Now, I am going to show you how the testimony of Officer Marrion Baker proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Oswald did not come down from the 6th floor, and he could not have come down from the 6th floor because it was physically impossible. 

But, I will point out to you that the people fighting me, on Facebook and elsewhere, are essentially working for JFK's killers. And who killed him? The U.S. government killed him. 

I don't mean that everyone in the U.S. government was in on it. Only a relatively small number were. But, they were powerful people, including Vice President Lyndon Johnson, and FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, and former CIA Director Allen Dulles. And although Dulles was out at the time because JFK fired him, he still had vast support at the CIA. The new Director, John McCone, was just a figurehead and had no experience at national intelligence. Loyalty at the CIA remained with Dulles. And when LBJ became President, he instantly acquired control of everything, and acceptance that Oswald did it alone became a litmus test for loyalty and patriotism.  

So, the same entity that killed Kennedy and Oswald (the U.S. government) was in charge of the investigation of JFK's murder. 

And we are in an interesting situation today because the current President, Donald Trump, seems to have no aversion to exposing the truth about the JFK assassination. He seems to have no loyalty whatsoever to the official story. But, there is a Deep State, unconnected to Trump, that is still vigorously defending the official story, and they are at war with me. And knowing, as I do, that many people were killed to suppress JFK truth, I worry about them killing again. and in particular, killing me. That's how serious this is. 

Now, with that said, on to Officer Baker. He said he had climbed the stairs and reached the landing on the 2nd floor, and on that landing was a door to the vestibule of the lunch room. The vestibule was a passageway room, about the size of a closet. It had 3 doors. One was the door that Baker saw, which had a pane of glass in it that he could see through. Another door entered on the other side of the vestibule, and it came from the office side of the 2nd floor. And between those two doors was a third door that went into the lunchroom.

This image shows two of the doors I mentioned: one is the door with the glass through which Baker saw Oswald in the vestibule, and the other is the door to the lunch room. The door we can't see is the door on the other side that came from the office area.

So, there you see the lunch room, and in the distance, the vestibule or anteroom. We are seeing the door through which Baker saw Oswald from the stairwell. And the door to the lunchroom had a spring, and it was propped open, just as you see there. So, we're seeing everything but the third door. 

Baker said that someone just flashed by, whom he saw through the glass. So, he followed him in there, and saw Oswald walking in the lunch room. He thought Oswald had gone about 20 feet before he ordered him to stop. 

So, the big question is: which door did Oswald use to enter the vestibule? Well, he didn't use the one on Baker's side because he, Oswald, was still in the vestibule, and that door would have still been in operation. You can see how small that vestibule was. If Oswald had just gone through that door to enter the vestibule, the door would have still been open. But, it wasn't open. It was still, stationary, and closed. And it means that Oswald must have come through the door on the other side, that we can't see. So, Oswald entered the vestibule from the office side. And the office side had no access to the 6th floor. There was a staircase, in the opposite corner of the building; so not the northwest corner, where this was, but the southeast corner. And that staircase only went one floor. It went from floor 1 to floor 2 and that was it. 

So, if Oswald entered from the office side, it means that he went up the one flight of stairs in the southeast corner and walked across the great expanse. And it means that there is NO CHANCE that he came down from the 6th floor; that it was physically impossible. 

It makes sense that Oswald did that because you know what else is in the southeast corner? - the doorway where Oswald was standing. 

So Oswald was standing in the doorway, and then he went back inside through the double doors, and then he turned right to enter the stairwell for the one flight of stairs. He went up the stairs, and then he walked across the vast 2nd floor, and then he entered the vestibule of the lunch room through the door on the office side. 

There is no doubt about it: Oswald did NOT come down from the 6th floor; he went up from the 1st floor.

And here's the kicker: You could say that Oswald and Baker got to the lunch room at about the same time; Oswald getting there slightly before Baker. But, Roy Truly was ahead of Baker. Truly was leading the way. WHAT THE MOTHER FOLK????  THEY WERE SEARCHING FOR A KILLER, AND THE UNARMED CIVILIAN LED THE WAY? WITH THE ARMED COP FOLLOWING?  There is no excuse for that, and don't anyone try to defend it. But, there is an explanation for it, and that is, that Roy Truly knew very well that there was no danger. Roy Truly was in on it. The TSBD was a CIA front company that did gun running, espionage, and even drug running under the guise of book distribution. Read The Spiders Web by William Weston. 

 https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/6017-spiders-web/

So, that's the reason Truly had no qualms about leading the way up to the roof, which is where they were going. But, since Truly was farther ahead of Baker than Oswald, relatively speaking, it means that if Oswald had come down from the 6th floor, he would surely have run into Truly. But, of course, that didn't happen. It means that as I have been saying for 3 decades, Oswald was standing in the doorway during the shooting, and he probably left before the final shot, which was the fatal head shot. Why did he leave the doorway to go to the 2nd floor lunch room? I am going to address that in my next post. But, in the meantime, share this one because it is important.  

 There are two separate and distinct elements in pondering the Doorman question: the man and the clothing. You know that the world of men is big, with each man having his own, unique genetic identity. Every man's DNA is unique to him, except in the case of identical twins. 

The world of clothes is big too. And any one of the men could be wearing any set of the clothes. 

So, when you have both the man and the clothes matching, That's like winning the lottery twice. 

And that's what we have between Oswald and Doorman because they match and their clothes match.

Notice first the unbuttoned, long-sleeved shirt that is sprawled open. There was a reason for it, and that was that Oswald's buttons were missing. There were a couple at the bottom, but that's all. All the rest were missing. 

I have circled the right collars of Oswald and Doorman to show you that they are identical, where the triangular collar is lying flat, and beneath it is a little furl. Professor David Wrone, who is a member of my organization The Oswald Innocence Campaign noted that in his book. 

The other side of the shirt had the margin folded over, going all the way down, giving it the appearance of a jacket.  And that is what Officer Marrion Baker said it was: a jacket. He said that when he saw Oswald in the lunch room 75 seconds after the last shot that he was wearing a "light brown jacket." It was actually that shirt. 

So, on Oswald's right (our left) the margin of the shirt looks thin, but on the other side, it looks thick because it's folded over. And you can see the same thing on Doorman: thin on his right and thick on his left. 

And on his left, our right, you see the flat collar, a button loop beneath it, and then a long lapel. American shirts don't do that, and neither do shirts that are made for the American market. That was a Russian shirt that Oswald brought back with him. Oswald beat his enemies just in getting dressed that morning. He foiled them just by wearing that distinctive Russian shirt. And it's because of the distinctive look of that shirt that they put that freaky guy in the tie in there, who is overlapping Doorman in an impossible way. You could never duplicate that image, and I went to Dealey Plaza and proved it. But, it was to cover up the unique construction and arrangement of Oswald's shirt that they had to plop that other guy in there. Who was he? Nobody. Don't waste your time trying to identify him. 

But, it gets worse. Look at the bottom of Oswald's shirt. It wasn't just a Russian shirt; it was an old, tattered Russian shirt. You've heard of Raggedy Ann. Well, he was Raggedy Lee. And just imagine if that showed. And that's why they put the head of Carl Jones in beneath him. Carl was there, standing in the corner, but he was out of view to Altgens' camera due to parallax. So, they took a photo taken by Congressman Phil Willis about 3 pm when the employees were leaving, which included this image of Carl, and they transferred it to the Altgens photo to hide the tattered condition of Oswald's shirt, and also to hide the fact that he was clasping his hands in front of his body, as he often did. So, both guys crowding Oswald in the Altgens photo are fake. 

Look: it isn't close. It is clearly Oswald in the doorway, in Oswald's clothes, and doing Oswald's stance. There is too much likeness of the man and the clothing here for it not to be him. And I mean way too much likeness. 

   

 Let's get something straight: There are no arguments left to claim that Billy Lovelady was Doorman. He NEVER said that he was. Not once in the 16 years that he lived past 1963. 

Lovelady was treated like kryptonite. In 1967, CBS paid him to return to Dallas to participate in their 4 hour JFK Special. They took his picture, and they interviewed him, and after doing that, they not only cancelled his involvement in the program, they also eliminated the whole Doorman segment. They didn't mention it at all. That's how they were affected by what Lovelady said. So, what do you think he told them?

When Josiah Thompson was researching SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS, he wanted to interview Lovelady but found out that he was inaccessible. Other authors found that out too.  

Then, in 1976, HSCA Lawyer Ken Brooten went to visit Lovelady in Colorado. Brooten was chief lawyer at the HSCA, and he was subpoenaing people left and right, and I mean for 6-7 hours of deposition.  But, after meeting with Lovelady, he not only made a firm decision not to subpoena him, he also decided to resign so that he could become Lovelady's lawyer so that he could protect him from any other summons he might get. He didn't want Lovelady talking, to anybody, ever. Period.  

But, consider this debauchery: When the story broke about a guy in the doorway looking and dressing like Oswald, the FBI went into action. They stormed Lovelady's house the evening of Saturday, November 23. And according to Patricia Lovelady (Lovelady's wife) they brought with them a blow-up of the doorway that was "as big as a desk." 

Sounds diligent, doesn't it? But, in that situation, why didn't they also storm Oswald's cell and ask him about it? He was alive and well that Saturday night. And I'm sure he wasn't doing anything. And he was the guy that people thought they recognized in the Altgens photo, both his person and his clothing. So, how could they only ask Lovelady about it and not Oswald? What would it have hurt to ask Oswald? Don't you think they would have done that if they were honest? 

There are no talking points for Lovelady as Doorman. He never said he was, and the very obvious action of calling him in to speak to reporters and to a sea of microphones and cameras, was never done. He did testify to the Warren Commission, but he never told them he was Doorman. 

And he did NOT look like Oswald. That was a lie. Oswald was 5'9" 131 pounds. That's skinny. I am 5'6" and weigh 143 pounds. And people tell me I'm skinny. Lovelady was weighed and measured by the FBI on February 29, 1964, and they said he was 5'8" and 170 pounds. But, that was over 3 months later, and  I think it is VERY likely that he lost weight because of all the stress he was under. So compared to Oswald, Lovelady was stocky. They were like Laurel and Hardy. 

And the fact is that Doorman looks skinny- like Oswald. 

Here is a collage of Lovelady, Doorman, and Oswald, all photographed the same day: 11/22/63. 

On the left is Lovelady from the Couch film. Billy is wearing the short-sleeved shirt that he told the FBI that he wore.  And they stated it in two reports. Then look how well the man and the clothing match between Doorman and Oswald. 

The Lovelady claim was never more than an elaborate lie, and not by Billy. It's very clear that he did not like being Doorman. It was a gig he didn't ask for or relish. It was something that was forced upon him, and it absolutely ruined his life. And it's very likely that he was killed in 1979. They said that he died of a fatal first heart attack at age 41. I know it happens, but, it's pretty damn rare at that age. And we know that they possessed the heart attack gun that could have induced a heart attack.  

We know that the supposed footage of Lovelady milling around in front of the TSBD 10 minutes after the shooting is fake and could not possibly be him.  That's because he wasn't there at the time. Lovelady left immediately with Billy Shelley to comb the railway yard. They joined the throng of people who did that. And then, they returned to work by going around to the back door. They never returned to the front again. That's in Lovelady's WC testimony- and also in Shelley's. But, the FBI apparently didn't read it. Also, they forgot to spread Gorilla Man's shirt open, the way Doorman's was.  

Likewise, the footage of Lovelady in the Squad room is fake. Lovelady testified under oath to the WC that the last time he saw Oswald was at the TSBD. He said nothing about seeing Oswald at the DPD.  So, who was the guy at the desk in the Squad Room? He was nobody. There was nobody sitting there. And it wasn't a desk; it was a supply table. The place where Lovelady was supposedly sitting was right in the traffic lane. That was a photographic trick in which they inserted the image of a man into the film. And it's the reason why no one in the film reacts to him. Nobody looks at him or acts like he's there. He wasn't there.

 Now, I don't want to hear another person claim that Lovelady identified himself as the Man in the Doorway because he did not. Other people did but not him. 

But, Lovelady did come into money after the assassination. He moved to Colorado and started his own freight company. He also became a major real estate holder in Colorado. At the time of the assassination, he worked at the TSBD for $1.11/hour and didn't have a pot to piss in. The JFK assassination was lucrative to others too, such as Marina Oswald. The money she got after the assassination was equivalent to millions today. 

It was Oswald in the doorway: same man, same clothes, same stare, same stance (with hands clasped in front of his body). Stop fighting it because it's hopeless.  

 

 I have pointed out that the Zapruder film shows us that JFK was shot in the back high on the hill. Here is frame 206 in which JFK's face was smudged out, and Jackie is turned and looking at him. Neither of them is waving. Supposedly, nothing has happened yet, but both of them have checked out. 

And just the fact that they shortened the distance from the intersection to the freeway sign tells you that something was happening in that space that they wanted to bury. 

In the Zapruder film, Kennedy gets to the freeway sign too fast, and for two reasons: because they shortened the distance and because they sped up the limo. And it was all to hide the fact that he was shot in the back high on the hill.

And, there is corroborating evidence that JFK was shot in the back high on the hill: the 3 photos that were taken on Elm Street: Croft, Betzner, and Willis. We'll start with Croft. 

'

What should jump out at you first about this Croft photo is Jackie's dour expression. Supposedly, nothing has happened yet, so why isn't she smiling and waving? Also, her hair in the Croft photo is wrong. Look at her on the right. Her hair was styled in a bouncy flip. It wasn't glued down. Her face in the Croft photo was taken from a tv broadcast she did in mid-January to thank the American people for their cards and letters. They horizontally flipped her image. And remember what Croft said, that the FBI took his photo on 11/22 and didn't return it until the end of January. So, why did they replace her head in the Croft photo? It was because she must have been turned and looking at him, knowing that something was wrong. And they extended her hair and sealed shut his eye and covered his mouth, all to hide the startled look on his face- from being shot in the back. And he is not waving. And because his jacket was disrupted by the shot, they put a rectangular panel over it. The white arrow is pointing to it. Fools said that that was his jacket "bunching up." It was not. If you look closely at it, you can see that it's panel.

In Betzner, what jumps out at you is the big obstruction of the man on the left. 

  Are you aware that Betzner denied that any such man existed? And he was looking through the viewfinder, so he ought to know. Why was the man put there? It was probably to hide Jackie still turned to her husband and showing concern for him. She knew that there was something wrong. And again, neither of them are waving. 

And by the way, most of those people at the freeway sign weren't there. How do I know? Look at the Bronson photo, where it's just Umbrella Man and Dark Complected Man close to the sign. It's the exact same time.

So, right about dead center you see the sign. You're only seeing the pole because the sign is in profile to us. But, it's just Umbrella Man and Dark Complected Man there. 

Then, the Willis photo is said to be the last image before JFK was shot. It is a weird image because it hardly looks photographic. It looks more like art. JFK's image looks like art, like it was done with paint. The people under the sign look like crude art and unphotographic. But JFK isn't waving, and neither are the people closest to him. Even Umbrella Man looks unphotographic. That is extremely crude imagery.  

JFK was shot in the back high on the hill, but it could not have been a regular bullet. If it were a regular bullet that, say, stopped short in his back, then his ride down the hill would have been very different. He would have known that he was shot, and there would have been nothing wrong with his mind. So, he would have taken action. And he would have spoken, since there would have been no reason why he couldn't. He would have been the sharp, quick-witted, fast-thinking guy that he normally was. He wouldn't have just ridden down the hill without saying anything or doing anything. But, that's what he did. He rode down the hill without saying anything or doing anything. 

So, it couldn't have been a regular bullet that hit him. And the fact is, a regular bullet couldn't have stopped that short anyway, because that would violate the laws of physics. However, an ice dart could, and an ice dart did. It was a toxin-laden ice dart. That is not far-fetched. It is the only plausible explanation for everything we see: JFK's mental vacancy and complete mental collapse, his spreading spastic dystonia and dyskinesia, and his complete aphasia (inability to speak). A metal bullet in the back that only went in an inch and a half, damaging only skin, fascia, and muscle, couldn't do that. It had to be what I'm telling you. 

 The one shot we got to see graphically in all the motorcade films is the fatal head shot in the Zapruder film. Some have tried to claim that we see it in the Muchmore film, but if that's true, why doesn't it look like the Zapruder film? There is no head-burst in the Muchmore film, and there is no violent "back and to the left" movement of JFK's head. There is no Jackie dodging JFK's head like it was a ballistic missile- like we see in the Zapruder film. So, if that's the fatal head shot in the Muchmore film, it is categorically different from the one in the Zapruder film, and that is a problem because there is no excuse for it. It's been sanitized. And the same goes for the Nix film. 

So, it's just the Zapruder film that shows it graphically. So, why did they let us see it there, when it appears that they made sure we didn't see it in the other films? 

First, their decision to let us to see it in the Z-film was not made at first. It was just the opposite; they kept it from us. Our first look at the Zapruder film was a week after the assassination in the November 29, 1963 LIFE magazine, which I possess. You can find it for sale online, on EBAY or ETSY, and it's not expensive. 

It's worth having because it includes an article about Oswald and Marina by Tommy Thompson, in which he didn't even mention that he and a LIFE photographer were the ones who transported Marina to the DPD on Saturday for her visit with Oswald, and then, instead of taking her back home to Irving, where she lived, they, inexplicably, checked her into a hotel on the outskirts of Dallas, the Executor Inn, where they plied her with cash, and then left her in the hands of the Secret Service, who started their "protective custody" of her immediately- before Oswald was killed. Do you think maybe they knew he was going to be killed? Damn straight they did. 

So, Tommy Thompason was responsible for manuvering Marina into the hands of the Secret Service before Oswald was killed, and that's why he didn't mention it. 

But, getting back to the 11/29 LIFE magazine, they published 31 frames from the Zapruder film, but it did not include 313- the fatal head shot. And they did not say there was a fatal head shot. They only mentioned two shots, one that hit JFK when he was behind the sign, resulting in him clutching his throat, starting at 225. Then, they claimed that Connally was hit separately, and their frame for that looks to be 239. 

Then, amazingly, they claimed the Jackie "suddenly" became aware of what was going on at frame 262, which is ridiculous. She was already turned and focused on her husband by frame 194, which was before they vanished behind the phony freeway sign. Then, they just said that he collapsed on his wife's shoulder, without mentioning that he was shot again. 

So, what were they thinking at that time? First, there were no plans at that time to ever show the Zapruder film to the public. They eventually did in 1975, so 12 years later. But, a tremendous amount of editing had to be done, and the technology for it didn't exist in 1963. The altering of the Zapruder film took not weeks or months but years. 

But, why were they unwilling to mention the fatal head shot? It may be because they were aware of James Tague getting grazed by a bullet or a fragment. So, they knew they had to save a bullet for him. They knew that they only had three bullets to work with. So, JFK, Connally, and Tague was their assignment of the three bullets at that time.  

But then, as you know, in April 1964, Arlen Specter put forward the Single Bullet Theory, which became doctrine. And in September 1964, the Warren Commission recognized the fatal head shot, and the next month, LIFE magazine did too in their October 1964 issue which returned to the Zapruder film, including their publication of frame 313, in all its gore-y. 

But, since they were claiming that all the shots came from the rear, why did they ever let us see the "back and to the left" motion of JFK's head? Are you like me in that you can still see and hear Kevin Costner as Jim Garrison telling the jury, "Back and to the left, back and to the left, back and to the left" ? 

So, why didn't they cut that out of the Zapruder film? Considering that they had 12 years to do it, they surely could have found a way to delete it. After all, they did delete the limo making the turn from Houston to Elm. Frame 132 shows the advance motorocycle cops; then in frame 133, it jumps to the limo suddenly being on Elm, having completed the turn. Here is the "dog ate my homework" excuse I found on Chat GPT:

• Zapruder initially aimed at the lead motorcycles and cars coming down Houston Street.

• As the motorcade turned left from Houston onto Elm, he momentarily lagged behind the limousine, which was not the very first vehicle of interest to him.

• When he caught up, he quickly panned right and re-centered the limo.

That rapid pan creates the impression of a “jump.”

I say "horse shit" to that, but what I don't know is what happened in the intersection to make them remove it. I know for sure that JFK was shot in the back high on the hill, which was the nerve agent shot, but I don't think it happened in the intersection. 

But, it's not just that they let us see the gore; I believe they enhanced it. This is what they published in LIFE magazine on October 2, 1964:

Other renderings of 313 don't look exactly like that. And if that's what the camera saw, why didn't spectators report seeing it, the bursting of the front of his head? Why didn't the Parkland doctors report seeing it? Why don't the autopsy photos show it? 

And what is wrong with Americans? Knowing what LIFE published in November 1963, why didn't Americans scream bloody murder in 1964? How dare LIFE not only withhold that frame but withhold even mentioning the shot in 1963?  That was deception. It was misinformation. It was lying. 

But, what was the reality? How did the frame really look? I have to think it showed the big blow-out wound in the back of his head, described by the Parkland doctors. You notice that this image looks more like a painting than a photograph. And I do believe that paint was involved.

But, the big question is: why were they intent on horrifying us with that image but sanitizing all the others? I think it's because they wanted your eyes and mind to fixate on that and ignore all the other things they did to the Zapruder film.  In other words, it's a distraction. 

By October 1964, the Single Bullet Theory was doctrine. So, the Zapruder film had to show JFK reaching the sign unharmed. Then, he and Connally are shot with one bullet behind the sign. Then, JFK is shot again at 313. And that leaves a bullet for Tague. Bingo, it's Kismet.  

But, that is not what happened. JFK was shot in the back high on the hill, which was the nerve agent shot, and he rode down the hill that way, reacting only to that. Then, he was shot in the throat, and that too was a dissolvable missile, although it wasn't a frozen dart. It was something else, and all we can do is go by what Charles Senseney told the Church Committee. Then Connally was shot, and I don't claim to know how many shots that entailed. 

Removing JFK's ride down the hill reacting only to the back shot was a gargantuan task. It involved removing a large swatch of the film. They also installed the large, phony freeway sign, and they shortened the distance between it and Houston St. The idea was to make it look like JFK was smiling and waving until he disappeared behind the sign, but they didn't entirely succeed at that.  Here is frame 206, which was before the vanishing act, and you can see that JFK's face is smudged out (no doubt because he looked distressed) and Jackie is turned and looking at him. 

So, the bottom line is that they let us see the fatal head shot, in plenty of gore but not the real gore, in the Zapruder film because they altered so much in that film that they didn't want us to discover. They gave us a very graphic fatal head shot to preoccupy us and to keep us busy, so that we wouldn't question other things in the film, starting with the phony freeway sign and the shortened distance to it. 

JFK was shot in the back high on the hill and before the Croft photo. He was definitely shot in the back prior to this photo, and they did a ton of stuff to this photo to hide that fact. The arrow points to where he was already hit. That is not Jackie's face from 11/22/63. Why would she look like that when, supposedly, nothing has happened yet? Shouldn't she have been smiling and waving? That image was taken from a television broadcast she did in January 1964 with Bobby and Teddy by her side. 

 

 

 

 Tonight, I got to record a song with legendary guitarist Rick McRae, who is George Strait's lead guitarist, and has been for decades. The song we did is STARS FELL ON ALABAMA from 1934, which is about the biggest and grandest meteor shower in recorded history, the Leonid Meteor Shower in Alabama.  It's a jazz standard from the Great American Songbook. 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckt7rozoRmM

The JFK motorcade films have something in common. The only one that shows JFK graphically being shot is the Zapruder film, and that shows only one shot, the fatal head shot; and not any of the other shots. The other films either don't show anything or they offer something very obscure.  

I find it strange that just one film displayed the true gore of the assassination. 

We'll start with the Zapruder film. The centerpiece of it is the freeway sign, and it isn't real. The real one is on the right.

So, in the Zapruder film, the sign is too big, and it is angled wrong. It is turned towards the road, instead of being perpendicular to it, as you can see on the right. But, that's not all. It's also too high on the hill. You can see that the fort across the street is closer to it than it should be. Those people lined up at the top of the image were on Houston Street, and the sign wasn't that close to Houston Street. I can explain what they did. They wanted to hide the fact that JFK was shot in the back high on the hill, and he rode down the hill that way, reacting to that one shot. They wanted to make it that he wasn't shot in the back until he reached the sign, and then he was shot in the back, and it exited his throat. That's not what happened. They were two separate shots, and the back shot came first. So, in order to tell their story, they had to shorten the distance, so that it seemed like he wasn't shot until he was behind the sign. 

However, if you look closely at the Zapruder film, you can see that JFK was shot before he got to the sign. 

 

You can see that Jackie is turned and looking at him. The back of her pill box hat is pointed to our right, and her bangs in front are left of that. So, she is looking at him. And his face is smudged out. It looks like he has his hand over his face. He didn't do that. They did that- with paint. He must have had a distraught look on his face, and that was from being shot in the back. And he really was shot with an ice flechette that contained a toxic payload, including a nerve agent. So, the story of the Zapruder film, that JFK reached the sign fine and dandy; and then bad things happened behind the sign, isn't even true. The film, itself, tells us that he was shot before he reached the sign. Still, they used the phony sign to hide what really happened.  

But, they went about it differently with the Nix film. First, the quality of it is so crude and so poor, even for 1963. The Elm Street part of it is so sparse with the head shot that it's very easy to miss it completely. He's sitting there, all contracted, and then his head moves, but not violently towards Jackie, like in the Zapruder film. It's more that the image of his head falls apart. Jackie never has to dodge his head, as she does in the Zapruder film. And then, she starts climbing on the back of the limo. If you want to say that this is the head shot, I can't stop you, but it's nothing like the Zapruder film. 

And why would Orville Nix start filming at that late point? Why wasn't he filming on Elm Street before that? And notice that you don't even see Mary Moorman in that frame. Supposedly, she didn't take her picture until AFTER the fatal head shot. But, why Why WHY would she wait so long when she was poised to take her picture when the limo was at the top of the hill?  Let's look at Muchmore. 

In Muchmore, there is a puff of smoke, but his head doesn't move. It's nothing like the Zapruder film. It's so meager and so subtle that it's more like a token head shot than a real one. 

Considering how graphic the head shot is in the Zapruder film, why would the same head shot be so diminished here? 

Bronson is a waste of time because you don't see anything. 

It's after all the shots, and there is nothing discernible. So, Bronson didn't start until after the shots either. Uh-huh. 

The most memorable thing about the Hughes film is the Girl in Blue on the pedestal, Toni Glover. I don't believe she did it. And the story is that both she and her frumpy, middle-aged mother did it.- climbed that pedestal. Supposedly, her mother is standing in front of her. Think about it. Her mother was taller and wider. So, how could Toni see anything with her mother in front of her on that pedestal? Wouldn't it have made more sense for Toni to be in front and her mother behind?

So, why did they come up with that? It was because Oswald was standing in the middle of the doorway, and they had to cover him up. And what they did was put the Doorman right above Carl Jones.

Look at this collage, and start on the right, which is the Wiegman film. Notice that Doorman is in the center of the doorway. On the left, which is Hughes, he is huddled with Carl. He wasn't. That's fake. 

Weigman and HUghes were taken at the same time shooting the same thing. They may have done that because in the Altgens photo, Oswald seems to be next to the white column. But, that was due to the parallax effect from Altgens' angle. The fact is that the Doorman (Oswald) stood in the center of the doorway.  

And when it came to Elm Street, Hughes captured nothing. It was completely over by the time he got to it, and we see nothing. 

The most significant thing about the Mark Bell film is that it also shows Toni Glover, and in it, you can see her Mom in front of her quite well.

Again, it makes no sense. Toni in front with her mother's arms around her, securing her from behind- that would have made sense. But, Bell didn't catch anything from the shooting. By the time his camera got to it, the cars were speeding away. Oh well, another miss. 

Elsie Dorman didn't catch anything of the shooting. She was on the 4th floor of the TSBD, so why after shooting the limo coming down Houston didn't she follow it down Elm? There's no answer. But, she did catch Toni and her mother.

Does it look to you that Toni and her mother were standing on the pedestal? It doesn't to me. And they were very boisterous, and one would not be boisterous on that pedestal. I know because I have stood on that pedestal; several times; and it's scary. It's high and it's narrow. You don't feel safe, and you don't want to move around. You're not going to be all worked up like Toni and her mother in the Dorman film. On the right, it's Toni standing on the pedestal years later. Notice how much higher she is than the man on the sidewalk. Now look left again, and notice that Toni and her mother don't look any higher than the people on the curb.

The Wiegman film shows Oswald in the doorway. That is the most important thing about it. But, it shows nothing of the shooting. Since the press car was the 7th car in the motorcade, it was a ways behind, so it's not surprising that nothing was captured. And the same goes for the Darnell and Couch films, which were taken from the second press car, even farther back. So, they have nothing of the shooting either. 

The Martin film shows nothing of the shooting, even though it could have. The only significant thing about the Martin film is that when they came up with the phony footage of Lovelady outside the TSBD ten minutes after the shooting, they claimed it was from the Martin film. It was not. Look at the qualitative difference. 

Why would anyone believe that those two very disparate images were taken by the same camera?

The Daniel film was taken from beyond the Triple Underpass, so he caught nothing of the shooting. 

The Paschal film starts on Houston Street and then goes to the Triple Underpass with nothing in-between. She was on the 3rd floor of the Courthouse, so she easily could have captured all the action on Elm Street; every bit of it. And she probably did. But, the FBI saw to it that she didn't.  

The Jefferies film was taken 90 seconds before the motorcade reached Dealey Plaza, so it is not a film of the assassination. 

So, those are all the motorcade films, and none of them show any shots except for the Z-film showing the fatal head shot.  So, the story is that all the filmers missed all the action on Elm Street, even though most of them started on Houston Street. Are you buying it? And every one of the films was handled by the FBI. We have never seen anything that the feds didn't handle first. 

So, why am I pointing this out to you now? It's because it shows that the feds did not want us see what happened to JFK. And that tells you why they couldn't let us see Mary Moorman's real photo either. She caught JFK being shot, and she said so. But, that was off-limits. This is her standing in the street demonstrating how she took her picture. 

This was a few months later, the Spring of 1964. I don't know what that white object is in her hands, but she was using it to represent her camera. She was showing how she stood in the street, facing east, and that she photographed the Kennedys as they approached her- which made sense. She said she was particularly interested in getting their faces- which also made sense. So, how could she have wound up with the image on the right? She couldn't have. 

We didn't get to see any carnage in any of the motorcade films (except Zapruder). They made sure of that. And they weren't going to let us see Mary's photo either. So, why did they let us see the fatal head shot in the Zapruder film? I'll get to that, but it's a topic for another discussion.