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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 I am going to address a perennial lie: that the Altgens6 photo went out on the news-wire at 1:03 on Friday. First, we have the testimony of Roy Schaeffer, who was working as a photo processor at the Philadelphia Inquirer, and he said that he was there and received the Altgens6 photo when it came in ON SATURDAY MORNING. And he said that, instantly, he could see the signs of masking on the photo. 

The Altgens7 photo is the one of Clint Hill riding on the back of the limo, and it was distributed right away. A great many newspapers published it right away that afternoon. But, if they had received Altgens6 at the same time, they would have published it as
prolifically as Altgens7. But, that was not the case. There were, supposedly, just a few newspapers that got Altgens6 out on Friday. Most didn't publish it until Saturday- or thereafter. We even have an FBI memo that states the photo appeared in U.S. papers on Saturday.

But, I have my doubts about some of those papers. For instance, one of them was the Benton Harbor Herald-Palladium. Benton Harbor, Michigan was a town of 10,000. Its population is actually less than that today. But, it supposedly got out a 10 page JFK special on Friday, which included the Altgens6 photo. But, we're talking about 10 pages of detailed articles about JFK, LBJ, and Oswald and many photographs. How could the staff of such a small newspaper do that? And remember that JFK wasn't shot until 1:30 pm local time in Michigan. So, I don't buy it.

The first showing of the Altgens photo was on the CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite,, which aired at 6:30 PM, New York time. That was 5:30 PM Texas time; so exactly 5 hours after the shooting. And that's the amount of time they had to alter the photo: 5 hours.

Now, if CBS had gotten it before that, why wouldn't they have shown it? It wouldn't have hurt anything. They could have shown it that afternoon and then had Cronkite, "the most trusted man in America" show it again when he did. And if CBS got it early that afternoon, then other outlets got it, and they would have showed it. But, no one did.

The Algens6 photo was massively altered, and we know where it was done: at Jaggars/Chiles/Stovall, the CIA/DOD photo lab in Dallas, that was located downtown, not far from Dealey Plaza. It was a private company, but they worked exclusively for U.S. Military

and U.S., Intelligence. Ironically, Oswald worked there from October 1962 until April 1963. Then, he got fired. Why? It may have been to foster his move down to New Orleans.

Who were the photo-alterers? I think it's very likely that they were from the National Photographic Interpretation Center, a CIA office. The official head of it was Arthur Lundahl, but right beneath him was Dino Brugioni.

 The kind of work that this involved had no applications in regular, commercial photo retouching. that the Media would do. The Media guys had their tricks. They would retouch images, and they

would often flip images horizontally, if they thought, for any reason, that it looked better flipped. Are you aware that there are many horizontally flipped images from the JFK assassination? Even in 1979, when the HSCA published their Final Report, it included flipped images of both Oswald and Lovelady.

 But, the kind of crude and massive alterations that were done to the Altgens6 photo, particularly in the doorway, which is a freak show, have no corollaries in commercial image-processing. So, it must have taken time to hone their methods. Then, they had to work very fast on 11/22/63. It must have been like emergency surgery.

If you look at this memo, it says that the photo was published in Saturday's papers. It's in the second paragraph.

The Altgens6 photo shows JFK reacting to the throat shot, and that makes it extremely dramatic. So, if all the AP papers in the country had gotten it at 1:03, it surely would have been published immediately. None of the big papers published it on 11/22. So,not the New York Times, not the Chicago Tribune, and not even the Dallas Times-Herald or the Dallas Morning News published it on 11/22. But, I tell you that that imagery of JFK and Jackie in the back of the limo in the Altgens6 photo is fake. JFK wasn't shot in the throat yet when that photo was taken.

Look how high the limo is on the hill. It's not that far from the intersection. It's still across from the TSBD. So, how could he be shot in the throat already?

He wasn't. However, he was shot in the back alread, which happened high on the hill, as soon as they completed the turn from Houston. And that's what he was reacting to- not the throat shot. Altgens said that he took his photo at the time of the first shot. And the back shot was the first shot.

But, the alterers knew that the back shot (which contained the nerve agent) never happened, officially. They planned in advance to claim that a bullet traversed Kennedy. They didn't plan to claim that it also went through Connally- that had to be added later because of what happened. But, in reality, JFK had just shallow wounds in his back and in his throat.

And if you look closely at the imagery of JFK and Jackie in the back seat of the limo in Altgens6, it is grossly distorted and cartoonish, and that's because it's art: crude, crappy, CIA art, in which his fist looks more like hoof, and his arm looks more like a vacuum wand that Jackie is holding.

 We have a lot of new people here, and I am going to give them the short course on why Jack Ruby was, absolutely and positively, innocent. He did NOT shoot Oswald.

Now, I know what you're thinking: millions saw him do it on television. No! Millions saw a short, pudgy, middle-aged white guy wearing a fedora hat do it on teleivision. Millions didn't recognize him as Ruby. There were men in that garage who knew Ruby well, sucvh as Hugh Aynesworth, who didn't recognize the shooter as Ruby. So, how could people at home do it? They came to believe he was Ruby not from seeing it but from the Police annoucning it was him. So, it doesn't matter if even a billion saw it on television. It means nothing.

And your next thought is probably : But, Ruby admitted that he did it. Wrong again. Ruby accepted that he did it. Big difference. Ruby said that he never had the slightest thought, the whole weekend, of hurting Oswald. Never once did it cross his mind. So, he had no thought to shoot him, and no memory of doing it either. Ruby said that all he could remember was going to the garage and being jumped by the police, after having done nothing. And he started wailing: "What are you doing? You know me. I'm Jack Ruby. I'm not some criminal." Now, the Garage Shooter never said a word, and we have the films to prove it. And the reporters in the garage even said that the Shooter never spoke. So, Ruby was there beforehand, and that's when he had his scuffle with the Police.

But, they waited until they got him up to the 5th floor before telling him that he shot Oswald. That was the ONLY basis that he accepted that he did it. It wasn't from anythng else. And if he were normal, which he wasn't, he wouldn't have accepted it. If he were normal, he would have said, "Are you out of your mind? I was standing there, minding my own business, when you jumped me and dragged me up there. And now you're telling me I shot Oswald? Well, you picked the wrong guy to mess with. I want a lawyer. I want him now. And if you moe-foes think you're going to get away with this, you gotta another thing coming. You want a war with me? You got it." So, that's what he would have said if he were mentallly sound, but he wasn't mentally sound. And that's why they picked him to do this to because they knew he wasn't mentally sound.

But, where does that leave us today, trying to figure out what happened in 1963 in 2026? Well, one thing is for sure: we have to start by comparing images of the Shooter to images of Ruby. And yes, I know they're blurry, blah, blah, blah. But, they're all we have, and we have to make the best of it. And, the fact is: they do contain information, and I mean data.

And fortunately, we can compare images of Ruby on that day to the Shooter on that day. And when we do that, we can see that they are different men. I could get elementary school children to see that these are not the same man. The man on the left had a very short neck, and his neck in back was razored clean of hair. Ruby , on the right, looks scruffy in back, like he was a few weeks out since his last haircut. But, otherwise, he has the normal tapering in back. The Shooter, on the left, is wearing a wig. You don't see any hairs growing out of his head. That is a rug.

Now, if you can't see, and if you can't admit, that those are different men, then you need to get out of here. You need to hang out with other JFK people. Do yourself and me a favor and just leave if you can't see it. I don't want to waste my time on you, and you shouldn't want to waste your time on me. This group is an Oswald-innocent and Ruby-innocent group. If that ain't your space, then vete de aqui.

 I don't consider myself well-studied on the Tippit shooting, but I want to share some observations that you may not have heard elsdwhere. The first thing is that the authorities never told us what Oswald said about it. We know that he denied doing it, but that's all. For instance, we were told what Oswald said about how he got to his boarding room on N. Beckley, but not about how he got to the theater, or why he went to the theater.

How could that not have come up? He said he went to his room and changed his pants. Then, the police would have said, "And then what did you do?" But, they never told us a word. And I have to believe that it was because whatever Oswald told them must have been very exonerating.

John Armstrong makes the case that Oswald was driven to the theater, and it's a very strong case. It's based on the fact that Butch Burroughs, the Popcorn Man, said that Oswald was in the theater by 1:07, and he couldn't have walked there in that amount of time. The distance was 1.1 miles. And it did not involve going to 10th and Patton. Actually, it was a straight shot down Beckley to Jefferson, and then a short jog to the right.

But, John also points out that if Oswald had walked that distance in broad daylight, it's likely that someone would have seen him and reported it afterwards.

And John doesn't think Oswald took a bus or cab, because that cab driver would have been found, just like the first one was found: William Whaley. And if rode a bus, someone would likely have recalled seeing him there too, the driver or a passenger.

John thinks that his landladby Arlene Roberts cued us in by saying that a squad car pulled up and tapped its horn twice. So, did a cop drive Oswald to the theater? It looks like it. And did the cop give Oswald the pistol? It's a strong possibility.

But, let's talk about the story that Oswald shot Tippit because it is ridiculous. First, as I said, Oswald did not go to 10th and Patton, and he had no reason to go to 10th and Patton. Where could Oswald have been going to put him at 10th and Patton? Nobody has an answer. Some have claimed that he was going to Jack Ruby's apartment. That is ridiculous because they did not know each other.

But, just to show you how ridiculous the whole story is: consider what WC lawyer David Belin said when he was asked where Oswald was going that put him on 10th and Patton. Belin said; "to Mexico." WTF? That is absurd. What does that have to do with 10th and Patton? There isn't the slightest basis to claim it. And then when asked how Oswald was going to get to Mexico when he had only $14 on him, having left most of his big wad with Marina, Belin said he was going to use his pistol like a bank account and just rob people, as needed. Again, it is ridiculous. It's like it was Imagination Day at Kindergarten.

And by the way, that big wad of cash that Oswald had, $168, was equivalent to almost $1800 today. I bet you that not even Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk walk around with that much cash, but Lee Harvey Oswald did. So, where did he get it? Prior to the TSBD, he hadn't worked since July 19. That's when he lost his job at the Reily Coffee Company in New Orleans. And he only started at the TSBD a month before on October 16. And he only made $1.11/hour. He had to pay his own living expenses and give money to Marina. So, how could he have saved the equivalent of $1800 in today's money?

He couldn't have. Somebody must have given him that money. And I bet that whoever gave it to him said, "Now, you better get that out to your wife in Irving. You don't want to leave it in your boarding room."

But, if you, like me, know very well that Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy (and if you don't know that, you need to get the hell out of here because this is not a forum for LNs to debate Oswald defenders) then you know he had no reason to shoot Tippit. If he hadn't done anything, why would he start by killing a cop?

Yes, I know there were witnesses who thought they saw Oswald do it. And that's why John Armstrong thinks that the other Oswald, the one he calls "Lee" did it. We know Lee was there. We know there was an Oswald who left Dealey Plaza by getting into a Nash Rambler that was driven by a black or Hispanic guy (as per about 7 witnesses, including Deputy Roger Craig), and we know that "Harvey" who worked at the TSBD left Dealey Plaza the way he said: by bus and by cab. So, there were two Oswalds.

Tippit was shot at 1:15. The Oswald of fame was in the theater by 1:07. That means he didn't do it. Why did they frame him for it? It may be because they hoped that brandishing him as a cop-killer would make for some itchy trigger-fingers in the theater. But, that didn't work out, just like the best-laid plans of mice and men.