So, Dr. Humes, and the others, discovered what appeared to be a shallow wound in JFK's back. When they tried to probe it, with a finger or a metal proble, it came to an end. It was like they hit a wall. At the time, Dr. Humes thought the trach wound was just a trach wound. But, the next day, he spoke to Dr. Malcolm Perry on the phone, and Perry told him that there was a bullet wound there.

But, at that time, Perry was still his own man. He wasn't being pressured or influenced by Leviathan. And we know what he thought: that it was an entreance wound in JFK's throat. He said it at the press conference at Parkland Hospital. So, you can be sure that he told that to Humes, that the throat wound appeared to be an entrance wound.

On the basis of no clinical evidence whatsoever, Humes was being pressured to say that the back wound and the throat wound were one, continuous, traversing wound. And if Dr. Humes had been a real man, meaning a man of independence and integrity, he would have said:

"You want me to claim that the two wounds are one bullet path? OK, then let me go back in and dissect him and find out if that's true. And if it is true, I'll tell the whole world. But, if it's not true, then I'll tell them whatever it actually is. We have to do this if we're going to be straight and honest about this. And If you won't let me do it, then I'm going to tell the whole world that you are obstructing justice by preventing the proper and thorough performance of an autopsy. So, take your choice: either you let me do the right thing, or I'll take matters in my own hands, and it'll be war between us. And don't get any ideas of threatening me. You could throw me in a dungeon right now, but that will backfire. There is still enough rule of law in this country that you can't get away with it. I have family, friends, and a lawyer, who will all fight for me. What, are you going to say I hung myself in my jail cell? No will believe it. You'll never get away with it. One of us is holding all the cards, and it's not you."

If Dr. Humes had an ounce of integrity, and also self-respect, he would have said that, or something like it. Of course, we know that Humes folded like a fold chair and endorsed the Single Bullet Theory. And even Perry caved, and to that weasel Arlen Specter, saying that it could have been an exit wound.

Five doctors claimed that the back wound as adjacent to T3. It's easy enough to tell because JFK was lying prone on the table, and there is a big bump that sticks out: the Vertebra Prominens, which is the spinous process of C7. So, you find the Vertebra Prominens and count down the spinous procersses: T1, T2, T3. However, one doctor, and I forget who, said that the back wound was adjacent to T4. JFK's own doctor, Dr. George Burkley, said it was adjacent to T4.

So, it's like you have a ruler in your back, but Humes didn't use it. In his report, he instead located the back wound by citing its distance from the acromium process of the scapula and the mastoid process of the occiput. It makes no sense to do it that way, but that's what he did. And it was the equivalent of saying that the bullet wound was at the level of T1. But, he didn't have the nerve to say that.

There weren't too many people involved in killing Kennedy, and there were a lot more involved in covering it up. And the cover-up goes on to this day. But, the Big Lie is going to fall, and fall hard. And nothing can stop it.

 If, like me, you realize, full-wel,l that JFK was shot in the throat from the front, that a bullet did not traverse his body, then the question becomes: why did they shoot him from the front when they knew that they were going to claim that all the shots came from the rear? -and specifically, from the 6th floor window, where Oswald supposedly was.

I can answer that question. And the answer is that they decided, in advance, that they were going to claim that a single bullet traversed Kennedy from back to front. That's right. The Single Bullet Theory was concocted before the shooting took place. It's just that back then, it didn't include Connally. He wasn't supposed to get shot at all.

But wait: if they were going to shoot him in the back with one bullet and then in the throat with another bullet, that's 2 bullets that were going to be in him. So, how could they claim that a single bullet traversed him if there were two bullets in him? Of course, there weren't two bullets in him. There weren't any bullets in him. And they x-rayed his whole body.

So, how was the single bullet traversing him going to work? It wasn't going to work if they shot him with bullets. But, I keep telling that they didn't take those shots with bullets. The back shot, which came first, was ice, so it just melted and disappeared. And the throat shot wasn't a bullet either. After all, they got him to Parkland Hospital in just a few minutes, and there, Dr. Malcolm Perry looked for and fished around for a bullet, and he didn't find one. And don't tell me it was dug out at the pre-autopsy because Dr. Perry got to the body before the pre-autopsy.

So, that tells me that the throat shot wasn't a bullet either. It too was some kind of dissolvable material, although I don't assume it was ice. And I'm not the first one to say so. The great Jack White from Dallas, Texas used to say that it was a "blood-soluble missile that hit JFK in the throat."

So, if JFK was shot in the throat with a dissolvable missile, what was the purpose of that shot? They, obviously, weren't trying to kill him.

I tell you that the purpose of it was to create an exit wound for the back bullet. I mean, of course, a theoretical exit wound for it. That's really all they needed: the hole.

Now, do you I'm speculating? Do you think I am letting my imagination run wild? I am not. And the proof is: THAT THE ADMIRALS IN THE AUTOPSY ROOM WOULD NOT ALLOW HUMES AND THE OTHER DOCTORS TO DISSECT KENNEDY TO FIND OUT, CONCRETELY, IF THE BACK WOUND AND THE THROAT WOUND WERE CONNECTED.

And there is no excuse for that. You can't even make one up. It's like they took the 5th.

We need JFK Truth, and we need it now.

 The next photo after Croft was Betzner, which has a big obstructive figure in it, a man in a suit. But, Betzner said there was no such man. And I believe Betzner because I have been taking photos my whole life, and I have neer once taken a photo like that one. And I have never heard of anyone else doing it either. No one would because it would be easy enough to move around the guy.

So, I tell you that the FBI put that figure in there because they didn't want us to see something. Maybe it was Jackie, fussing on her husband at a time when he, supposedly, wasn't shot yet. But, he was shot. He was shot in the back high on the hill.. It wasn't a bullet. It couldn't have been a bullet because a bullet could not have stopped that short. But, an ice dart could because ice is hard, but it is also unstable. The crystal lattice structure of ice is actually quite delicate, even though it's hard. And ice is subject to internal pressure because of temperature differences and impurities within ice. The back shot was NOT a kill shot. It was a preparatory shot, to soften him up and incapacitate him, so that when the real kill shots came, he would be a sitting duck.

But, the Betzner photo is a quandry. JFK isn't waving and neither are the spectators closest to him. And who are those people beneath the Stemmons freeway sign? They aren't in the Bronson film, which you can see on the right. It's just Umbrella Man and his friend. And even though these were taken at about the same time, in Betzner, UM is below the sign, but he is above it in Bronson. So, what's up with that?

And the JFK in Betzner doesn't look like himself. His hair isn't right. It's too long, and it looks like it's combed straight back. The shape of his head is wrong. And he looks too burly. I put a photo of JFK from behind for you to compare.

But, the most important thing to realize is that Crofts, Betzner, and Willis captured JFK when he was reacting to the back shot and before he was shot in the throat, which conflicts with the official story. Each of those photos is heavily altered.

I asked Chat GPT when Jackie appeared on tv to thank the nation. This is what it said: The televised message you’re referring to was broadcast on January 14, 1964. It was Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis’s first public appearance since the funeral of John F. Kennedy.

She appeared seated with her brothers-in-law, Robert F. Kennedy (“Bobby”) and Ted Kennedy (“Teddy”), thanking the public for the enormous outpouring of sympathy cards and letters after JFK’s assassination.

So, it was January 14. Hmmm. And Bob Croft, the Mormon missionary who took the photo, who lived in Powell, Wyoming, said that the FBI did not send him his photo until the end of January.

 You want more proof that JFK was shot in the back high on the hill, long before he was shot in the throat? Then look at Jackie in the Croft photo. Supposedly, nothing has happened yet. But, look at Jackie. Is she smiling and waving? No. She looks glum. She looks distraught. She was! I know where they got that image. It was from a January 1964 television address in which she and Bobby and Teddy went on air to thank Americans for their cards and letters. They pasted her image from that in here. Why? Because JFK was already shot in the back in the Croft photo, and she was turned and looking at him, just as she was in the Zapruder film. They couldn't have that here because it looms large and people would notice it. So, they pasted her image from the television address in here.

And notice that her hair is all wrong. I put a frame of Jackie from 11/22 before anything happened, and you can see that she was smiling and looking glamorous and dazzling. You can see that her hair was coiffed and blow-dried and styled. Look how matted her hair looks on the left. It wasn't that way on 11/22.

And look how far she has her head turned on the left. I was a chiropractor for 40 years, and I can tell you that adults don't turn their head that far. That is beyond the comfortable range for rotation. One can do it, but you're not going to unless you have to. And you have other options. You can turn your whole torso. You don't have to turn just your head. And she didn't do that. Look at her on the right. How much rotation is she doing there? She's doing much less.

And look how unnatural and geometric her hair looks, with that sharp, jutting angle that it has. THEY did that. And what they were trying to do was cover up JFK's mouth. Because: he was in a startled state. He had been shot in the back. It was just a little ice dart, but still,l he felt it. He startled from it, and his mouth was open. They had to cover that up, so they used her hair.

I'm telling you: JFK was shot in the back high on the hill, long before he was shot in the throat, and it is one of the biggest secrets of the JFK assassination.

 The Zapruder film revealed the secret of what happened from the first time we saw it. They tried, with all their might, to obscure it, but they failed miserably. I am talking about the fact that JFK was shot in the back high on the hill.

Look at frame 188. Jackie is already turned and looking at JFK. Why is she doing that? She's doing it because she knows that something is wrong with me. She isn't waving, and she NEVER resumes waving.

According to Officialdom, nothing has happened yet, but her focus is on him, and it remains on him. She has already withdrawn from the intended purpose of this political trip. She's finished with it, even though, supposedly, nothing has happened.

He supposedly, is waving, but was he? Notice that we don't see any of his facial features. His face is jsut a brown canvas. And his hand is arched way back. Try doing that. It's uncomfortable. It's not how people wave. That is an extreme motion to have your hand flexed back like that. You wouldn't do that when waving. You would just wave your hand without doing anything with your wrist. In other words, you would just relax. And why is the palm of his hand glistening white? He would have his hand turned towards the people he was waving at.

Then, in 190, Jackie is turned even more towards him. She is facing him squarely. And his hand looks like some weird claw. He isn't waving with it. He is just covering his face with it. That is, they were covering his face with it. He was shot in the back, and he was reacting to it. I'm sure his face showed it, so they covered up his face. And Jackie is totally focused on him. According to Officialdom, nothing happened before he disappeared behind the sign. But, this tells us that something happened, that he was shot in the back, and it was high on the hill .

And it took them years to get to this. The film-editing technology to do this did not exist in 1963. It didn't get developed until the 1970s. The Z-film was shown to the public in 1975, so 12 years later. It took almost that whole time to get the Zapruder film altered.

 When W.C. Attorney David Belin was asked where Oswald was going when he was stopped by Tippit at 10th and Patton, Belin said that he was going to Mexico. How did he know that? He didn't know it He just made it up. It wasn't based on anything but his imagination.

And when people pointed out to Belin that Oswald had only $14 on him, so how was he going to get to Mexico on that, Belin said that Oswald had his pistol, and he was just going to use it to rob people. How did he know that? Again, he didn't. He just made it up.

And he never really answered the question because what does 10th and Patton have to do with going to Mexico? Was there a bus station nearby there? What was his exact walking destination, and how did it relate to Mexico?

And why Mexico? Oswald denied going to Mexico when they asked him if he ever went to Mexico City. So, if he didn't go to Mexico then, why assume he would go to Mexico now?

And what was he going to do when he got to Mexico? And how was he going to live there? Was he just going to rob people indefinitely?

We know what Oswald's top priority was at that time. It was to get his family back under his roof again. We know he asked Marina about it on Thursday night. He showed her the $168 he had, which, at the time, was enough to rent a nice apartment. Marina said she told him she wasn't ready. But, she didn't rule it out. And they did spend the night together.

What Belin said is so ridiculous, so completely unfounded, that it deserves no further analysis. Belin was just spewing evil, and it's ironic because he was trying to paint a picture of Oswald as evil, but he really just demonostrated his own evil.

Oswald denied shooting Tippit, and it is impossible that he was at 10th and Patton. Oswald was in the Texas Theater by 1:07 accordding to Butch Burroughs, the popcorn man. Tippit wasn't shot until 1:15. Oswald was definitely in the theater at that time. Ipso facto, he could not have shot Tippit.

But, how did Oswald get to the theater? Someone must have driven him. It was 1.1 miles from his boarding room to the theater. He didn't get to his boarding house until 1. He sspent several minutes there. So, if it was 1:03 when he left, how did he get to the theater by 1:07? He couldn't have done it. He couldn't even have gotten to the theater by 1:15 . A fifteen minute mile is a fast walking pace. But, when you're in the city, you've got streets to cross, red lights to wait for, traffic to wait for, and people in your way, And why assume he would walk at anything but an ordinary pace?

So, what did Oswald say about how he got to the theater? We don't know. There isn't a word about it in any of the notes or reports. Didn't the police ask him? They must have. It is inconceivable that they didn't. The question of how Oswald got to the theater is integral to the question of whether he shot Tippit. Their not saying what he said about how he got to the theater tells me that whatever he said must have been extremely exonerating. And in all probability , what he said was that somebody drove him there. And if anybody drove him there, it destroys the lone gunman hypothesis. And if a policeman drove him there, that is 10x worse. And it probably was a policeman. His landlady Earlene Roberts said that a police car pulled up, and its horn was tapped twice. The most likely thing is that Oswald was driven to the Texas Theater in a police car. Who was the policeman? It could have been Tippit. He could have driven Oswald to the theater and then gone on to his destiny of being shot at approximately 1:15 at 10th and Patton. John Armstrong is also open to the possibility that it was Captain Westbrook and Lt. Croy who drove Oswald to the theater.

 In the Jackie Chan movie Dragons Forever, a character gets injected with a nerve agent during a fight. For a few seconds, he seems to be OK, but then his muscles start seizing up, as you see on the left.

That's what happened to JFK, except it was injected by way of an ice dart rather than a needle. There is absolutely nothing else that can explain JFK's muscular spasm and rigidity. It was NOT due to trauma. The only trauma he had, to that point, was a shallow wound in his back, affecting only soft, non-vital tissue, and a shallow wound in his throat, that damaged tracheal coils on his left side and caused a mild contusion in the apex of his right lung. That's it. We are seeing the effect of a nerve agent in JFK.

 So, Lovelady wore a short-sleeved striped shirt on 11/22/63, and there is no doubt about it. The Couch film proves it. But, never underestimate the resourcefulness of moden-day Kennedy-killers. In the image on the right, the evil Praymanites tried to make his shirt look plaid. But, what difference does it make? It's still short-sleeved, and no one ever claimed that Doorman's shirt was short-sleeved.

That shirt, on the left, is the same one that Lovelady wore to his FBI photo-shoot on 2/29/64, where they photographed him with the shirt unbuttoned. Those stupid FBI agents surely had the Altgens photo, and they thought all they had to do was unbutton Lovelady's short-sleeved striped shirt, and it would turn him into Doorman. It was mindless stupidity, one of the worst cases I've seen. And they put it in writing twice that Lovelady said he wore that shirt on 11/22. They tried to retract it later, but there's no retracting it. They reported it becausae he said it. And he wore it.

And Lovelady NEVER said that he as Doorman. The FBI said that he said it. But, think about it: if Lovelady could say it, wouldn't they have put him behind a sea of cameras and microphones to say it? And, if he could say it, wouldn't the HSCA have ordered him to come in and say it to them? Why would they bypass him? Why did they bypass him? It was because Lovelady was a terrible liar. Even if they threatened to kill him and his family, and they probably did, that doesn't turn him into a good actor. And it doesn't turn him into a good liar.

And then, he just happened to die, suddenly and unexpectedly, at the tender age of 41 right right when the HSCA Final Report came out? I don't believe in coincidences when it comes to the JFK assassination. I believe that Lovelady was murdered. Maybe they used the heart attack gun on him, as they used on Kennedy. But, if so, they used it differently on each of them. On Kennedy, they plied it with a nerve agent, the effects of which we can see in the Zapruder film. But, with Lovelady, they must have plied it with the heart attack-mimetic drugs. Do you realize that sudden and unexpected heart attacks were rather common in the world of JFK persons of interest? Billy Lovelady, David Sanchez Morales, and Richard Case Nagell are three.

Billy Lovelady was a tragic figure. He died a wealthy man, with vast real estate holdings across the state of Colorado. At the TSBD, he worked for $1.11/hour. But, what good did all that money do him? He lived a miserable life, and they snuffed him out at the end. They did to him what they do to male chicks at an egg fctory.

The JFK assassination involved three murders that weekend, but it was just the beginning of the killling. Many more were killed over the years that followed to preserve the Big Lie that Oswald did it- and did it alone. But, that story is going to die. The assassination of JFK was a banana republic style coup d'etat. Awareness of that is going to become universal, not just in the U.S. but around the world. And what life is going to be like after that is anyone's guess.

 Above in this collage is Shelley and Lovelady walking to the railroad yard among the throng of people who did that after the shooting. It's from the Malcolm Couch film. Skinny Shelley, with his pompadore hair, wore a jacket. Lovelady, who was stocky at the time, wore a shrt-sleeved striped shirt. Below are other images of them: Shelley getting into a police car on 11/22; and Lovelady on 2/29/64 posing as Doorman for the FBI. You can see that it's them, wearing those clothes.

Now, that is them, and it can't not be them. You can't deny it because if that's not them, if that's two other guys who just happened to look like them and dress like them, then they still have to be there because that is where they said they were. In other words, you need two sets, not just one. But, this is the only set; so it must be them. And you can see that Lovelady's shirt was short-sleeved. You can see bare skin above his elbow.

So, Lovelady did NOT wear a long-sleeved plaid shirt on 11/22/63. He wore a short-sleeved striped shirt, just as he told the FBI, and which they put in writing twice.

Don't anyone spout the Lovelady claim here again. It is a lie, and I won't tolerate it.

 Donnie Mykenzie

The doorway man is Oswald. There is no doubt it is Oswald. First thing. Look at how high the hair curl is on the doorway man. Just look. Lovelady has no hair . Oswald has lots of hair , just like the doorman. You just have to look. It's hard to tell because of the black background but if you really look , you will see that the image is Oswald. Second. What i did was put The doorman photo in an Ai program with Lovelady and Oswald. You can go and do this yourself. But do not be bias. The Ai program gave me a list of reasons why this picture of the doorman is Oswald and not Lovelady. It looked through their features , their clothes , their hair and everything else it could pick up and the Ai program said it was 100% Oswald. That's not me saying this , it's an Ai computer program and not just some cheap one you get online. So , just check yourself so you can be sure.

• 5m
• Reply
• Share

Ralph Cinque

Donnie Mykenzie Thank you, Donnie. I am going to share this. You just made an impact.

 Ben Mazzulo heard about the ice flechette fore the first time, and he had the natural skepticism that almost everyone has upon first hearing it. It sounds too James Bond, or perhaps Mission Impossible. But, it is NOT farfetched, and if you analyze the evidence with an open mind, you'll realize it's very compelling.

You know what the official story is: that JFK was hit in the back with an FMJ bullet that bore through his neck from back to front and then went on to wound Connally. There is very good reason to be skeptical about that, in fact, multiple reasons. I am acquainted with Dr. David Mantik, and he told me, in a personal communication, that he did a detailed anatomical analysis, and he said that the single bullet would have hit the spinal cord. That would have meant instant paraplegia for JFK; think Christoher Reeves. And even if it missed the spinal cord but got close to it, it would have impaired nerve flow to his muscles on at least one side of his body. The cavitation and inflammation would have done that. The only reason Christopher Reeves survived is because they gave him super-massive doses of steroids to suppress the inflammation. But, there were no disconnectdions to any of JFK's muscles. All his muscles worked. In fact, they were hypertonic.

If you read the autopsy report, you get the distinct impression that the autopy doctors first thought that JFK had just a shallow wound in his back. They probed it, and the bullet track stopped. Not with their finger, and not with a probe could they get very far. They did not know about the throat wound. They thought it was just from the tracheotomy. The next day Humes talked to Perry and found out that there was a bullet wound there.

Now, if Dr. Humes had been a real man, he would have INSISTED that he be allowed to go back in and track that wound; to dissect Kennedy to find out exactly what happened to him. He wanted to do that at the autopsy, but the admirals in the room wouldn't let him.

So, on Saturday, after talking to Perry, he should have told his bosses, "Either you let me go back in and dissect him to find out what happened to him, or I'm going to scream Bloody Murder. I'll go to the press. I'll blow this thing wide open. Take your choice."

Of course, he didn't do that. But, let's say that what it appeared to be at the autopsy, a shallow wound, is what it was. Well, if that is what it was, it could not have been an FMJ bullet because an FMJ bullet could not have stopped that fast. Bullets from the Carcano travelled at 2000 feet per second. If an FMJ bullet hit Kennedy in the neck (actually, it was the back, at the level of T3, as multiple doctors said), it could not have been stopped by just an inch and a half of soft tissue. Skin, fascia, and muscle is all we're talking about. An inch and a half of soft tissue could not provide enough resistance to stop a metal bullet travelling at 2000 feet per second. It's a matter of physics.

So, if the Single Bullet Theory is B.S., and a great many people say it is, then all you have is a shallow wound in JFK's back and a shallow wound in his throat. And whatever caused that shallow wound in his back could not have been an FMJ bullet.

But, an ice bullet could burst on contact. And once it burst, it would have been gone. Ice has the tendency to burst, which I learned as a small boy. It goes back to my life in the 1950s. I can remember digging an ice cube out of a tray when it suddenly disappeared and vanished. I remember looking around for it. What happened to it, I wondered. What happened is that ice is hard but fragile. It's a crystal lattice strcture. There is empty space within ice. The oxygen and hydrogen get spread apart. That's how frozen water bursts pipes. Physical force, like digging an ice cube out, can trigger the collapse. Minerals in the water interfere with the hydrogen bonding causing weak spots in the ice. Not weak as in soft, but weak as in vulnerable to pressure. An ice bullet could be formulated to penetrate slightly and then burst.

So, the shallow back wound, if that's what it was, is compatible with an ice flechette but not with a metal bullet. But, there is another reason why it couldn't have been a metal bullet: there was no bullet in his back or in his body. They x-rayed his whole body. And don't tell me it fell out because that is nonsense. No force was pushing it out, and the holes in his three layers of clothing through which the missile entered were one-way. They didn't remain aligned. The bullet could not have fallen out, and it wasn't taken out. There simply was no bullet. And that too supports the ice flechette.

I got that far myself, but still I was skeptical. But then, I found out about the "heart attack gun," which was created by the CIA in the 1950s which shot an ice flechette which could be packed with drugs that mimic a heart attack or with nerve agents, such sanitoxin from poison shellfish or algae, or cobra venom, stockpiles of which were found. In 1975, CIA Director William Colby testified to the Church Committee about the gun, and he said that it worked, that it could kill. And since it was developed in the 1950s, it means they had it in 1963. And JFK does show signs of nerve agent toxiciity. I mean in the Zapruder film. It is also apparent in the Z-film that he suffered a complete mental collapse. He didn't speak. He didn't respond. He didn't take any action to save himself or anyone else. He did nothing to protect his wife. He was out of it mentally; he was gone. What could have caused that? It was whatever was in that ice flechette.

The next step, if you're hearing this for the first time, is to listen to William Colby's tsetimony to the Church Committe. This is less than 2 minutes long. JFK may have been shot in the back with that gun. I believe he was.

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

 This is a tale of two photos and two captions that speaks volumes. On the left is the Willis photo, which says it was taken a split-second before JFK was shot. On the right is the Altgens photo which shows JFK already having been shot, and it says that Secret Service agents are looking toward the directions the shot (came from). But, that doesn't make sense because, supposedly, the shots came from the 6th floor of the Book Depository. So, why would the agents be looking at the doorway. No one ever said the shots came from there. Shouldn't they be looking up at the 6th floor window?

But, the point is that the limo is obviously a lot lower on the hill in the Willis photo than in the Altgens photo. So, how could JFK be already shot in the Altgens photo but not yet shot in the Willis photo? It's impossible.

And that caption for the Altgens photo was used a lot by thenewspapers, although not always in those exact words. Some of the papers put that the Secret Service agents are looking at the source of the shots. Again it makes no sense because no one ever claimed that shots came from the doorway. Just because it's the same building means nothing. The 6th floor window was a long way from that doorway. So, if shots came from the 6th floor window, why would agents be looking down at that doorway?

But, I really do believe that the SS agents looking at the building was the reason why the CIA photo-alterers were hell-bent on salvaging the Altgens photo, even though Oswald was in it. They thought that was gold and worth all the risk of massively altering the photo, which they did.

It is simply impossible that the Willis photo was taken before the Altgens photo, and anyone with a shred of honesty will admit it. Note also that the Willis caption states that JFK was waving at spectators, but, he was NOT waving. And I assure you that the Willis photo was massively altered too. I'll go into that in a separate post. But, without a doubt, the Altgens photo was taken high on the hill, long before JFK was shot in the throat. Howver, he was shot in the back, which happened as soon as he completed the turn from Houston.

But, it was not a bullet. It was an ice flechette that penetrated very little. A bullet travelling 2000 feet per second could never have stopped that fast. But, ice is fragile and unstable and prone to bursting, as ice cubes sometimes do. If JFK was simply shot in the back with a bullet, he would have known it, and it would have done nothing to his mind. But, he felt very little, no more than like a mosquito bite, according to CIA Director William Colby. But, very rapidly, the toxic payload started deranging him, which we can see in the Zapruder film. Showing us JFK's derangement, physically and mentally, is the greatest value that the Zapruder film has.

 I said yesterday that two things jumped out at the CIA photo-inspectors when they first saw the Altgens photo, the first being Oswald in the doorway. The second was JFK reacting to having been shot in the back high on the hill. I know the photo shows him reacting to the throat shot, but that imagery is fake. It's very crude and crappy CIA art. And I can prove it, which I now will.

Besides the Moorman photo, there were three other photos of JFK on Elm Street taken from the south side: Crofts, Betzner, and Willis. And they were taken in that order: Crofts, then Betzner, then Willis, and then Moorman (although if you are long-time reader of mine, you know that I insist that Mary Moorman did not take the Moorman photo, that her photo was destroyed because of what it contained, and what we call the Moorman photo was really taken by Babushka Lady, but I won't go into that again now.) But, in regard to Croft, Betzner, and Willis, they were all taken before JFK was shot at all- according to Officialdom. But likewise, according to Officialdom, JFK was alraedy shot with the Single Bullet in the Altgens photo. BUT, YOU CAN PLAINLY SEE THAT THE ALTGENS PHOTO WAS TAKEN HIGHER ON THE HILL THAN THE BETZNER AND WILLIS PHOTOS.

The Croft and Altgens photos were taken about the same time. I think that Altgens was taken slightly before Croft, but they were very close, and essentially, they were taken together. In the plat, it shows where JFK was shot in the back, and then throat, and then head, and you'll see at the top, that Croft and Altgens are put together.

But again, according to the government, JFK wasn't shot at all yet as late as Willis. So, look at the comparison between Willis and Altgens. HOW COULD JFK NOT BE SHOT AT ALL YET IN WILLIS, BUT HAVE BEEN SHOT IN THE THROAT ALREADY IN ALTGENS, WHEN ALTGENS WAS OBVIOUSLY TAKEN MUCH HIGHER ON THE HILL?

Altgens came before Willis, long before Willis, and yet, we are supposed to believe that JFK was already shot in the throat in Altgens, but not in Willis. THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE. And it proves that the government is lying.

So, besides trying to remove Oswald from the doorway, the CIA alterers also replaced the imagery of JFK and Jackie in the Altgens with phony imagery of JFK reacting to the throat shot.

But, why did they do it? Why did they want the timeline of the Altgens photo to be later than what it was? I'll cover that next time.

 When the CIA photo-alterers first saw the Altgens photo, two things jumped out at them. The first was Oswald in the doorway, and on the left is how he looked On the right is what they did to him, plopping in the top of Young Lovelady’s head. On the left, I also restored his left shoulder, which was overlain with the guy they put in next to him to cover up the unique construction of his Russian shirt. And they put in the black guy beneath him to cover up his distinctive stance, clasping his hands together in front of his body, left over right. So, neither one of those guys was there. There was a black man at the bottom level next to the column,  but he was not captured by Altgens’ camera due to the parallax effect of Altgens’ angle. The black man’s name was Carl Jones, and that picture of him was taken by Congressman Phil Willis about 3 pm when employes were allowed to leave.

But, the big question is: why, when they saw Oswald in the doorway, did they not destroy the photo? That would have been so easy, and it would have been the smart thing to do. They could have just told Altgens that “for national security reasons” they had to destroy the photo. He would not have cared or complained. He was a team player. And it wasn’t going to affect his pay. No one else knew about it, so no one was going to miss it. But, they were filled with arrogance. They were drunk with it.