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.