Do you realize that in the November 22, 1963 LIFE magazine, they not only did not include Z-313, but they didn't even acknowledge that a shot was fired then? They included Z-322 and drew in some eyes on Jackie, and in the caption for it, they said that "the President collapses on his wife's shoulder." But, that is not what happened. What happened is that he was shot in the right temple, and it sent him reeling violently back and to the left. And Jackie experienced a startle reaction from it, in which she evaded a moving object. She got out of the way and then came back to him.

So, on the left is the doctored photo from Zapruder that was published in black and white in LIFE, and on the right is Z-322 in color from the Costella frames. It looks like the same image to me.

But, the question is: why did they hide the fact that he was shot then? And why didn't they publish 313 with the big red misty cloud of blood? Isn't that the climax of the Zapruder film? So, why did they leave out the climax? Did they think the American people weren't up for it?

 There is no doubt that they altered the Willis photo because they took out the lamppost that was just a little west of the Stemmons Freeway sign. I put it back, as you can see here. And, I am posting another photo which shows the 3 signs: the one slightly above the Thornton sign, the one slightly below the Stemmons sign, and the one slightly down from where Zapruder was. Count them: 3 signs, but one is missing in Willis.

Now obviously, they didn't just do that alone. They must have had a greater purpose in altering the Willis photo.. I say it was to obscure what Umbrella Man was really doing.

 Why isn't Umbrella Man directly under the umbrella? He doesn't have it centered over his head. It's mostly in front of him. I realize that it wasn't raining, but still, it seems like force of habit would cause him to position it the normal way- and without even thinking about it.

And why is his image so terribly crude? It doesn't look like photography. It looks like art: crappy art. How could a camera do that? A camera didn't do it. It IS art. They replaced whatever was captured there in the Willis photo with crappy art.

This is the photo in which JFK was already shot in the back, and they had to do a lot to it to cover it up. First, that is pasted-in head on Jackie. No way was that her head at the time. And no way could she turn her head that much. She has her head rotated practically 180 degrees. Adults can't do that. At least, they can't comfortably do it. Look at Connally. He's turned to the left too to make eye contact with his wife. But, he didn't turn as far, did he?

That image of Jackie was one they got from her January 14, 1964 address to the nation, to thank Americans for theirs cards and letters. And that's why she looks so mournful; she was mourning.

But, on 11/22/63, she was on a political trip, and she was a political wife. Her job was to smile and wave at the voters.

The real image of her probably consisted of her turning the other way, towards her husband because she heard the sound, and maybe he vocalized something. A grunt? So, she probably was looking at him. But, turning that way, she wasn't covering his face. His eyes were probably bug-eyed, and perhaps his mouth was open in a startled look.

So, they had to remove all that. They did it by painting his eye shut. Then, they expanded her hair so that it covered his mouth.

And look at the driver, who is looking at Kennedy in the rear view mirror. He knew what was going on. They told him the plan. He knew JFK had been hit with the preparatory shot, the nerve agent. And then, he had to slow that vehicle to a crawl to give the poison enough time to seep in.

But, I suspect that the ice bullet that tore through his jacket must have left a visible disruption. So, they put that oblong cover over it.

It really is ridiculous to claim that his jacket was bunching up there because he's not doing anything to cause it to bunch up. And you notice that Connally's jacket isn't bunching up.

This image is showing you JFK having first been shot. Shot and poisoned.

 Robert Marshall posted a fraudulent image of JFK with his jacket bunched up so much that it looks like a boy wearing his father's jacket, it fit him so badly. JFK's suits were custom made, and there is no way that such a fit would have resulted. If that were typical of jackets, then we'd see it all time on men.

In this collage, I have circled the fraudulent image that Marshall posted, and I have surrounded it with other images of JFK.

This concerns the Croft photo in which it has been long claimed that JFK's jacket was bunched up. Actually, they put a cover over his jacket where he got shot. I pointed a white arrow to it. It's not the bunching of the jacket; it is an oblong cover. Apparently, the Croft photo was taken just a fraction of a second after the shot him him, and the disturbance of his jacket was visible. They had to cover that up. But, they also closed his eye because of his alarmed look. And maybe his mouth was open in startle, so they expanded Jackie's hair to cover his mouth. And note that they replaced Jackie's face. They pasted it in. It's actually from her January 14 address to the nation, to thank Americans for their cards and letters. It's also a horizontally flipped image. On the right, you can see how Jackie's hair looked on 11/22/63, which is very different from Croft.

And notice that I included the Willis photo bottom right since it was taken shortly after the Croft photo, and you can see that his jacket was NOT bunched up.

he image to the left of the disputed one is the exact same configuration, and you can plainly see that his jacket was NOT bunched up.

Here it is 2024, almost 2025, and they are still altering JFK assassination photos. But, the big question is: are they done killing people? Because: they killed a lot of people to suppress JFK assassination truth, and maybe they're not done with that either.

 Notice the screen that they put over JFK's back where he got shot with the ice bullet. Apparently, it disrupted his jacket, which they had to cover up. I'm sure it didn't require anything that big, but they were trying to make it look like his jacket was ruffling- and that's what people claimed. such as the late Professor John McAdams of Marquette University in Chicago, who was one of the guard dogs of the official story. I had my clashes with him, and I have to think that he's feeling the heat right now.

So, on the left, that is not JFK's jacket ruffling. He wore thousand dollar suits, and I mean a thousand dollars in 1963 money. His suits were tailored to him, and I mean they measured every part of his body and then manufactured his suits from scratch. His jackets fit him like a glove, and they didn't ruffle. What that is is a cover-up because that is the exact spot that he was hit in the back. They only needed the right side, but they had to bunch it up all the way across to sell it as a ruffle.

On the right, I put the replacement image of Jackie that they used. It's from her televised January 14. 1964 address to the nation, thanking Americans for their cards and letters. Notice that they horizontally flipped it, and they did a lot of that in the JFK assassination. Several images of Oswald were horizontally flipped, and so was one of Lovelady. I think they had a practice of checking all images to see if they liked the horizontally-flipped one better.

According to the official story, JFK wasn't hit yet in the Crofts photo, and nothing was wrong. If so, then why does Jackie look so dour? She was a political wife on a political mission. Her job was to smile and wave at people and look dazzling. So, why was she so glum there? It's because it was from a different time, when she was in mourning.

With the Crofts photo, the photo-alterers were out to hide the fact that JFK was shot in it. Notice that his eyes are shut, and because of Jackie's jutting hair, you can't see his mouth. JFK was reacting, in a startled way, to being shot, and they had to cover it up.

Robert Croft was from Powell, Wyoming, and they took his camera from him on November 22, and they didn't return it to him until the end of January. That was according to him. It took them that long to figure out what to do about his photo which showed JFK reacting to being shot high on the hill.

 If you reject the Single Bullet Theory, what's left? If that claim is a lie, then what hit JFK in the back? Did the missile even traverse his body? No, it did not because if the SBT is false, it's not as though there was another exit wound. Yet, they x-rayed him and said that there was no bullet in him. But, if the bullet didn't traverse his body, then how could there be no bullet in him? Can you see that it is rather like the chicken and egg conundrum? 

To those who denounce the SBT, what are we left with in the way of evidence? We are left with is what the autopsy doctors seemed to find, which was just a shallow wound in JFK's back. Several probed it with their pinkie and said that it just went an inch or so and stopped. 

But, how could a bullet do that? The flight speed from the Carcano was about 2000 feet per second. So, if the bullet hit him at that speed and then came to complete stop in an inch, how could it decelerate that fast? How could the energy be dissipated that fast? And if his back did stop the bullet that fast, imagine the damage to his back and to the bullet because the energy would have had to be taken out on something.   

And what happened to the bullet? Why wasn't it in there? Did it fall out, as some have claimed? That claim is ridiculous. It had to go through three layers of clothing to get in, so it couldn't possibly go back out the same holes. 

The reason the missile was able to stop so short is because it was made of ice which burst upon entry and vanished. There is no alternative to that. A metal bullet couldn't vanish. And since it didn't traverse him or fall out, it would have remained in his body and been found. 

JFK was hit in the back with an ice bullet- a drug-laced ice bullet. And we know that such a delivery system existed. We learned about it at the Church hearing in 1975. CIA Director William Colby confirmed it. It is not farfetched. Claiming that a metal bullet him him and stopped in an inch- that is farfetched. 

JFK was shot in the back high on the hill, soon after the limo completed the turn from Houston to Elm. The Shooter was on a low floor in the Dal-Tex building. He was already hit in the Croft photo, which was severely altered to hide it. Look at this goofy picture. That is not how Jackie's hair was on November 22. It wasn't plastered down. I will do a complete analysis of the alterations to the Croft photo. 

 

 Now look at this. I found another image which shows a lamppost pretty close to the Stemmons freeway sign. It's the image on the top right. That looks pretty close to me, and I don't assume that it is fabricated. So, with that being a real sign, the problem is that Willis photo is the one that's bogus. Apparently, it had its lamppost removed. So, why would they remove the lamppost from Willis?

Notice that the figures beneath the sign do not look photographic. They have no photographic detail. Those figures could have been painted. Now look at Umbrella Man. Notice that his umbrella is too small. Umbrellas have to be big because when it's raining, often the wind is blowing, and water can reach you from the side.

So, you need a big dome on top of you to stay dry. So, that umbrella in the Willis photo isn't real, and neither is Umbrella Man. My friend Dr. Alen Salerian has been saying for a long time that Umbrella Man probably shot the flechette into JFK's throat with the umbrella gun. And before you make fun of that idea, you need to read the HSCA testimony of Charles Senseney who was contracted by the CIA to make an umbrella gun.

https://voiceoftruthusa.wordpress.com/2013/11/18/was-a-spy-umbrella-dart-gun-used-to-kill-jfk/

I suspect that when Willis took that photo, it graphically showed Umbrella Man positioned to fire the weapon, and so they had to completely revamp that side of the photo: the spectators. We shouldn't assume that anything we are seeing of Umbrella Man or JFK is real. They had artists back then who could photoshop with paint and a brush. And they wanted us to see clearly what they did, so in the revamp, they left the lamppost out and figured no one would notice.

 Some of the photos show a lamppost close to the Stemmons Freeway sign. For instance, the image on the left does, and it was taken by a famous photographer, Jim Ryan. But, look at the Willis photo on the right, which shows a lamppost way down the hill, far from the Stemmons freeway sign, and one up the hill, above the Thornton sign, and far from the Stemmons sign. I have both lampposts circled in white. There was not one in-between them. There was no lamppost near the Stemmons sign. So, why do some of the photos show it?

 

These are all phony, reenacted images. You notice on the left that the sign is the wrong shape. It's square, and it's leaning. Some tried to justify it because of the angle, but on the right, it's a similar angle, yet, the sign looks appropriately oblong. However, it too is leaning.

Then, the bottom image is a whole different story. There's a woman running with a small child, and a man is getting in front of her. What is the back story to that? Where did she come from? Did she run across the whole expanse of the lawn carrying that child? And where was she before that? And what is she running for? Is she afraid of being shot? Well, look at the Newmans on the ground. They don't seem to be afraid of being shot. And why is she running in that direction? Is she running to get to the man? Are they supposed to be a family? Then, where were they during the motorcade? And if they are a family, how did they become separated? It is supposed to be just shortly after the shooting, so how did it come to them being there, in that spot, doing what they are doing?

And notice they didn't even bother adding a phony Stemmons freeway sign to that image. They just left it out. Who's going to miss it, right?

The JFK assassination is the most photographically falsified event in human history. Nothing else even comes close.

Now, let's shine a light on the Lovelady clips, which surfaced well after the assassination. In a word: the FBI went into the movie business. And it was all because of one person: Harold Weisberg. 

You see, the official story of the JFK assassination was immediately met with resistance, and the three most prominent resistors, out the gate, were Mark Lane, Vincent Salandria, and Harold Weisberg. All three were advocates of Oswald in the doorway. Mark Lane put his photo of Lovelady, which is the only one that is legit, alongside Oswald and Doorman, on the cover of Rush To Judgment. 

Harold Weisberg didn't just read the Warren Report; he combed through the mountain of unpublished documents they left behind. First, he found the FBI document stating that Lovelady said he wore a red and white striped shirt and blue jeans on 11/22/63. Then, he found the photos that J. Edgar Hoover had taken of Lovelady and sent to the Warren Commission, in which you can see that the striped shirt was short-sleeved. And, he observed that the FBI had Lovelady pose in that outfit, with the shirt unbuttoned and sprawled open- just like Doorman. Why would they have him do that, duplicate the look of Doorman, unless he was wearing the same clothes? 

You can see it here on the left. Notice how the shirt is unbuttoned and far down. I included Doorman and Oswald because Doorman has his hands crossed in the doorway- just as Oswald did at the PD on the right. I think it's ironic that Lovelady had the habit of crossing his arms in back, while Oswald crossed them in front. 

Now, that picture of Lovelady is not legit. It is definitely doctored. His hair, for instance is doctored. Again: the only undefiled image of Lovelady that we have is the one by Mark Lane. No other image of him is trustworthy.  This was taken on February 29, 1964. 

But, Harold Weisberg realized that the FBI must have instructed Lovelady to wear the clothes he wore on 11/22 because they were going to recreate the image of Doorman. The two FBI agents who took the photos on 2/29/64 were idiots, but the idiocy continued up the chain of command because J. Edgar Hoover, himself, sent a letter to the Warren Commission, accompanying the photos.

But, the WC didn't publish the letter or the photos. They left them in the "document pile" and that's where Harold found them. The only reason we know about them is because of him. And he put them in his book Photographic Whitewash, which was the sequel to his book Whitewash. And then he went on a speaking tour. He combed the country, speaking to groups and clubs, and appearing on local radio.  And he did a lot of damage, heralding that it must have been Oswald in the doorway because Lovelady wore a short-sleeved shirt. 

But then, in 1966, when he was appearing on local radio somewhere in Arkansas, this guy called in claiming to know about some footage  of Lovelady standing in front of the doorway 10 minutes after the assassination wearing a long-sleeved plaid shirt. And that clip we call the Gorilla Man clip because the Lovelady figure in it looks like a Neanderthal, as you can see on the right. 

The white lines indicate disparities in the shape of the forehead, size of the nose, and inclination of the neck. They are clearly different men. And, LOVELADY WAS STILL ALIVE! So, why didn't they go to him? Well, as I've said, Lovelady was a terrible liar. He was just no good at walking the walk and talking the talk. 

But, the fact is that Gorilla Man could not possibly have been Lovelady because Lovelady left the entrance right away with Bill Shelley. They joined the throng of people who descended on the railroad yard next to the TSBD. And after that, they returned to the TSBD by way of the back door. THEY NEVER RETURNED TO THE FRONT. So, there is no way that could have been Lovelady. 

And there's no way it was real footage. The story went that it was part of the Martin film, that after shooting his motorcade footage, Jack Martin went somewhere to call his wife to tell her what happened, but then he returned to Dealey Plaza and shot the Gorilla Man clip. 

But, that is impossible because Martin's film is very crude, and the Gorilla Man clip is the most clear and sharp footage that we have. 

And, the Gorilla man clip doesn't occur in the Martin film. There is no intact version of the film that has it. And I communicated directly with the director of the Sixth Floor Museum, Gary Mack about it, and he admitted to me that they didn't have the Martin film with the Lovelady clip. 

So, this clip is entirely bogus, and these people are all bogus. It was shot at the TSBD in 1966.

The guy on the left in the Fedora hat is supposed to be Fedora Man from the Altgens photo. The young black man beneath him is supposed to be Bonnie Ray Williams, but he wasn't out front either at that time. The man with the black hair and very white skin walking on the sidewalk with his head turned is supposed to be Danny Arce, but, he wasn't there either at that time. And then, the Lovelady figure in the plaid shirt is smoking, even though he has no pack of cigarettes in his pocket, and Lovelady could not have been there at that time, as I explained. I don't know who the old lady is supposed to be on the right. And I don't know who the woman in curlers is supposed to be. It seems strange to go to a Presidential parade wearing curlers. Is the woman wearing the scarf supposed to be Babushka Lady? Hey, they rounded up the whole gang! But, Babushka Lady definitely wasn't hanging around there. Another weird thing is that the woman in curlers and the woman in the scarf don't move. They don't even twitch. They are absolutely frozen. Other people are moving about, but not them. 

But anyway, the whole thing is fake, and the FBI went into the movie business. 

Fast forward to the HSCA in 1977, when Oswald in the doorway had reared its head again. That's when Robert Groden claimed to find a clip of Lovelady at the desk in the squad room when Oswald was brought in. Except: there are two versions of it. One was put into the David Wolper film, Four Days in November, from 1964, a documentary about the assassination, although it's more like a Nazi propaganda movie.  It could not have been in the original version of the Wolper film, since it didn't exist. But, it's in the version we have today. The other version didn't appear until 2009 in a documentary film made by the Disney corporation called 3 Shots That Changed America. It was broadcast on the History Channel in 2009 and issued as a DVD in 2010. 

The two versions of the squad room clip are different: entirely different. You can watch them both in succession right now. First, here is the one from the Wolper film, but I just made it myself with a string of stills from the film. 

The Lovelady figure wasn't there; he was dropped in artificially. 

And here is the second one by Disney. I refer to it as the DeNiro clip because the Lovelady figure reminds me of Robert DeNiro's in The Deer Hunter with his hair combed back. 

Of course, they are supposed to be the exact same footage because there was only one. But, I think what happened is that they became dissatisfied with the one in Wolper because they just inserted the image of the Lovelady figure into real footage. In the Disney version, they started from scratch with actors and reshot it. But, 2009 was a long time later, and film technology had advanced. It was all digital. However, they were able to use the background from the original footage, with the books on the lockers in back.  The two Lovelady figures look nothing like each other. 

Why would anyone think that those two are the same man, when the man on the left has arms like Charles Atlas, and the man on the right looks as scrawny as Barney Fife? And why does DeNiro have his shirt sprawled open, in a weird and impossible way, while Fife doesn't? But get this: they both have a pack of cigarettes in their left shirt pocket. Yet, Gorilla Man was smoking, but he had no pack of cigarettes. So, where did he get the cigarette? 

They also forgot to sprawl open his shirt too. How could these two be the same man?

The whole thing is a comedy of errors; production errors. I'm a filmmaker, so I know how easy it is to make production errors. But, I never made any as bad as this. 

Lovelady wore the short-sleeved striped shirt, just as Harold Weisberg said. It's him on the right from the Couch film, walking to the railway yard. 

So, his shirt is very mottled, but barely, you can make out the alternating stripes on the shirt, red-white-red. And you can see that it's short-sleeved, with his bare arm and elbow showing. 

Look, the fact is that a cabal within the U.S. government, consisting of Vice President Johnson, Pentagon officials, plus the intelligence agencies (FBI and CIA), including former CIA director Allen Dulles, killed JFK on 11/22/63, and they thought it was going to be neatly put to bed. They had no idea they were going to be making phony films into the 21st century. 

So, all of the Lovelady clips are fake and phony, and they were all done just to show Lovelady in a plaid shirt. But, I'll leave you with this: The irony is that Doorman's shirt isn't plaid. Plaid means recurring boxes. Doorman's shirt is such vaguely contrasted with light and dark, and it's due a combination of photographic haze and distortion plus light reflection. It is NOT a plaid pattern. These are NOT the same shirt. 

   

 There's a great new video out by John Hankey. You may recall that he made the outstanding video that proved that John F. Kennedy Jr. was murdered. I have often said that I think it is the best piece of investigational video journalism I have ever seen.  

But now, John has done a video analysis of the Trump assassination attempt in Butler PA. And I agree with him that Thomas Crooke could not have taken the shots. It's ironic that just as Oswald's friends said that he was a lousy shot, so did Crooke's friends from his h.s. gun club say that about him. They wouldn't let him on the team.  

One of the things you'll learn in this video is that Crooke supposedly shot from 164 yards (which is 1 2/3 football fields) and he didn't have a scope. Even Oswald was just 81 and 88 yards from JFK, and he had a scope.  That is, the rifle attributed to him had a scope. The truth is that Oswald did not own a rifle, and he was not on the 6th floor during the motorcade; he was standing in the doorway.  So, it's actually a moot point, and I don't believe any shots were taken from the 6th floor window. But, the point is that, supposedly, Oswald could hit his target because he had a scope. Yet, Crooke shot twice the distance without a scope, hitting Trump once? 

Here is the link to John's excellent video:

Trump in the Crosshairs? Murder in Butler PA (youtube.com)

 I believe this is a reenactment photo. It's supposed to have been taken by a Dallas Times Herald photographer on the day, but I don't believe it. First, the freeway sign is wrong. It looks square, but the sign was oblong. It was twice as wide as it was tall. It was 8 feet wide and 4 feet tall. You can see the oblong shape of it on the right in the Willis photo. Can you see that in the reenactment photo, it looks square?

So, did they bring a sign along with them and install it on the day of the reenactment? I don't think that. I think they painted it in afterwards. They didn't have Photoshop in those days, but they had artists who were mighty good.

The square sign isn't the only problem with the picture. It's got the Newmans still on the ground. Why would they be doing that? Are they still afraid? They are surrounded by 4 photographers, who are obviously not afraid of being shot. It's over, right? The crisis has passed. This is long afterwards. So, what are the Newmans still doing on the ground?

What about the motorcycle cop? I don't think he was moving. If he were, wouldn't there be motion blur? He looks perfectly still to me.

The photographer on the left is James Altgens. But, he supposedly ran to the Dallas Morning News building, where the AP operated out of, to get his film developed. Supposedly, his images were on the wire by 1:03, and some of them were, such as Altrgens7 showing Clint Hill on the back of the limo. So, how could he have been dawdling on the lawn this late on the day?

Then, supposedly, there is Umbrella Man and Dark Complected Man sitting next to each other. Do you know that according to Louis Witt, they didn't know each other and didn't speak to each other? So, why would they be sitting so close together? People don't do that. To sit that close to a stranger when there was so much space around? Imagine you were on an empty subway car; just you. Then, a man enter the car and sits right next to you. There are seats galore, but he takes the one right next to you. It would be discomforting, wouldn't it? But, for the record, I don't believe that Louis Witt was Umbrella Man.

But, in any case, the Stemmons Freeway sign was oblong, and the one in this photo is square, and that means that it isn't real. This photo was a reenactment.

This is one of the two versions of Lovelady at the table in the Squad room, both of which were fake. In this one, they took real footage, and the inserted the Lovelady figure into it. Notice that no one looks at or acknowledges "Lovelady". They act like he wasn't there. He wasn't. 

 Lovelady never claimed to see Oswald at the PD. He was asked by Joseph Ball when the last time was that he saw Oswald, and Lovelady said that it was at the TSBD. We would have to believe that he forgot all about being in the middle of this media frenzy. The footage is real, but the "Lovelady" figure was added to it, and it was done in the 1970s. 

 There is a man C.A.A. Savastano who has a hit-piece site about me, and it's been there since 2018. He  doesn't name me, but he quotes extensively from my website, the Oswald Innocence Campaign:  http://oswald-innocent.com

Let's consider now some of his statements. He says: 

Witnesses affirm Bill Lovelady not Lee Oswald was on the front steps of the Depository during this photograph and Oswald being absent does not prove he assassinated President Kennedy. Yet it does support he was not in front of the building during the shots.

The witnesses who affirmed Billy Lovelady were hand-picked for that reason. It's not as though there was any chance that the Warren Commission was going to hear from anyone who affirmed that it was Oswald in the doorway. The whole thing was a Stalinist show trial. So, it is meaningless and deceptive to make the claim that Savastano made. And it's not even accurate since Carolyn Arnold told the FBI on November 26 that she saw Oswald at the doorway shortly before the motorcade arrived. And true to form, the WC never called her in to testify.

Now, there is no doubt that Lovelady was in the doorway too, but he was not Doorman, and he never claimed to be. Realize that there was never a time that Joseph Ball pointed to Doorman and said to Lovelady, "Tell me who this is." And there was never a time that Lovelady said, "I was the Doorman, standing next to the white column." Instead, they talked around it and tinkered with arrows, but as you read Lovelady's testimony, it's clear that he did not want to say that he was Doorman, and he didn't.

Savastano went to great lengths to establish that other employees testified that Lovelady was out there with them. And he was! It is him, on the right, the faceless guy.

Of course, it is not physically possible for such an image to be rendered. And the irony is that Lovelady was visoring his eyes because so much light was entering them; it was blinding him. And I have stood there myself in that Texas sun, and I know, first-hand, that it is glaring. But, with so much light entering his eyes that it called for a remedy, how could he blacken out his whole head just by doing what he's doing? He couldn't. THEY blackened out his face. And by they, I mean Kennedy's killers. I believe it was a team set up by Dino Brugioni of the CIA Photo Interpretation Center, which was a euphemism.  

Then, Savastano posted this collage of Doorman, Lovelady, and Oswald.

First, be aware that the middle photo is Billy Lovelady, but it's from 1967, not 1963, and it was taken in color by Robert Jackson. And the image of Doorman on the left is over contrasted. But, even with all that contrast, it doesn't look the same as Lovelady's shirt. It isn't neatly and uniformly checkered. Below, I used the scan of Doorman by Dennis Cimino because it's the best there is. And I used the Jackson photo of Lovelady the way he took it, in color.

The fact is that Oswald's shirt, which was Russian, was very thin material that reflected sunlight. So, the contrast is due to the distortion of the enlargement and to light reflection. Doorman's shirt is NOT plaid. It has no neat, uniform, recurring boxes on it, as you see on Lovelady's shirt. And just because Lovelady posed in that shirt for that photo doesn't mean that he wore it on 11/22/63. And notice that the upper right side of Doorman's shirt (on our left) shows no contrast at all. I have circled it. But, Lovelady's shirt had pattern all the way up to and including the collars. The flashy plaid pattern occurs throughout.

That photo of Lovelady in the center was taken for the NBC Kennedy assassination Special in 1967. They were going to include a large segment on Doorman, including an interview of Lovelady. They paid him to come down to Dallas from Colorado to do it. They shot it, but, they never used it. It got cut from their 2 hour program. Why? Because they realized that Lovelady was a mess, that he was such a terrible liar that putting him on camera would do more harm than good. And the same thing happened in 1978 with the HSCA. They could have subpoenaed him to come to Washington, but they didn't. They talked to him in advance, and they knew, from that, he could never perform adequately, that he had no ability to lie convincingly. How significant is it that they didn't subpoena Lovelady to testify? Extremely significant. And then, he died of a heart attack at the tender age of 41 in January 1979 right when the HSCA Final Report was coming out? Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, they killed him.

Savastano only posted one image, a collage of Doorman, Lovelady, and Oswald, that is fraudulent. But, it's not just fraudulent in what he did to it. The Altgens photo itself is fraudulent.

The black man in the lower left wasn't there. He was a real man, Carl Jones, and he was close to that spot, but he was out of view to Altgens and facing the other way. The frame below by NBC photographer Dave Wiegman was taken almost simultaneous with the Altgens photo. 

You can see that Carl wasn't that close to Oswald. It only looks that way in the Altgens photo because they faked it. Carl was completely out of view to Altgens because of the angle from which Altgens shot. In fact, Oswald's right shoulder was partially out of view to Altgens for the same reason: parallax. But, they put the image of the black man into the Altgens photo because the bottom of Oswald's shirt was torn and tattered, and they were afraid that would give him away. So, they covered up the bottom of his shirt with the black guy. And they also wanted to cover up the fact that Oswald was clasping his hands in front in the doorway, which was a habit of his. We have quite a few images of him doing that that weekend. So, that would have given him away too. Lovelady didn't do that. Lovelady clasped his hands behind his back, not in front like Oswald.

So, covering up Oswald's self-defining front hand-clasp in the doorway is what they needed the image of Carl Jones for. 

But then, they got carried away. They decided to get rid of his whole arm by turning it into Carl's arm. Look at it again:

Can you see what appears to be a raised arm with a hand waving? I circled it.

So, that's supposed to be the rolled up sleeve of Carl Jones, and his forearm and hand. He's supposed to be waving at someone. It's very crude, I know, and it isn't even anatomically correct. He couldn't turn his hand like that if he wanted to. It's laughable what those buffoons did. 

And, I can tell you where they got that image of Carl. It was taken about 3 pm when employees were allowed to go home. It was taken by Congressman Phil Willis.

That looks exactly the same as the image of the black man in the Altgens photo because it is the same image.

And if you are wondering if Altgens and Willis could have captured the same image, the answer is no, since they were on opposite sides of the Plaza.

I consider guys like Savastano accessories after the fact in the murder of President Kennedy. But, as shills go, he's a bit more sophisticated than most. Still, in his sophisticated way, he is appealing to people's intellectual weakness. Oswald was the Doorway Man, and all the evidence supports it. It is as certain as Christ on the Cross.

Here is the link to Savastano's hit-piece against me:

https://www.tpaak.com/tpaak-blog/2014/1/2/while-assassination-conspiracy-is-feasible-it-assigns-oswald-some-guilt?fbclid=IwY2xjawFqoL9leHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHSCzbNy_BJieHRx9MnJiJzUj7P3SoeGsdKHx4JC9PDmeq6YNG6AVKHin9w_aem_cu6tv0TI5JHxbnu6y4ROzw

 You realize that a photograph is the rendering of a 3-dimensional space on a 2-dimensional surface, and the way depth gets registered is with elevation. Something that is deeper in the photo appears higher.

Now, because the Stemmons freeway sign was perpendicular to the road, the south side of the sign was deeper than the north side, and therefore the south side was higher than the north side. And that means that the right side of the sign was higher than the left side, and therefore, the top of the sign registers as a diagonal line.

Now, look at this photo, starting with the center of it. Look at my sign. First, I realize that it was smaller than the real sign, but that was a matter of practicality; and it was still arduous to get it there. But notice the diagonal line at the top, in which the right side is higher than the left side. That's because the sign was perpendicular to the road.

But now, look on the left at the sign in the FBI reenactment, and you'll see that it is perfectly square, that it squarely fits into the bottom right corner of the photo with no depth differential at all.

Then, on the right, you can see Zapruder on his pedestal, shooting the top of Dealey Plaza (indicated by the line) and how it was in relation to the sign, which you can see.

And notice that in my photo, I was no longer shooting the intersection. You can't see the corner. You can't see Houston Street. I had to go down the hill some to visualize the sign.

What this means is that, as in the Zapruder film, the sign in the FBI reenactment was fake. The laws of Physics and Optics did not get cancelled for that reenactment.

And to my detractors who are still going to dispute this, and I know they will, let's meet in Dealey Plaza and recreate it together. We'll each make sure the other doesn't cheat. We'll each be watchdog to the other. And then, with the proper sign in the right location and angle, and with Zapruder on his pedestal shooting, we'll recreate the Zapruder film and see when the sign comes in, and how it comes in.

And if, to my surprise, my adversaries can recreate the Zapruder film with the sign looking as it does in the film, and without cheating, I will publicly admit it. The truth is all I care about.

Wouldn't that be better than just arguing about it? And isn't it important enough to do it?

So, who is willing to meet me in Dallas and do this, for the sake of JFK truth?