This collage clinches it that the imagery of JFK and Jackie in Altgens is bogus. First, look above at the photo from Main Street. It was taken very close to Houston, at the entrance to Dealey Plaza. Look at JFK in that top photo. Notice that he has a very square shoulder, and you can see the point of his shoulder. But, in Altgens he has no square shoulder. It's all one continuous slope, and it isn't real. You can't tell where his shoulder ends and where his arm going down begins.

Notice also that even in the Main Street photo, JFK's hands are raised some. They are not down by his side or in his lap. And you can practically see his elbow. You know exactly where it is, even though the view of it is obstructed by Connally's shoulder. And it would have to be in the same location in Altgens. So, what is Jackie grabbing in Altgens? It can't be his arm because his arm didn't extend out that far.

This proves that what we are seeing of them in Altgens is crappy art. They removed the imagery that was there and replaced it with that crappy art. JFK was NOT yet shot in the throat when the Altgens photo was taken.

 This is the Midnight Press Conference. It starts at 53 seconds. Please watch it. Even if you've watched it before, watch it again. It's only slightly over 1 minute long, so you might as well.

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

Four times he asked for legal assistance. He devoted his whole statement to it; his wanting a lawyer. So, do you really think that 18 hours later, he was offered a lawyer, and he turned it down?

The State told us that, but the State was damaged by his address. The State needed to do damage control over it.

I tell you that Attorney H. Louis Nichols never met with the real Oswald. He met with an Oswald double. And he probably died not realizing it.

The reason I asked you to watch the MPC again is because I wanted you to see how sincerely and earnestly and unflinchingly Oswald asked for a lawyer. He begged for one. And after doing that, if he had turned down a lawyer on the same calendar day, he would have had to be insane. And he was not insane. Oswald never met with Nichols. They waited until Oswald was taken to his Saturday evening interrogation, and then they put an Oswald double in his cell, and that is who turned down Nichols' offer of a lawyer.

And did you hear that racket during his address? You actually hear a man giving a military order: "At ease." It's at 1:37. That's the final order given to a firing squad after they have killed someone. Do you really think someone yelled "At ease" at the Midnight Press Conference? Of course not. Why would someone have done that? It was added in editing. The State did it. They did it to Oswald, and they bamboozled us. They have been bamboozling us for 62 years.

Despite multiple witnesses claiming to see a hole in the windshield, I reject the claim that JFK was shot in the throat through the glass, and for multiple reasons.

First, shooting through the curved, laminated glass of the windshield does deflect the bullet.

Second, the bottom of his throat WAS the target. It’s not as though they were trying to shoot him in the face but missed. Nor is it that they were trying to shoot him in the chest but missed. That tiny little area was the target, and if they took the shot through the windshield, then it had to be taken from far away, such as the bridge over the Triple Underpass. It is not reasonable to think that anyone would expect to hit such a small target from that distance, even without going through glass. And remember that they missed JFK completely in one shot and hit Connally.

Third, if they shot him through the windshield, it had to be a metal bullet, and something had to happen to it.  Either it traversed him or it stayed in him. But, Dr. Perry saw that it was an entrance wound in his throat, and he had the same thought: “What happened to the bullet?” He quickly determined that there was no exit wound for it. Therefore, it had to be in him, and he looked for it. He cut the strap muscle trying to find it. But, he didn’t find it. The Bethesda doctors did not open up JFK’s neck, but they did x-ray him, and they said there was no bullet in him. Now, you can’t say that the bullet was dug out at the “pre-autopsy” because Perry saw JFK before the pre-autopsy. And remember that there were two very different medical teams. One was government (Bethesda) and the other was independent (Parkland). The plotters had to know that the first doctors to see JFK were going to be independent.  We shouldn’t doubt what Dr. Perry first said: that it was an entrance wound, without an exit wound, and no missile was found. And since it wasn’t found by x-ray either, it means that there was no bullet in JFK’s body.

Fourth, all of the above means that JFK was not hit in the throat with a metal bullet. He must have been hit with a “blood soluble” missile that dissolved. I put that in quotes  because that is how the great JFK researcher Jack White put it.  It’s  the only plausible reason why no bullet was found.

Fifth, the plotters knew in advance that they were going to claim that all the shots came from the rear.  So, if they shot him from the front, which they did, they had to do it in a way that they could claim that it came from the rear. So, the plan to call the entrance wound in his throat an exit wound was made beforehand. The truth is that the shot in his back, taken high on the hill, was more like a prick. It was not a metal bullet, and no bullet was found. So, they had to prick his throat too, so that they could claim that it was all one shot that traversed him; hence, no bullet in his back, and no bullet in his throat. So, the Single Bullet Theory was conjured up in advance; it just didn’t include Connally.

Sixth, considering the need to take the throat shot from very close range, and to AVOID having to shoot through the windshield, and to avoid subjecting anyone else in the car to risk, I believe that the throat shot was taken by Umbrella Man using the weapon that Charles Senseny designed for the CIA: an umbrella gun.  Here is his testimony to the Church Committee.

https://aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf

If you read his testimony, you’ll see that he was very impressive and convincing. There are no holes in his story.  But, the guy who claimed to be Umbrella Man to the HSCA, Steven Louis Witt, was a joke.  And do you know who agrees with me? It’s someone who is getting this letter, the great investigative reporter Russ Baker. He wrote this piece: JFK Umbrella Man, More Doubts:

https://whokilledjfk.net/steven_witt.htm

So, just consider that Witt actually told the HSCA that on November 22, 1963, he was not seeking to attend the JFK motorcade. He was just out for his usual lunchtime walk from the insurance company he worked for in downtown Dallas. He said he just ran into the motorcade. AND THEN HE JUST HAPPENED TO PLANT HIIMSELF IN THE TINY LITTLE KILL ZONE???? Of all the places he could stop, he stopped there???? What, did he have intuition? And, why did he have an umbrella with him? When he left his office at 12:15, or whatever, there was no sign of rain. It was sunny and warm. And then he got the idea to taunt JFK with his umbrella? He actually believed that by waving his umbrella, JFK would see him and get the thought, “He is mocking my father with that umbrella because my father tried to prevent World War II, and that umbrella represents Neville Chamberlain who appeased Hitler.” That is preposterous, but it also preposterous that a man who was only 13 years old when WW2 broke out would still be focused on Joseph Kennedy’s actions in the lead-up to the war. By 1963, the Nazis were long gone, and we had a new enemy: the Soviet Union. So how could this insurance salesman still be so mired in the past? It is ridiculous, and it is not credible.  

So, what do I make of the witnesses who claimed to see a bullet hole? I don’t know what to make of them, but I do know that what I’m telling you trumps them. And I have a sneaking suspicion that the plotters wanted the bullet hole story to surface and flourish. And that’s because they added the bullet hole to the windshield of the Altgens photo, to go along with their phony imagery of JFK and Jackie in the back seat, in order to sell the idea that the Altgens photo was taken after the throat shot. It wasn’t. It was taken before the throat shot when the limo was still high on the hill. What the Altgens photo really captured was the back shot, which was supposed to stay under the radar.

But, even if you are not yet ready to support the latter part of this missive, the first part, that the absence of a bullet in JFK’s throat and the absence of an exit wound for it mean that he was not hit with a metal bullet, which means that it was a dissolvable missile, which means that it could not possibly have gone through glass- that is unassailable. JFK was NOT shot in the throat through the windshield, period, and that’s final.

 If the imagery of JFK and Jackie in the Altgens photo is real, then it should correspond to some Zapruder frame without contradiction. I know that Zapruder shot from the north side of Elm, while Altgens was in the street on the south side of Elm. So, there was an angular difference. However, our minds can account for that. With that considered, there still has to be complete consistency.

So, what frame does it correspond to? The urban legend is that it corresponds to 255, and one guy, Rob Mastroianni, proposed it as the matching frame. And I responded by pointing out the discrepancies between Altgens and 255, which you can see below. And I could have said more, but I ran out of room.

And I can do that for any Zapruder frame. That's because there is no Zapruder frame that corresponds to what we see in Altgens. That's because what we see in Altgens isn't real. It is art. Crude, crappy, JFK art.

But, you have to say which Zapruder frame Altgens corresponds to, because if you don't, then your claim is empty.

So, here is the slap-down of 255. If anyone else wants to take a shot, go ahead. You can't win. I can slap down every frame. That's because there is no frame that corresponds to it.

 This gif shows you that Jackie really did try to coax JFK's arm down. She first placed her right hand on his upper arm at frame 246. Then, at frame 254, she has her left hand on his forearm. And after that she continues to coax his arm down. 

I think they were both involved. I think she was coaxing his arm down, and he was responding to that by leaning towards her. I don't think he relaxed his arm. I think it was more of a tipping action. But, I do think that in a very visceral way he was responding to her. Mentally, he was gone. He was in a state of utter confusion and derangement. And that's why I say he was responding to her viscerally; not consciously and not with any focus. 

And then, as they got to Jean Hill and Mary Moorman, Jackie raised her right elbow, which created leverage. And it stayed like that, with her right elbow high, until he was shot at 313. The last frame I have in this gif is 312.

And I can't claim to know how focused she was either, but I do know that, on some level, she was intent on getting him to put his arm down. 

Without a doubt, her right hand was on his upper arm, and her left hand was on his forearm. 

So, how does that compare with the image of them in Altgens? It shows both her hands on him, but they are on this long wand-like arm. 

But, she didn't have both hands on him until 254. 

But, it's obvoius that in Altgens, he is still in the throes of panic, and it is more consistent with frame 230.

Can you see that JFK in Altgens correlates with 230? That's a match. 

And Altgens said that he took his picture right when he heard the shot. And this was very soon after the shot. And notice that in both, JFK isn't focused on her at all. He is totally absorbed in what he's doing.  He's in a panic. He can't breathe. He has to clear his airway. And he hasn't done it yet. 

Those correlate well in terms of HIM. But, what about HER? In 230 she isn't touching hin at all; not with either hand. But, in Altgens, she has both hands on him. So, what do you make of that? 

What you should make of it is that JFK and Jackie in the Altgens photo is bogus imagery. It isn't real. It's art. It's crude, crappy art, but still art. And that crude, crappy art replaced whatever was really captured. 

So, what was captured? Well, let's take Altgens at his word. He said he snapped the shudder right when he heard the first shot. The first shot was the shot that hit JFK in the back high on the hill. It would have shown a startled look on his face; a reaction that something weird had just happened to him, but he wasn't sure what. And they couldn't let the world see that because that shot was supposed to stay under the radar. It was the shot that, officially, never happened. 

So, they made the decision to change it to a latter time and a different place, lower on the hill when JFK was shot in the throat. 

But, they were never going to say that he was shot in the throat. The plan all along was to say that he was struck in the back with a bullet (he was not; it was an ice dart) and that the "bullet" exited through his throat. 

In other words, the Single Bullet Theory was baked in the cake before 11/22. It's just that they weren't planning to include Connally. They had to add him after he was accidentally shot. 

This proves that the imagery of JFK and Jackie in Altgens is totally  bogus and inconsistent with the Zapruder film. They do not correlate. Those arrogant bastards thought they could rewrite the story in the photo, pushing it later in time and lower on the hill. 

 The lapdogs for the US Government that killed Kennedy and Oswald are trying to play the angle card. They're saying that the reason why JFK and Jackie look so different in the Altgens photo than they do in the Zapruder film is because of the different angle.

The truth is that when we see the something from a different angle, our mind can quickly process the difference, so that we know we are looking at the same thing, such these two images of MLK during his "I have a dream" speech. They are different, but there is no contradiction between them. They are consistent with each other.

But, that is NOT true with JFK and Jackie in the Altgens photo compared to the Zapruder film. And the truth is that what we see in the Altgens photo is not only inconsistent with the Zapruder film, but it is not reproducible at all. You couldn't duplicate that image. You couldn't put a man and woman in the backseat of a car and take a picture of then with her clutching his arm and make it look like that. You couldn't get it to look like that no matter what you did. It's falseness is demonstrated by it not being reproducible.

So, to all my enemies out there, and I know I have plenty, what you need to do is STFU and get a camera out and try to reproduce the Kennedys in the Altgens photo. I'm not interested in your lipflapping. Get a camera out and show us that it's real by duplicating it. And make sure your image looks EXACTLY like it. There's no need for you to say another word until you do that.

 It's important to understand what you are seeing in the Zapruder film. What do you think Jackie is doing? Do you think she is holding his arm just to comfort him? No. She is holding his arm because she is pressing down on it. She is trying to get him to put his arms down; to stop holding them up like that. So, she is coaxing him to relax his arms. That's what she's doing.

However, her attempt to get him to relax his arms was futile. He couldn't put them down. His muscles were clenched in spasm, and it was beyond his control. It was the action of a nerve agent. So, the effect of her doing that was just to tip him a little bit.

So, his deltoids were in spasm, which was holding his arms up. And his biceps and brachialis muscles were also in spasm, which maintained the extreme flexion. And the result was that his elbows were jutting out like wings. So, she had one hand on his forearm and her other hand on his upper arm, and she was pressing down. And his elbow was in-between her two hands.

But, what are we seeing on the right in the Altgens photo? There, he's got this long straight arm that is extending out like a wand. There isn't the slightest bend in the elbow. He doesn't seem to have an elbow. And she has both her hands on the wand-arm, which seems to be going on forever, and way past him. How can anybody claim that these two pictures show the same thing? They don't. They are vastly different. And what we see on the right doesn't make sense. It's freaky. It is a totally unintelligible image. How can anyone claim that it's real?