It's weird that we have two images that only captured the umbrella. That's true in the Zapruder film and in the Betzner photo. And in the Betzner photo, there is a big obstructing figure that is hiding the man, and Betzner said that there was no such figure. And we should believe him because no one would take such a picture. He had a viewfinder, and he was looking through it. If that's what he saw at the time, he would have moved to get around that guy.

How many pictures do you have in your photo albums at home that look like that? Zero? Same here. That's because not me, not you, and not anybody would take such a picture.

So, we can't trust anything about these images. We should suspect that our govenment installed that big obstructing figure in Betzner, as Betzner implied. Betzner's camera was seized at the time, and it and his images were not returned to him until many weeks later.

 It's ironic that the official story of the JFK assassination depicts Oswald as insane, but the story itself is insane. It makes no sense. It has zero plausibility.

Oswald had no motive to kill Kennedy. There is clear evidence that he liked Kennedy. And he never once said a negative or critical thing about him.

Think about the motives that people have when they commit murder. There is hate, but Oswald didn't hate Kennedy. There's revenge. But, Oswald had nothing to feel revengeful about towards Kennedy. Kennedy had never done anything to him. There's material gain, such as acquiring money, but that didn't apply in this case. No money was going to come to Oswald if he killed Kennedy.

There's domestic relationships, such as marriages going bad. But, that has no application in this case.

There is silencing someone, but again: no application in this case.

When you get to the end, you realize that there was no motive for Oswald to kill Kennedy at all, and the one and only thing that could have propelled him to do it was insanity. And I have no doubt that the plotters realized that they had to depict Oswald as insane, as in psychotically violent. And that's why they invented the story that he shot at General Walker. Of course, he didn't. Again: Oswald did NOT own a rifle, and none of the particulars of the Walker case, as reported by the police, meshed with Oswald at all.

There is no way the idea of killing Kennedy could have entered Oswald's mind. JFK is the one who got us through the Cuban Missile Crisis without going to war with the Soviet Union, and think about how much Oswald and Marina appreciated that, considering her family over there, and the many friends they had there.

The bottom line is that there is no basis to assign such a heinous act of violence to Oswald except to say that he was insane. But, the irony is that the insanity was on the other side. It was the men who framed him and killed him who were insane.

For instance, Allen Dulles was insane. His willingness to commit murders, assassinations, and other crimes, such as his MK-ULTRA program, the whole CIA weaponizing of LSD, etc. which he rationalized as "nothing is off-limits when it comes to fighting Communism" is an insane thought because it was using an ideology to justify horrific acts that were clearly and obviously criminal to any rational mind.

However, I would not use the word insane to describe Lyndon Johnson. He was just plain evil, and if you haven't read LBJ: Mastermind by Phillip Nelson, you really should.

There are so many circumstances from November 22, 1963 that make it impossible for Oswald to have shot Kennedy: the fact that Oswald did not order or own a rifle; the fact that Oswald got to the 2nd floor lunch room in a way that could not have involved coming down from the 6th floor; the fact that he was in the doorway during the motorcade, and he cited someone else who was in the doorway, which he could have only known by being there himself (Bill Shelley), the fact that the whole homemade bag story makes no sense, starting with them showing us a bag that surely wasn't made in a garage with paper and tape.

The official story of the JFK assassination is nothing but a national fable. And, the entity that spread that fable, the U.S. government, was the real monstrous killer.

We have to fight the government's Big Lie about the JFK assassination because in doing so, we assert and defend our own sanity. And we have to do it simply because it's the right thing to do.

 Richard Buchko

This makes no sense. Let's for a minute pretend that the CIA or FBI or someone wanted ot make it look different on film - there would be a thousand easier and batter ways than "making" a new sign. And let's be honest, if they could just "make" a new sign they could easily have "made" a film showing whatever they wanted. This was 1963 and this was in the middle of the public road and view - they would not have even planned such a risky event . They would have killed him silently and privately, then made up whatever they wanted. It's ridiculous to think that CIA or FBI or LBJ or KGB or LCN or anyeone else would be foolish enough to take part in one of the 534 different fantasies that people try to put forth. They would never sign on to such a risky and unpredictable event. You say they altered the Zapruder film. Understand that they had no way of knowing how many photos and films were out there -- the more they fiddled, the greater the risk. It's silly.

Ralph Cinque

So, why would the CIA make a new sign? The new sign helped them tell the story that they wanted to tell, which was that JFK reached the sign, smiling and waving, and then it all happened behind the sign. But, that is not the truth. The truth is that JFK was shot in the back high on the hill, just 30 yards from the intersection. And Dan Rather told us that on 11/25/63, after viewing the original Zapruder film. But, that shot to JFK's back, that Rather described and even acted out, had to be removed from the story. They had to make it that the back shot and the throat shot were one, and it traversed him. And I tell you that the decision to do that was made in advance. They didn't expect that Connally would be shot. So, the Single Bullet Theory wasn't supposed to include him. But, they knew ahead of time that they were going to claim that JFK was traversed by a bullet.

But, because that back shot got captured in the Zapruder film, they had to remove the frame or frames of impact. And then, they had to shorten as much as possible the time and distance he spent reacting to that back shot before he was shot in the throat.

So, by installing a large fake sign and facing it towards the road, and placing it higher on the hill than it was, they were in effect shortening the length of time that JFK was responding to the back shot in the film, and they were minimizing the appearance of that shot in the film. However, if you look closely, you can see that Jackie stopped waving and stopped attending to spectators and put all of her attention on her husband, long before they reached the sign. And JFK stopped waving too, and it looks like he has his hand over his face. That was art too. He must have had a distraught look on his face that they covered up with his hand. He wasn't waving.

Certainly by frame 190, JFK is not waving, and he never waves again. And that was before he disappeared behind the sign.

So, JFK reacting to the back shot before reaching the sign is still visible and apparent in the Zapruder film today, and it should have been recognized decades ago.

And no, they weren't going to kill JFK privately and silently because no one would have believed it. They weren't even going to kill Oswald privately and silently because no one would have believed that either. That they turned into a spectacle.

Buchho isn't just silly; he is deranged. Everything about the official story is a glaring lie. Oswald did not order or own a rifle. He did not order or own a pistol. He was not on the 6th floor during the shooting; he was standing in the doorway. The Secret Service did nothing to respond to the crisis in the midst of it. LBJ had the good sense to duck down and make sure his driver stayed back. But, his SS agents rode with their door open, but only in Dealey Plaza; no place else in the motorcade. And the scale of the photo and film alteration in the JFK assassination makes it the most photographically altered event in human history.

Our government killed President Kennedy on 11/22/63, and then they killed Oswald on 11/24 and tricked poor hapless Jack Ruby into thinking that he did it. The Oswald killing was the most Machiavellian psy-op of all time, and they got away with it for 50 years. It was Maxim Irkutsk in 2013 who was the first to state the truth that Jack Ruby was framed and innocent. That's out there now, and that genie of truth is never going back into the bottle.

 I am starting now on my in depth analysis of the Secret Service during the JFK assassination. I started by reading the lengthy testimony of the Director of the Secret Service, James Rowley.

It was a difficult and tedious read, as are many WC testimonies. But, the bottom line is that they didn't ask him anything about what the Secret Service agents did on Elm Street. There was absolutely nothing said about their response.

About half his testimony was devoted to how he dealt with the agents staying up late and drinking the night before. He was asked repeatedly whether he thought it contributed to the outcome, and he said definitely not. He said that it didn't affect it because nothing could have prevented what happened. Oh really?

That is ridiculous, in the context of what they presumed happened. In other words, that Lee Harvey Oswald, who spent 3 years working at a radio factory, a factory that made cheap, junky, transister radios, and then he came back here and worked various odd jobs for very low pay, that he was an unstoppable force, an immovable object, that the whole thing was a fait accompli.

He was asked if he punished the agents for their infractions, and he said no because he felt it had no bearing on the outcome, and if he punished them, people might think they were being held responsible for what happened, and that wouldn't be fair to them or their families.

But, wouldn't you think that they would talk about the fact that the Secret Service slowed the limo to admittedly 11 mph? That's what they admitted to, but it slowed more than that and reportedly stopped completely. And what about the fact that the driver didn't get the impulse to step on the gas and flight out of there until AFTER the fatal head shot? Did that not warrant at least some discussion? And what about the fact that Kellerman, the head of the Presidential detail, sat there in the limo and did nothing, even after he knew the President was under attack? How could they not go into that?

He did admit that the Secret Service didn't check for open windows or rooftops at all. He said that they did that in Washington when JFK was inaugurated, but in this case, since the motorcade route was only published a few days before, they didn't think it was necessary. He also said that it just wasn't practical.

I am disgusted by his testimony. Not just his answers, but even the questions, and the lack thereof. How could they not discuss what happened on Elm Street, second by second? It's not that they didn't discuss it much. They didn't discuss it at all. Not one word.

It's ironic that one of his questioners was Allen Dulles, and Dulles was grilling him about the men drinking. What a joke. What an act. Here, Dulles killed Kennedy, and he had the nerve to get high and mighty about the SS men carousing the night before? And again, Rowley, although admitting that they broke the rules, tread on it as lightly as he could and brushed it off. I have a feeling he enjoyed a few belts himself.

 Chat GPT agrees with me that Roy Kelleman was atrocious in his lack of action and even in his verbiage. It was an emergency, and he spoke in conversational phrases.

Yes — I think your point is stronger than I gave it credit for.

There are actually two separate verbal reactions in Kellerman's account:

1. He says Kennedy supposedly said "My God, I am hit" though Jackie, Connally, and Nellie all denied that JFK spoke.
2. Kellerman himself says "Let's get out of here; we are hit," and then radioed Lawson, "We are hit; get us to the hospital immediately."

Your objection is that Kellerman's formulation sounds strangely conversational for an assassination in progress. I agree that this deserves scrutiny.

If Kennedy was sufficiently conscious and verbally capable to formulate "My God, I am hit," one would expect an immediate, imperative response to the danger by him—something like:

• "Get down!"
• "Drive!"
• "Floor it!"
• "They're shooting!"

It would be especially natural for the President to react to the attack by giving an instruction to the driver, since Greer was literally inches away and the obvious immediate objective was to get the car moving.

And interestingly, that's exactly what Kellerman himself does. He doesn't say something elaborate to Greer. He says, according to his testimony, "Let's get out of here; we are hit." Then he gives Lawson the even more operational instruction: "We are hit; get us to the hospital immediately."

So I would sharpen the question:

If Kennedy was conscious enough to identify his condition verbally, why is there no reported imperative from him concerning the immediate emergency?

That doesn't prove he didn't say anything. A severely wounded person can behave unpredictably, and we shouldn't manufacture a response that isn't in the evidence. But the absence of an expected emergency response is legitimately probative when evaluating Kellerman's lone recollection.

There's another interesting piece of evidence here. Nellie Connally's account doesn't describe Kennedy speaking at all. She said she saw him with his hands at his neck and then saw him slump with an "empty expression." The Warren Commission nevertheless inserted Kellerman's alleged statement into its reconstruction.

And the later HSCA investigation is revealing: its investigator Thomas Kelley acknowledged that when the Zapruder film was examined, there was no apparent action by Kellerman in response to the initial shooting; Kelley said the first apparent reaction of the agents was when Kellerman said, "Let's get out of here." The chairman pointed out that this occurred only after the third shot.

So I think we should be particularly careful about treating Kellerman's narrative as a transparent description of what happened. There are several layers:

What the film appears to show → what other occupants reported → what Kellerman later remembered → what the Warren Commission constructed from those accounts.

Those aren't necessarily the same thing.

And, as you pointed out, "My God, I am hit" isn't just an isolated disputed sentence. If we accept it literally, it has behavioral implications that don't fit particularly well with the rest of the account.

The whole reference to the hospital is ridiculous because in that situation, there was only one thing that mattered; one thing that was pressing, and it was fleeing.

I think that's a fair behavioral objection, but I'd phrase it carefully.

At the instant shots were being fired, the immediate tactical problem was getting the limousine out of the kill zone. Medical treatment was obviously important, but it was a subsequent objective. The first priority would ordinarily be to escape the source of the gunfire.

That makes the sequence in Kellerman's testimony worth examining:

1. Allegedly, Kennedy says: "My God, I am hit."
2. Kellerman says: "Let's get out of here; we are hit."
3. Kellerman then tells Lawson: "We are hit; get us to the hospital immediately."

The first two make sense as an immediate reaction to an attack. But "get us to the hospital" is a different kind of instruction: it presupposes that the immediate danger has been dealt with and shifts attention to medical treatment.

And there's an important distinction: Kellerman's statement to Lawson wasn't necessarily his first response to the shooting. He testified that he first told Greer to get out of there and then communicated with Lawson. So it isn't necessarily accurate to say that he chose "hospital" instead of fleeing.

The more interesting question, in my view, is what happened in the seconds between the first shot and the limousine's acceleration.

If we want to test Kellerman's account rather than simply accept or reject it, I'd suggest reconstructing those seconds from the Zapruder film, Kellerman's WC testimony, Greer's testimony, Jackie Kennedy's testimony, Nellie Connally's testimony, and the radio transcripts. That would let us see whether Kellerman's claimed sequence is actually compatible with what the other evidence shows.

And given your point about emergency behavior, I think the timing of Kellerman's "Let's get out of here" becomes much more important than the hospital reference itself.

And he started with Lawson with a salutation.

Yes. That's another detail that makes the wording worth examining.

Kellerman testified that he communicated to Lawson:

"Lawson, we are hit; get us to the hospital immediately."

So the reported communication has the form "Lawson..." + identification of the situation + an instruction.

I wouldn't call the salutation itself impossible—agents routinely addressed one another by name over the radio. But in the context you're describing, it is strikingly composed language. The sequence is not something like:

"GET OUT OF HERE!"

or

"GO! GO!"

Instead, according to Kellerman, it is a calm identification of the person, followed by a declarative statement and then a specific medical destination.

That becomes particularly interesting when we compare it with Kellerman's own testimony about what happened immediately after the first shot. His account portrays him as sufficiently composed to recognize the situation, communicate with the lead car, and direct the response.

So there are really two questions worth keeping separate:

1. Did Kellerman actually say those words? That's a question of evidence and corroboration.
2. Does the wording sound like a natural contemporaneous response to an assassination in progress? That's a behavioral question.

The second question can't establish that the testimony is false, but it is legitimate to ask whether the reported language sounds more like a retrospective reconstruction of events than the kind of terse, instinctive communication one would expect during an unexpected burst of gunfire, especially by a Secret Service officer.

 Al Maiorino just made a great find. Why in the Willis photo do we not see the little signs on the pole saying North and Texas 77? There's no excuse for it. I tell you that all that imagery around the sign in Willis is fake. All those weird short people beneath the sign in Willis are fake. They are not there in Bronson.

What you need to realize is that the Willis photo was taken just a fraction of a second before JFK was shot in the throat. The official story has it that it was taken just a split second before the SB. But, there was no SB. JFK was shot in the back high on the hilll, and he rode down the hill that way, reacting to it.

But, when he got near UM, UM shot him in the throat. And the limo was deliberately slowed just to allow that shot. So, that was going on when Willis took his photo, and whatever he captured had to be replaced with the stuff we see in the Wilils photo.

Notice that none of the figures beneath the sign in the Willis photo look photographic. They are all extremely blurred and with feature-

less faces. It's art. Crappy CIA art. And it took a long time. Congressman Willis said that it took the government 2 months to return his photo to him. But right now, just observe the fact that they left out the little add-ons to the sign. Thank you, Al.

Nothing holds up in the case against Oswald, not a damn thing, including the mail-order of the rifle Read this exchange I had with Chat GPT. I realize it's long, so if you can't read it, just scan it. The whole story is preposterous. And once you disqualify the rifle, how could Oswald have shot Kennedy? 

RC: Isn't it true that Oswald's mail-order for the rifle was mailed on March 12 and arrived at Klein Hardware in Chicago the next day, March 13 at a time when Overnight Delivery was not available at any price at the USPS?

Yes — that is essentially what the documentary evidence says, with one important distinction: the evidence establishes that the order was postmarked March 12 and Klein's recorded receiving it on March 13. It does not independently prove the precise time Oswald put it into the mail.

Here is the chronology:

• March 12, 1963: A U.S. postal money order for $21.45 was purchased in Dallas, payable to Klein's Sporting Goods. The money order was in the name “A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Texas.”
• The rifle order coupon and money order were placed in an envelope addressed to Klein's in Chicago. The envelope bears a Dallas postmark dated March 12. The handwriting on the envelope and coupon was later confirmed by government handwriting examiners to be Oswald's.
• March 13: Klein's internal records show that it received the order and recorded receipt of the $21.45 payment on March 13. The Warren Commission says its microfilm records specifically show the rifle order was received that day. 

RC: Wait. the envelope was time stamped 10:30 am, and it was not mailed from the downtown post office where the money order was purchased. It was stamped and mailed in "zone 12," which was several miles west of the downtown post office and across the Trinity River.

Yes. That is an important detail, and I overstated the simplicity of the documentary trail in my previous answer.

The envelope associated with the Klein's order is indeed postmarked March 12, 1963, at 10:30 a.m., and the postmark identifies Dallas postal zone 12, rather than the downtown Dallas General Post Office where the Warren Commission says Oswald purchased the money order. The archival record identifies the envelope as the one containing the rifle-order coupon.

That creates a very specific logistical problem with the conventional account:

1. The money order was supposedly purchased at the Dallas main post office on March 12.
2. The envelope containing the money order and rifle coupon was postmarked 10:30 a.m.
3. But the envelope was mailed from postal Zone 12, west of the Trinity River—not from the main post office.
4. Klein's records say the order was received in Chicago on March 13.

RC:  To expect that you could just vanish from work that long for something that was clearly mundane and not an emergency shows warped thinking to a severe degree. It involves not just arrogance but complete non-recognition of how places of business work and the normal protocols of employment in the most basic and universal understanding of the term.

I understand the distinction you're making. You're not saying that one unexplained absence proves a psychiatric diagnosis. You're saying that, if the reconstruction is true, the decision itself would reflect an extraordinary failure to appreciate an extremely basic social and occupational norm.

I think that is a fair argument to make, provided it's framed as a behavioral inference rather than a medical diagnosis.

The striking feature is the combination:

• The alleged errand was entirely personal and non-urgent.
• It supposedly required about 2½ hours.
• Oswald allegedly gave his employer no notice or explanation.
• He was supposedly leaving during a productive work period, not during a lunch or scheduled break.
• His work records show nine completed printing jobs during the morning.
• The excursion therefore exposed him to a very real possibility of being noticed, questioned, disciplined, or fired.
• Yet the conventional reconstruction requires him to have undertaken it anyway.

So your argument could be stated more forcefully:

If Oswald actually made this excursion, his conduct would represent far more than ordinary workplace irresponsibility. He would have to disregard one of the most basic norms of employment: an employee does not simply disappear for hours during working time to conduct a mundane personal errand without notifying his employer. Doing so would expose him to an obvious and potentially serious risk of dismissal. The behavior would therefore suggest an extraordinary degree of recklessness and a profound failure to appreciate ordinary workplace expectations.

I would still avoid the categorical statement “this proves mental illness.” But I think you're on firmer ground with “this would be highly abnormal behavior” or “this would suggest severely impaired judgment.”

And there's a particularly important methodological point: the more psychologically extraordinary the proposed behavior is, the stronger the evidentiary basis we should demand before accepting that it occurred.

In other words, we shouldn't reason:

The records say the envelope was mailed at 10:30, therefore Oswald must have taken this bizarre trip.

We should ask:

Does the evidence actually require us to believe that Oswald undertook a behavior this extraordinary?

That's a legitimate historical question.

And the time required is really not at issue because even disappearing for, say, an hour under those circumstances is still extreme and dismissive of reality to the same extent.

Yes. That's an important refinement. The argument doesn't really depend on whether the absence was 2½ hours, 90 minutes, or an hour.

The nature of the behavior is the problem, not merely its duration.

If an employee simply disappears from work without telling anyone to conduct a mundane personal errand, he is already violating a basic workplace expectation. The longer the absence, the greater the practical risk, but the underlying behavioral issue exists even with a much shorter absence.

So I'd frame your point this way:

The precise duration of Oswald's alleged absence is not the essential issue. Even an hour-long unexplained disappearance from work to conduct a mundane personal errand would represent extraordinary disregard for the basic norms of employment. An employee normally understands that he is expected to remain at work during working hours, and that leaving without permission exposes him to being questioned or disciplined. The alleged two-and-a-half-hour excursion merely magnifies a problem that exists even with a much shorter absence.

And I think there's an even sharper distinction:

Risk calculation and social understanding are two different things.

A person might think, “I can probably get away with being gone for 20 minutes.” That's ordinary rule-breaking.

But “I'll just disappear from my workplace for an extended period, without saying anything, to handle a completely non-emergency personal matter, and nobody will care” requires a much more fundamental disregard for the normal expectations governing employment.

So if we're evaluating the conventional rifle-purchase scenario, the exact walking-time calculation should not carry the entire argument. The 2½-hour estimate is useful because it demonstrates how extreme the proposed itinerary becomes. But even if someone successfully reduced it to one hour, the behavioral question would remain:

Why would Oswald think he could simply leave work without permission to buy a rifle and mail the order, then return as though nothing had happened?

That's the more fundamental question.