot was from the front. The Single Bullet Theory, but without Connally, was the plan all along.

 Important question: Which came first, the Altgens photo or the Willis photo? Altgens is on the right, and Willis is on the left. It is widely accepted that JFK was not shot in the throat yet in the Willis photo. But, in the Altgens photo, you can see JFK reacting to the throat shot. Here's a hint: the Altgens photo is still in the city; the Willis photo is down in the country. So, which came first? Altgens came first. But, if JFK wasn't shot in the throat yet in Willis, how could he be shot in the throat in Altgens? The imagery of him reacting to the throat shot in Altgens is fake. There is a good chance, like 75%, that JFK was shot in the back a split-second before the Altgens photo was taken, and that is what it showed, him reacting to the back shot, which was taken from a low window in the Dal-Tex building.  And, it was no ordinary bullet.

 So, JFK was shot in the back high on the hill, just a second before the Crofts photo was taken, and they had to massively alter that photo to hide it. But, let's keep going and look at the next photo, which is the Betzner photo.

The first question is: was that guy really there? I have my doubts. It seems like anyone lining up a picture, upon seeing that in their viewfinder, would step around him to remove him from the frame before pressing the shutter.

And look what I found online:

"Hugh Betzner, who took a photo of the Kennedy motorcade on November 22, 1963, said he did not remember a "big man" obstructing his view and that the image appeared unobstructed in his photo."

I'm amazed that a major search engine coughed that up.

But conveniently, JFK is visible, even though he is completely unrecognizable. I have not been able to find any images of him from behind, but I still say that that guy does not look like him. His hair is too long, and it's all swept back. My intuition does not equate him to JFK.

But, I am not suggesting that JFK was shot again. I am sure he wasn't. He was still reacting to the back shot, and the next shot to hit him would be the throat shot.

And notice that he isn't waving. He was not waving in Croft, and he isn't waving here.

We can't see Jackie. Is that why they put the big guy in there? Because if we could see her, I'm sure she would be turned and looking at JFK. In Croft, they dealt with that by replacing her head. So, did they deal with it here by putting the big guy in? Look: the Zapruder film confirms that Jackie was turned and looking at her husband by frame 188. And she didn't take her eyes off him after that. So, she was definitely looking at him in Betzner.

But, there is another convenience thing: the fact that Umbrella Man's umbrella peeps up. But, it is small. In fact, it is too small to be a man's umbrella. It's between the Stemmons Freeway sign and the big man. I think it's art.

So, the big man may have been put in to hide Jackie being turned and looking at her husband, and also to hide Umbrella Man, and whatever he was doing.

Notice that on the right side of the picture, you see all these enthusiastic spectators waving excitedly. How come the people under the Stemmons sign aren't waving? In fact, the people in the midsection, adjacent to the Secret Service car, aren't waving either.

So, under the Thornton sign, they are waving; between the signs they aren't waving, and under the Stemmons sign, they aren't.

How do you account for that difference?

And remember: supposedly, nothing has happened yet.

I'll tell you what I think. It's that they wanted as few people as possible in the Kill Zone. But, I think they wanted to hide its sparsity. So, I think that some of those people, perhaps most of them, were added. And it would have been a lot harder to add waving people than stationary people. So, they settled for stationary people.

On the left, it shows how Jackie's hair looked on 11/22. You can see that it looked nothing like how it looks in the Croft photo, which was a dead ringer for how her hair looked in mid-January on television, when she was in mourning.

So, her face was pasted in there, and it resulted in a degree of cervical rotation that is uncomfortable for me, a former chiropractor, to look at. That is about the limit of cervical rotation: 80 degrees. But, just because people can force that much rotation doesn't mean that they do it in daily life. It's uncomfortable to twist your neck that far. So, what people do instead is start rotating their shoulders. So, they get where they need to be by combining cervical rotation with turning the whole torso. She wouldn't do what she appears to be doing there.

But, why did they replace her face in the Croft photo? It wasn't because they wanted a morose look. Of course not. I believe it was because Jackie was already turning towards her husband. And that they couldn't have because, supposedly, nothing had happened yet and all was well.

But, didn't that morose look of hers give it away? Yes, and I'm sure they combed the images from 11/22 trying to find something better. Using what they did had to be a last resort.

And if you read Jackie's testimony, she said that she heard a terrible noise, and then she turned and looked at husband and saw that he had a "quizzical" look on his face. So, this may have been that very moment. But, her eyes on him meant that something was wrong with him. So, they had to replace it. 

And I will tell you, as a retired chiropractor, that JFK is showing us in the Croft photo that he was in trouble. He was raising his chin and pinching his head back on his heck. That is a classic stress reaction.

I put the other image of JFK in for comparison. In it, you can see that JFK's posterior cervical muscles are lengthened. He isn't contracting them. He is relaxed. But, in the Croft photo, he is in a startle with his posterior cervical muscles clinching. Would you please compare the two? So, on the right, he is relaxed, and in Croft, he is stressed like hell. And it's because he had been shot. And if it had been a regular bullet, he would have known that he was shot, and he would have taken action. But, it wasn't a regular bullet. It felt more like a mosquito bite according to CIA Director William Colby. Then, rapid changes were occurring to his mind and body. I'm sure he was totally overwhelmed. What a nightmare the last 12 seconds of his life were.

 Take a look at Croft again because I flipped the image of Jackie from her mournful address to the nation in mid-January. You can see how well it matches, in mood and expression, her face in Croft. I'm not saying they used that exact frame but one from the show.

And remember that this was a political trip, and Jackie was a political wife. She had a job to do, which was to look gorgeous and glamorous and wave to the voters. If nothing had happened yet, why is she so pain-stricken?

But, the other thing I want you to see here is that there is a black patch high in his back and above it a very oblong panel. This was their doing. They put that over JFK's back. It's right in the spot that he was hit in the back. Apparently, this was so soon after the back shot that the disruption of his jacket from the impact of the ice bullet was visible. The tear must have been obvious, so they covered it up with that handiwork. I put a white arrow to it.

Now, the story became that his jacket was "bunching up." JFK wore personally tailored, handmade, custom jackets that cost a thousand dollars each, and just remember how much more a thousand dollars was worth in 1963 than it is today. His jacket did not bunch up, and nobody's jacket ever bunched up and looked like that. He was shot, and the violation that it did to his jacket was, apparently, showing.

And to any doubters out there, notice that it is the very spot that he was shot in the back. The image on the right was by Gerald Posner, the author of Case Closed, showing where the back shot hit him.

I don't believe in JFK coincidences, do you?