Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

I have what I think is a very big find tonight, and it concerns when JFK was shot in the back and in the neck. It was not at the same time. It starts with the Croft photo. 

Larry Rivera pointed out that it looks like Jackie's hair was embellished to give some coverage to JFK's face, and I agree. Specifically, it covers his mouth. He may have been showing a facial gesture and expression of distress FROM BEING SHOT. also, his eye has been obliterated, as though his eyes were closed. And again, he was probably showing alarm and peril in his eyes FROM BEING SHOT. But then, something else occurred to me just tonight: look how far Jackie's head is rotated. It's like 90 degrees. That is extreme. Young children can do it, but not adults. Look at Connally who is also turning his head left. You don't see him turning so far. Why would she turn her head that far, which is difficult and uncomfortable, if not painful, when she could have rotated her torso as well? That is what people do. She would have rotated her whole body and not just her head if she wanted to go that far. So, I am starting to think that they pasted on that head of hers there and probably because it gave better coverage of JFK, and also because it takes the focus off him. She is the one who dominates the image, not him. It keeps people from scrutinizing him. The other problem is behavioral. You've got these women acting so excited to see him and showing their fondness for him, and he's not even looking at them and waving? I think it's because he was shot.  

Also, a screen was put at the top of his back, that little raised area. McAdams actually claims that that's the jacket bunching up, but no, it's really just a screen that was added.

So, you can see the screen that they added. Also, you can see that Kennedy is all tensed up, pinching his head back on his neck. He looks as tight as a drum. Compare it to how he relaxed he was before that. 

That's Z180. I know it's blurry, but you can still see that he was relaxed and smiling, and all was well. It's shortly after that, exactly a second actually, at Z198 that he looks shot. 

Did he really do that, put his hand over his face? I strongly doubt it. I think they didn't want us to see the expression on his face. 

So, JFK was shot in the Croft photo but only in his back. He was not shot in the neck yet. And there was a greater interval between the back shot and the neck shot than we were led to believe. The conventional wisdom is that they were simultaneous or practically simultaneous, but I don't think so. 

But, let's start with the idea that JFK was shot in the back in Croft because all the photographic aberrations say so. So, when was he shot in the throat? He must have been shot in the throat while he was behind the sign because when he emerges from behind the sign, he reacts to being shot in the throat. He raises his hands, placing his right hand over his mouth to cough, trying to clear his airway, since the bullet apparently blocked his airway. And with his left hand, he seems to be pulling on his tie.

He was definitely shot in the throat there and is reacting to it. That's 228. when did the shot actually hit? It was probably about 218. 

So, that would mean that he was shot in the back about 196 and then in the throat about 218, which is about a second, but remember, they didn't expect anyone to look closely at the frames before he disappears behind the sign. They expected people to assume that he was smiling and waving until he passed behind the sign, and then emerged on the other side reacting to everything. So, even the one second separation doesn't exist in their world. As you know, they claim it was all one shot. Look at the plat.

You can see at the top in red that it says Croft and Altgens, and that's about where the limo was when Kennedy got hit in the back. Then, if you go to the next red line you say that it says "neck" and that's where he got shot in the neck. So, the limo had to travel from the first red line to the second red line, that being the interval in which he was only affected by the back shot. How could it travel that distance in a second? Of course, it couldn't. So, what is going on? 

What is going on is that that interval, the interval between the two red lines was cut out of the Zapruder film. They put that that phony sign in there. 

There was a sign, but it wasn't angled like that, and it wasn't in that position. That's still pretty close to the top of Dealey Plaza. The limo hadn't reached the sign yet. But they put it here because they needed it here to hide from us Kennedy reacting to being shot in the back. And they also used that sign as a way to make a "jump cut". That'a a film-editing term. A movie cuts to different angles within a scene all the time, and the mind is OK with it as long as it's a substantial jump. As long as it provides a totally different angle, the mind will accept it. But, if it's not a different angle, of it's just a slightly different angle but mostly the same, then the change will stand out as a jump cut, as a break in the film, as a glitch, as a mistake as a jump. I spent countless hours working with the film editor, and I mean sitting next to him in his studio as he "cut" the film My Stretch of Texas Ground. Here is Z207.

    
You see that JFK seems to have his hand over his face, and Jackie seems to be looking at him. I believe he's already been shot in the back. Below is Z212, just 5 frames later, less than 1/3 of a second. 

Look how the perspective changed. Kennedy's head is larger. He seems closer to the camera. That's not from me cropping and enlarging. I can see it watching the intact film. And it JUMPS to that, and here's what I mean. First, I'm not working off Youtube. I have the disc: Image of An Assassination; A New Look at the Zapruder Film.

It's the best there is. It includes several renditions, and the one I most often work with is the one that has the frame numbers and is in slow motion. I like the slow-motion not only because I can see more but because it's slow enough that I can click my mouse once and get to the next frame. But, when I do it at 207 I don't get to 208. I get to 212. 

How could that much change take place in less than a third of a second. Kennedy seems sideways to the camera in 212, a very different angle than in 207. In less than a third of a second?

I think it involves a jump cut. Go back to the plat. 

You see the two red lines crossing the road, the top one representing where the back shot hit, and the bottom one where the neck shot hit. The plat doesn't mention the neck shot because according to Officialdom there was no neck shot, that the back shot exited the neck. But, what I'm telling you is there were separate back and neck shots, and they were spaced quite a few seconds apart. The way they merged them was to remove the reddened area below from the Zapruder film. 

Now, I know there are a lot of people who are immediately going to think and say that this is far-fetched. It's not. Look at the start of the Zapruder film.

That is the very top of Dealey Plaza. That sign was half way down the hill. And it wasn't that big a sign. There is no way that pointing his camera at the very top of Dealey Plaza that that sign could intrude on Zapruder's camera field. So, why is it there? They put it there because they wanted to get to that sign sooner by jumping over the part in red. 

I'll explain it another way. Here is aerial shot of Elm Street. The sign is circled, and you can see how far down the hill it was. It was about halfway down. It was nowhere near the top of the hill. 

You see where it says O, and that is Obelisk. Kennedy got hit in the back a little past that. So, let's say that I didn't want to show Kennedy reacting to the back shot, so I wanted to cut out the section between the O and the sign. 

Can you see that the sign has moved up, that it's only a little past the structure on the other side, just as it is in the Zapruder film? It's more extreme in the Zapruder film. 

There is no way that is valid. That sign isn't facing correctly, and it is way too high on Elm Street. It was much lower. But, when JFK passes that sign, which is still on upper Elm Street, he emerges on lower Elm. It's like he drove through a space/time warp where several seconds of his life were excised. He went from Upper Elm to Lower Elm just by riding by that sign. 

So, why did they do all this? They did it because they didn't want us to see him reacting to the back shot. And I can only speculate about what they didn't like. After all, they let us see him reacting to the throat shot. So, why did they let us see that but not the other? But wait. It doesn't even matter. The Zapruder film wasn't shown to the public until 1975, so, they had a lot of years to work on it. And by then, the Single Bullet Theory was the law of the land. By 1964, it was the law of the land. SO, THEY HAD TO SHOW THE BACK AND NECK SHOTS AS SIMULTANEOUS. There was no choice. That was a necessity for the Single Bullet Theory. 

So, perhaps it was just that, that the removal of that segment of the Zapruder film was done to support the Single Bullet Theory and no other reason.   

Summing up: the back shot occurred relatively high on the hill a little past the obelisk. It means that Kennedy may well have been shot in the back at the time of the Altgens photo. But, it shows him reacting to being shot in the neck, and that is impossible because the limo was too high on the hill, long before he was shot in the neck, and furthermore, the imagery of him and the hands of Jackie in the limo in the Altgens photo is most certainly and obviously fake, as I have explained. To Officialdom, it was all one shot, one that entered his back and exited his neck. So, they HAD to move the back shot down to where the neck shot took place in order to merge them.