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.

 So, the Secret Service threatened to use force to take possession of the body of John F. Kennedy, even though it violated Texas state law, which is the only law that applied, except for the unwritten law that the federal government can do whatever the hell it wants.

But, why did they do it? They did it because JFK's body contained information about how he died, and how he was attacked. It was evidence, and they knew that it might conflict with the story they were going to tell about how he died and how he was attacked.

I have to wonder if it ever occurred to the Parkland doctors to photograph JFK's body, particularly the big, gaping open wound in the back of his head. If they had tried, I'm sure the Secret Service would have stopped them.

So then, the Bethesda doctors found something entirely different. They found the back wound, which the Parkland doctors missed. They never saw the throat wound because the tracheotomy had obscured it, and Humes thought it was just a trach. That weird because if there was no trauma there, what reason would the Parkland doctors have had to cut his throat? Why not use an endotracheal tube through his mouth?

Humes said that he didn't learn about the throat wound until he talked to Dr. Perry the next day. But, that's weird because Dr. George Burkley, and that's Admiral George Burkley, was at both Parkland and Bethesda. So, why didn't he pipe up that there was a bullet wound in JFK's throat?

But, Humes said in his report that there was an entrance wound slightly above the external occipital protuberance of the occipital bone. And he said that the big gaping wound was not in the lower right occiput, as the Parkland doctors said, but rather, on the top right of JFK"s head, mostly in the parietal bone. So, according to Humes, the exit wound was higher than the entrance wound.

But, supposedly, the shot came from the 6th floor window of the Book Deposity, which was 6 floors up from the top of Elm. But JFK had already gone down the steepest decline of the hill in Dealey Plaza. So, he was lower yet. So, how could a bullet enter his skull at the level of the EOP, at a steep angle, and then exit out the crown of his parietal bone, which is higher up, without being deflected? What would cause it to change direction? Why wouldn't it keep going down?

I am attaching Z-312 with trajectory marks as per what Humes claimed.

One final word about Admiral George Burkley, JFK's White House physician. He was the only doctor who was at both Parkland and Bethesda. So, what did he say about the discrepancies between the two? I'm thinking that he must have been haunted by it for the rest of his life.

Anyway, the point is that the discrepancies between Parkland and Bethesda should have caused a full stop. There needed to be a thorough investigation with testimonies relating to these very issues. Of course, there wasn't any. And that's because of what I keep telling you, over and over again: The State killed Kennedy. The State killed Kennedy. The State killed Kennedy.

 The real Oswald did NOT go to Mexico City. I had the privilege of knowing Mark Lane. I never met him in person, but I spoke to him on the phone several times. He was the first to figure out that Oswald did not go to Mexico City. He included it in his "A Lawyer's Brief" which was issued on December 7, 1963, which was just 2 weeks after the assassination.

My ears perked up when Lane told me that he gave an address once at UCLA, which is my alma mater. He said he gave it one evening at Royce Hall. I remember Royce Hall. It was right across from the library. One of the thinge he spoke about was that Oswald never went to Mexico City, just as he said. After the speech, a man came up to him: David Atlee Philips, who said to him that the CIA knows very well that Oswald never went to Mexico City.

So, how did it come about that they concocted that story? I think it was because of the changing scenario. The plot was not conceived to be that Oswald was a lone nut. It was conceived to be that he was an agent for Cuba. It was going to be used as a pretext to invade Cuba. Read The Devil's Chessboard by David Talbot. But, the guy who became the top dog in the whole thing was LBJ, and he didn't give a shit about invading Cuba. He just wanted JFK gone, not only so that he could become President- his lifelong dream; but so that he could get out of the dire legal straits that he was in, that could have landed him in prison.

And the closer it got to November 22, the more authority LBJ acquired because everyone knew that the second JFK took his last breath, LBJ would be President and wield all the power thereof. And LBJ only cared about one thing: himself. He did it for himself, not to overthrow Castro.

So, to all Oswald defenders out there, I say: BELIEVE OSWALD. You know he was innocent, and therefore, he had no reason to lie. And he said that he never went to Mexico City, that the only place in Mexico he ever went was TIjuana when he was in the Marines. It wasn't a crime to go to Mexico City. If he had gone there, he would have said so. Oswald was innocent, and therefore, he wasn't going to lie about anything.

This is John Amstrong talking about the fact that Oswald never went to Mexico City. It's called: The Mexico City Hoax.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAdS-QAXsSE&list=PLRK4syRaAH0Ecc250RvXiyJIE0OFsh4pb

 There was a very tense standoff at Parkland Hospital between the Secret Service and Dallas Coroner Dr. Earl Rose and his team, who were about to commence the autopsy of JFK , as per Texas state law. The Secret Service men wanted to obscond with JFK's body, and they insisted. Dr. Rose stood up to them. He said no, that Texas required him to perform the autopsy immediately. Then, the SS agents brandished their guns to show they meant business.

Killing the President was not a federal crime in 1963. Like any other murder, it was a local crime. And that is not in doubt. Even the D.A., Henry Wade, was preparing to prosecute Oswald. He told reporters that he would be seeking the death penalty, and he expected to get it.

So, why did the Secret Service brazenly defy Texas state law, and, in effect, threaten to shoot these medical people? It was because of what I keep telling you, that the State killed Kennedy. Not Oswald; not the Mafia; not Castro. There were anti-Castro Cubans there, who were involed with the CIA. That included Senator Ted Cruz' father, Rafael Cruz. Don't believe it? Well, take a look at the collage Either he was there or his doppelganger was there.

So, why did the Secret Service want JFK's body? Because the body had to be altered to match the story they were going to tell. And the result was that JFK's body was found to be in very different condition at Bethesda than what the Parkland doctors saw, as I will cover next time.

I made a movie that is a parody of the JFK assassination., and it includes a story element that was based on the historic confrontation between the Secret Service and Dr. Rose and his team. The title of the movie is THREE DAYS OR ELSE, and you can watch it for free online, including Youtube. Here's the link. It's a very good movie. I'm proud of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1GjcpFU-3Y&t=2s

 The State killed Kennedy. That is the shortest, most succinct way to put it. And I don't mean the state of Texas. I mean the nation-state known as the United States.

Of course, it wasn't the whole nation-state. It was a network or cabal within it. But, the second JFK took his last breath and LBJ became President, then it became the whole state. Instantly, the official story got written in stone, and it became a litmus test for loyalty and patriotism.

I am now going review the elements that tell us that the state did it. Not, Oswald, not the Mafia, but the U.S. government, that is who killed Kennedy.

You know that the Secret Service had a protocol to inspect motorcade routes and make sure that there were no open windows in high buildings. In Dealey Plaza, there were open windows in the TSBD, the Dal-Tex building, and the Dallas County Records building. Do you realize that going down Houston Street, the 6th floor window of the TSBD was right in front of them. The Secret Service agents were riding in a comfortable. And the 5th floor window was open too. Jarman, Norman, and Robinson were in it. There is just no excuse for them not seeing that.

Then, the Secret Service driver slowed the limo and stopped it during the shooting.- or he very nearly stopped it. We don't see that at all in the Zapruder film. It just speeds along. But, many witnesses said that the limo slowed and stopped. One, in particular, stands out to me. : Jean Hill. She told us, indirectly, that the limo stopped or nearly stopped. She said that as JFK was upon them, she yelled: "Mr. President! Look this way! We want to take your picture!" Go ahead and watch the Zapruder film at normal speed, and try to imagine someone saying that to him as he zoomed by. The Secret Service admitted that they slowed to 11 mph, but if someone was passing you at that speed, you couldn't get that in. 11 mph is right about the average speed of a bicyclist. I'm telling you that you couldn't do it, and I'm a bicyclist.

So, what Jean Hill revealed was that the limo had stopped or it nearly stopped, meaning less than 5 mph. But, who does that during a shooting?

And there is more insight we can garner from Jean's statement. She said "look this way." So, where was he looking? If he wasn't looking her way, it means his head wasn't turned left. And that leaves only two choices: either his head was turned right, or he was looking straight ahead. And he must have been looking straight ahead. That's because if he was turned right, the back of his head would have been facing Jean, and people don't talk to the backs of heads. And if he was turned right, he would have been engaging with other people, and it would have been brash to say what she did.

So, he must have been looking straight ahead and not looking at anybody. And that's because he was already shot. It was before the throat shot. We know what happened after the throat shot. He panicked. He was choking on something, and he had to deal with it. So, he raised his hands, and he put his right hand over his mouth and coughed- to clear the obstruction. And, apparently, he did. But, Jean's casual and light statement must have came before and not during that emergency. There is no excuse for the Secret Service stopping that limo during the shooting. You don't have to be a Secret Service agent to know that when bullets are raining down on the car, you floor the gas pedal.

And here is a big reveal that the State did it: the Secret Service confiscated Marina before Oswald died. And it was a very elaborate plot. So, the story goes, that a LIFE magazine reporter and photographer started that afternoon by driving out to Irving, not knowing Ruth Paine's address. But, some local cop told them that she lived on 5th street. So, they drove up and down 5th Street hoping to find her. It was when Michael Paine showed up with a car full of groceries that they thought "Bingo." So, they went and talked to him, and lo and behold, he invited them in. It was his wife's house, but invited them in. And lo and behold, Ruth, Marina, and Marguerite were up for a visit. So, they all talked it up a while. Then, they offered to take Marina to Dallas to visit Oswald. She said sure, but the next day, since it was late. By the time, they left, it was after dark.

But, they returned the next morning and took her first to their room at the Adolphus Hotel. And they were there for quite a while. Then, they took Marina and Marguerite and baby Rachel to visit Oswald. And when it was over, without asking, they took them to the Executive Inn. They paid the bill and gave Marina $200 in cash. Do you know how much $200 in 1963 was in today's money? $2100. The Secret Service took over at that point, and they never let Marina go back to Ruth Paine's house- not even to get her daughter June. Someone else went and got her.

And all this happened before Oswald died. When you are charging someone with murder, and with the intention of seeking the death penalty, as D.A. Henry Wade, announced, you can't confiscate the guy's wife. We have "spousal privilege" in this country. Marina wasn't accused or charged with a crime. And no one was threatening her. Americans started sending her money. And I should write a post on all the money Marina got.

So, I tell you that they, the Secret Service, knew that Oswald was going to die the next day, and this was all in preparation and anticipation of that.

To all Americans: your government killed President Kennedy. I know it's discomforting, but it is the truth.