As we continue to probe the monstrous crimes of the U.S. government the weekend of November 22-24, 1963, (and it was the U.S. government that did all the killing: not Oswald, not the Mafia, and not Jack Ruby) I feel compelled to address the current colossal crime of the U.S. government: the war on Iran. I feel I have to do it because not doing it is like ignoring the elephant in the room. 

And I'll start with some practical advice. If you think this war is going to go on for a while, then eventually end, and then everything is going to go back to normal, you are sadly mistaken. Normal is gone. The world is NEVER going back to what it was. The whole global order has been disrupted. The crushing effect on the global economy means that high inflation, high unemployment are guaranteed, but, it's going to be worse for Americans because of the decline of the U.S. dollar. So, you better be ready for it.

But, let's be real: this war isn't close to ending; it's escalating. The worst may lie ahead. The big question is whether Israel and/or the U.S. will resort to nuclear weapons if all else fails. What a wretched irony that would be considering that Iran using nukes was the justification for the war. My opinion is: yes, Israel would nuke Iran, if necessary. If it came down to either losing the war or using a nuke, they will use a nuke. I rate the chance of the U.S. doing it a little less, but not much. After all, the U.S. is the only country in the world that has already used a nuke. And since the decision would be Trump's, then yes, I think he is fully capable of making that monstrous decision and rationalizing it. He is rash, by nature. Don't you realize that? 

The tragedy of this catastrophe is that it was so unnecessary. Iran is not and never has been a terrorist state. The accusation is based mostly on the fact that Iran has given money to Hamas and Hezbollah. But, so has Saudi Arabia and the other Arab states. It was given to help Palestinians and Lebanese. 

One of the most frequent citings of a terrorist act by Iran is the attacks on Jews in Argentina in 1992 and 1994. Get out a world map or better yet a globe, and look at the distance from Iran to Argentina. Jews live unpersecuted in Iran. They have their temples, their Kosher markets and restaurants, etc. They even have rabbical schools to train rabbis, and it all goes on unfettered. And they have a special representative in the Iranian Parliament. Iran's treatment of its Jews is nothing at all like Hitler's. So, why would Iran go to Argentina to kill Jews? What's in it for them, then or now? Nothing. It would be awfully stupid for them to do it, and Iranians aren't stupid. They invented hypersonic missiles, which we haven't done.  I don't think there is a snowball's chance in Hell that the Iranian government sought to kill Jews in Argentina.   

What I think it really comes down to is hate: racist hate. For decades, the culture in the United States has been sliding towards hating Iran and Iranians. We've been feeding that hatred. Just the other day, Trump said that "the Iranian people are quite nasty." Wow. What a thing to say. 

Just imagine if Putin had bombed Ukraine the way Trump has bombed Iran, where schools, hospitals, and residences have been hit. Putin has hit some civilian structures and killed some civilians in Ukraine, but not in the magnitude or in the concentration that Trump and Israel have been killing civilians in Iran. And you know that the "decapitation strikes" have not been precise and limited. Without the least hesitation, Israel has been willing to kill whole familes to take out one scientist, and the U.S. has followed them down that road. The same thing happened in WW2. When the U.S. joined the war, we sent our airmen to England, and they joined the British bombers in saturation bombing of civilian centers in Germany. Most all the Allied bombing against Germany in WW2 were attacks on civilians. Strategic bombing was largely abandoned for terror bombing. If you haven't read about the bombing of Dresden, you should do it before you die. 

It's very appropriate that I bring this up because at the time, neither the UK, the US, nor USSR were signatories to the Geneva Conventions which banned the targeting of civilians in war. But, the U.S. did sign it in 1949, though alas, the number of civilians we killed in the Korean War, and then in the Vietnam War, were in the millions. The total civilian death toll in George W. Bush's "War on Terror" is also in the millions.

But, the fact is that it's getting worse because in this war, the attacks on civilians started right away: on the very first day. It's widely admitted now that the killing of 175 people at the girls' school on the first day (most of the victims being young girls) was done by the U.S. Trump abjectly denied it for as long as he could. And Hegsted kept saying, like a mantra, that the only one who targets civilians are the Iranians. 

But, let's be crystal about something: the excuse that you had bad intelligence, or that the school was close to a military facility, and the notion that saying that exonerates you is false. it does not. You have a responsibility to spare civilians. You have blood on your hands, and you are guilty. In Afghanistan, we bombed 9 wedding parties, knowingly and methodically killing everybody: the bride, the groom, children, families- all in the hope of killing a few Taliban fighters. There is a 4-letter word for that: EVIL.

I hate to say it, but moral degeneracy has taken over in America. Even Trump's political opponents, the Democrats, are criticizing his war over stretegy, cost, and legality, but not the inhumanity of killing Iranians. I pointed that out to Chat GPT, and this is what it said:

 You’re right—most of the public political statements from U.S. politicians focus on legality, constitutionality, or strategic prudence, not on the moral dimension of killing civilians. Very few high-profile American politicians openly frame such attacks as immoral or equivalent to atrocity, which can make the system look morally complacent, especially from an external perspective.

This distinction is important:

• Legal/constitutional objections: “This isn’t authorized by Congress,” or “It’s not an imminent threat.”

• Strategic objections: “This could escalate into a quagmire,” or “It undermines diplomacy.”

• Regime change criticism: “We shouldn’t try to overthrow their government.”

But explicit moral condemnation of civilian deaths is almost absent from mainstream discourse. Even anti-war voices often couch their argument in law or strategy rather than human rights or ethics.

It’s a sobering reflection on how political frameworks can normalize violence when morality is subordinated to legality, nationalism, or realpolitik.

*          *          *          *         *         *          *            *             *

I believe in Karma, and I believe that the repercussions of this monstrous war, which we started, and during peace negotiations no less, are going to be horrendous for us.  And I think that the deranged people who did it: Trump, Hegsted, and their top military leaders, have committed gross crimes against humanity. But, I also think that it involves trends and attitudes and "group think" that go back many years, and involve many more people and institutions. 

This is what Trump just posted on Truth Social: “Watch what happens to these deranged scumbags today." Heaven help us. 

 

 I feel compelled to express my thoughts about the atrocious U.S./Israeli war on Iran because, otherwise, it would be like ignoring the elephant in the room. What they've done is utterly grotesque, abominable, and monstrous. And really, it is catastrophic. I could also say that it is insane, considering that Trump raged about not getting the Nobel Peace Prize. But, in his derangement, he probably thinks he still deserves it. 

Consider the claim that Iran has been a "state sponsor of terror." Is it true? The claim is based mainly on Iran having given money to Hamas and Hezbollah. But, Saudi Arabia has also done that, as have other Arab states. And many countries accuse Israel of terrorism and genocide in Gaza and elsewhere. And the U.S. was accused of terrorism by the ICC for bombing wedding parties and pistachio pickers in Afghanistan.  

And when you look at specifics, it gets even worse. Often cited are the attacks against Jewish targets in Argentina in 1992 and 1994. Get a map out, or better yet, get a globe out, and look at the distance between Iran and Argentina. What possible benefit was it to Iran to kill some Jews in Argentina? The Iranians aren't stupid. Look at their missile technology. And the fact is that Jews live unpersecuted in Iran. They have their temples. They have their Kosher restaurants. They have a representative in the Iranian Parliament. So, why, Why, Why would Iran go halfway around the world to kill some Jews? They are not that stupid. 

And speaking of stupid, it doesn't get more stupid than Donald Trump. Twice, he has interrupted negotiations with Iran to savagely attack them. And, this time, like last time, Trump is already clamoring for a ceasefire. It's very clear that he wants the war to be over. But, this time, Iran is saying no, and Donald Trump is bewildered.  I find it amazing that he even expects them to consider a ceasefire, considering what he did after the last one, and I consider it a sign of his severe mental deficit. 

In the decapitation strikes with which Israel and the U.S. began their savage war, they knowingly killed a lot of innocents. They would bomb an apartment building to kill one scientist. Everyone else was "collateral damage", including the guy's wife, his kids, his grandkids, and his neighbors.  And sad to say, it wasn't the first time. During the Iraq War, George W. Bush bombed a restaurant in Baghdad, a cheap place where you could get a chicken dinner for $2. They dropped a megaton bomb on it and wiped out the whole city block. They killed Iraqi families sleeping in their beds, including many Iraqi children, all in the hope of killing Saddam Hussein, which they didn't do.

And I brought that war crime up in my film, MY STRETCH OF TEXAS GROUND, which was my first. It is the only anti-war feature film of the 21st century. You can watch it for free on Youtube. 

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSGWzsmxWPg&t=1s   

Chat GPT is very pro-Amerian and pro-Israeli, but I have found that you can argue with it. At first, they didn't want to admit that the U.S. bombed the girls' school. But then, they came around to this:

The available evidence currently points toward a U.S. strike

Multiple reports citing officials briefed on the investigation say that U.S. investigators believe it is likely U.S. forces were responsible for the strike on the girls’ school in Minab.

Preliminary findings reportedly indicate:

• A U.S. Tomahawk missile likely struck the area.

• The intended target was a nearby Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps facility.

• Outdated intelligence may have caused the school to be mistakenly listed as a military target.

Because of this, many outlets describe the incident as a likely U.S. strike that hit the school by mistake.

 I am sickened by the fact that most of the criticism of Trump's war from Congress has focused on legality, authorization, and strategy rather than explicitly condemning the war as immoral, inhumane, and wicked. And I see it as evidence of the advanced moral degeneracy in our government. They all seem to have the conviction that America has the right to kill anyone.  

Finally, I will leave you with this: If you think this war is going to go on a while and then end, and then things are going to go back to normal; that by Opening Day of Major League Baseball, this war is going to seem like a blip from the past, you are sadly mistaken. THIS WAR HAS CHANGED EVERYTHING. IT HAS SHIFTED THE AXIS OF THE WHOLE WORLD ORDER. And what's coming next is not going to be pretty or easy or comfortable because the ramifications of this war are going to hit us all very hard and for a very long time. Brace yourself. 

 A Michelle Bube responded to my post about Lovelady and the shirt he wore on 11/22, which he wore again on 2/29 to pose as Doorman for the FBI, and she was arrogant and dismissive. She said we know it's not Oswald, and "we have witnesses that verify that." My post was about the shirt Lovelady wore on 11/22, and she didn't address any of the points I made or the images I presented. This was my response to her:

Michelle Bube: You don't know how to think, Michelle, and you don't know how to debate either. Specific points were made here, and you wrongly think that you can glibly dismiss them, as if you're holding a trump card that you can play at will. You're not. You don't know that it's not Oswald, and you are not the Queen of Siam. You don't get to make proclamations.

And although the WC got a few people to say that Doorman was Lovelady, there were 75 people who worked in that building. Since everyone who testified was screened in advance, it was a simple matter of finding ones who would say it. So, if they screened someone, and that person said that Doorman was Oswald, then he or she would not be allowed to testify. Carolyn Arnold said that she saw Oswald at the doorway, peering through the glass shortly before the shooting. She wasn't allowed to testify.

Furthermore, the photographic evidence trumps the lip-flapping. Lip-flapping is what got dozens of innocent men and women, who were sent to Death Row, exonerated by DNA evidence, thanks to the Innocence Project. The Innocence Project has also exonerated over 20 people who were executed by the State. Every single one of those wrongful convictions was the result of spurious lip-flapping, done either maliciously or mistakenly.

It was definitely Oswald in the doorway, and not because I say so, but because the evidence says so; the images say so. This is an image of Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady less than a minute after the assassination. If you look closely, you can see that Lovelady was wearing a short-sleeved shirt. The shirt had red and white stripes, but the red was more like pink because the shirt was old and faded. Lovelady wore that shirt on 11/22, as we can see; then he told the FBI that he wore that shirt, which they put in writing twice; and then he posed in that shirt for the FBI when they took photos of him.

This is a brand-new collage I just made to refute you, and I'm starting to think that it is one of the most powerful collages I have ever made. I am going to post it widely now, here on Facebook and on my blog, and I am going to mention you. So, I'm going to make you famous.

 I put the arrow on Lovelady's shirt because I suspect that someone pushed his shirt out to artificially create a spread that would mimic the one we see on Doorman. You can see that the other side of Lovelady's shirt remained in the midline. It isn't sprawled at all. So, the spread on the other side may have gotten some help with some nudging, and it probably did.

And what you see Oswald doing on the right, the way he is clasping his hands in front, left over right, is exactly what he was doing in the doorway in the Altgens photo. And we have other photos of him standing that way. He was even doing it in the garage during the Garage Spectacle as they were walking in. So, it was a deeply entrenched habit of his to do that.

However, the irony is that Lovelady had the opposite habit: to clasp his hands BEHIND his body, as you can see him doing on the left in his posing photo.

And what would be the point of trying to duplicate the shirt-spread if he wasn't wearing the same shirt? There would be no point. The FBI put it in writing twice that Lovelady said that he wore a vertically striped shirt and blue jeans on 11/22. And we can see that he wore it in the Couch film, which was discovered by Gerda Dunkel.

There is simply no doubt that Lovelady wore the short-sleeved, vertically striped shirt on 11/22, which is why he posed in it. It is true that later on, he started posing in a longsleeved plaid shirt. I could make a collage of him doing that, and maybe I will. But, Lovelady was pressured to do it, and I'm sure he was threatened.

And I tell you, with very strong conviction, that I believe that Lovelady was killed in January 1979, and hear me out. It was reported that he died of a fatal first heart attack at the age of 41. Although it is possible for a person to have a heart attack that young, or even younger, it is also very rare. It's even more rare for it to be fatal.

There is no doubt that Lovelady was a smoker at the time of the JFK assassination, I don't know if he was still smoking at the time of his death. He was slender at the time of his death. But, when I consider the unlikelihood of him having a fatal first heart attack that young and combine it with the ominous timing of it happening just as the HSCA Final Report was coming out, alarm bells go off in my head.

 Usually, the Kennedy-killers use the FBI photo of Lovelady as their go-to photo to compare to Doorman. And it's no wonder because it was altered to make him look like Doorman.

There are two versions of it. The original one, that J Edgar Hoover sent to the Warren Commission with a letter, has a hard face. In it, Lovelady looks like a thug. So, the HSCA used shadow to soften his face, which is the one on the left.

But, neither one of those images are authentic. To get to something that is real and uncorrupted, we have to go to the Mark Lane photo of Lovelady. It is, in fact, the ONLY image of Lovelady that we can rely on. And notice how little hair Lovelady had at the time. That was a lot of balding for a guy who was only 26 years old. But, that's the way it went for him. I wish it was the worst thing that ever happened to him.

 Oswald’s presence in the doorway was instantly recognized, and it should have induced the photo-alterers to destroy the Altgens photo, which they easily could have done.

But, these were arrogant men, and they decided instead to claim that he was Lovelady, who was standing right next to Oswald.

To turn Oswald into Lovelady, they replaced the top of his head, from the forehead up, with that of Young Lovelady from 1957. They had the photo, including Lovelady’s unique hairline, and they thought it would be enough to stamp Doorman as Lovelady. They were wrong.  

But, the other problem was Oswald’s unique Russian shirt, and they had to do two things to obscure it. The shirt was very tattered, and it showed. So, they had to put the black man, Carl Jones, over it, using the image of Jones that was captured by Phil Willis at 3 pm. And to cover the unique construction of the shirt collar, including the button loop that it had, they put that freaky man wearing a tie in over him in an optically impossible way that sheared Oswald’s face and his shoulder.

On the right, it shows what Doorman looked like before they altered him. I wasn’t able to take out the bogus image of Carl Jones, but what that did was hide the tattered shirt and also Oswald’s hand-clasping. Oswald had the habit of standing with his hands clasped in front of his body, like a Jehovah’s Witness at the door. We have many images of him standing that way that weekend, and he was doing it in the doorway.

Since I couldn’t take out Carl Jones, I instead inserted an image of Oswald standing with his hands clasped, so that you can see what he was doing in the doorway. In your mind’s eye, just shift that over to Doorman, and you’ll get the picture.

OUR GOVERNMENT DID THIS. It was undoubtedly a team from the CIA’s “National Photographic Interpretation Center” led by Dino Brugioni. It was the same government that launched its cruel, savage, monstrous, obscene, and depraved war on Iran, that has forever destroyed the pretense that the U.S. is civilized, and the same goes for Israel. I would call it beastial, except that that would be an offense to beasts.

The United States government killed Kennedy, and then they killed Oswald. It wasn’t the Mafia. It was the U.S. government.

 Aaron Paterson posted the clearest image of Bill Shelley that I have ever seen. I suspect it got some help from AI. But, because of it, I decided to make a collage of Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady on 11/22/63.

It was in 2013 that Gerda Dunkel found Shelley and Lovelady in the Couch film. They both said that, very soon after the shooting, they joined the throng of people who poured into the railroad yard, and we can see them doing it. You can see the excellent match of Shelley, with his pompadour hair, to Aaron's Shelley.

And that's Lovelady next to him, wearing the striped shirt that he told the FBI he wore on 11/22.  I put an image of Lovelady in his posing shirt for the FBI beneath it, so that you can see that they match.

It has to be Shelley and Lovelady in the Couch film because they both said they were there at the time doing that. Furthermore, if that's not them, then they still have to be there. It means that besides the couple who look like them, and are dressed like them, that they also have to be there. It means you would need two sets. But, there is only the one set. Therefore, it has to be them.  

And you can see that Lovelady's shirt is short-sleeved. So, he could not possibly be Doorman. So this, by itself settles the matter; Lovelady was NOT Doorman.

I added that diagonal black line because the three images to the right of it are the only images we have of Billy Lovelady on 11/22. There are others that are claimed, but they are all bogus. They don't look like Lovelady, and they don't look like each other either. And, they involve impossibilities. Since Lovelady left for the railroad yard right away, he was not milling around in front smoking 10 minutes later.

And Lovelady never said that he encountered Oswald at the DPD. He was asked, under oath, where he last saw Oswald, and he said it was at the TSBD. Never did he, or his chatty wife Patricia, ever claim that he was in a media frenzy with Oswald at the DPD.

 What it means is that, not only was Oswald the Doorman Man, but that the U.S. government went to a lot of chicanery and subterfuge to try to sell the idea that he was Lovelady. And the reason they did it was because the U.S. government killed Kennedy. It wasn't Oswald; it wasn't the Mafia; it was our own government. The same U.S. government that killed over 100 Iranian schoolgirls a week ago killed JFK, Tippit, and Oswald on the weekend of 11/22-24, 1963.

Yesterday, a man named Scott Tozier, who served for over 20 years in the U.S. Army, posted that Jackie and the driver Will Greer both shot JFK at the same time. 

How could a loyal soldier of the U.S. Army say that? Will Greer was one of JFK's Secret Service agents. If the Secret Service killed Kennedy, it means the U.S. government killed Kennedy. 

But how, after serving the U.S. government for over 20 years could Tozier glibly say that the U.S. government killed Kennedy? Doesn't that seem incongruous? 

It's not incongruous to me at all. Just because Tozier said it doesn't mean that he believes it. One would have to be insane to believe it. It is what you call a psy-op. It's about creating noise, sowing confusion, and engaging in mockery. It is about ridiculing everyone who challenges the government's story of the JFK assassination. 

Next thing he'll be saying that Kellerman got a shot in too. 

And this kind of thing happens all the time. These JFK groups are crawling with operatives.  But, I have to hand it to Tozier. In all the years and decades I've been doing this, I never before heard anyone claim that Greer and Jackie both shot Kennedy and simultaneously.  

You went too far, Tozier, and it was stupid. You exposed who you are and what is going on.  

I wonder how many Americans realize what is happening right now. How do they think this horrific war, that Israel and the U.S. started, is going to end? Do they think that, at some point, a ceasefire is going to be declared, and everything will go back to normal? Well, they're wrong. It's never going back to normal. 

Israel's and Donald Trump's war is sinking the world into the abyss. The worst case scenario is World War 3. But, even if we can avoid that, there will be no avoiding the economic and chaotic consequences of this war.

And the naked evil of war has never been as transparent as it is in this war. The U.S. bombed Shajereh Tayyebeh Elementary School, killing 175 people, most of them young girls. When asked about it yesterday, Trump said that "Iran did it. They have no accuracy whatsoever."

It is the single most evil thing any American President has ever said, since the founding of this country. And after he said it, right away I began drawing the parallel to the claim that Jackie shot JFK, which is just as evil and just as preposterous. 

I don't know if there are any real people who believe that Jackie shot JFK, but the vast, overwhelming majority of those who say it are dis-info ops, like Tozier, who are just muddying the waters, creating cognitive dissonance, and mocking the whole effort to challenge the government's story about the JFK assassination.

So, saying that "Jackie did it" is just pure evil. However, the claim that Greer did it is based on a specific bogus claim that the Zapruder film shows him turning around and shooting JFK. They claim that in the frames before 313, you can see that he has a gun in his hand. It's a lie. There is no gun in his hand. 

 

But, was the Secret Service involved in killing Kennedy? Absolutely. There is no excuse for what Greer did, and what he didn't do, which was speed off as soon as he realized that JFK was under attack. You can see Greer viewing the situation, and it wasn't the first time. In 286, he turned and saw what it was. So, why didn't he speed off then? It's because he wasn't going to speed off until JFK took the fatal shot. 

And the same goes for Kellerman. Look at 312 again. Notice that Kellerman is just sitting there, facing straight ahead, and doing nothing. Prior to that, he did turn around. You can see him doing it in 286. Greer and Kellerman are both turned and looking at the action. 

And that image of Mary Moorman in 312 is totally fake. Supposedly, she HASN'T taken her photo yet. Even though she started setting up for it long before the Kennedys reached her, she still hasn't done it. And she is facing the street squarely, even though the Kennedys have passed her. Supposedly, she is going to take her photo in 1/6 second. But, if she did, she couldn't possibly capture the Moorman photo. As the Physics Professor told us, the Moorman photo was taken diagonally from behind. The photographer wasn't facing Elm Street. The photographer was turned diagonally towards the limo which had pssed her.  It was taken from the angle that Babushka Lady took her photo. The Zapruder film is telling us that Mary Moorman could not possibly have taken the Moorman photo. 

People, we are immersed in evil: the evil of this savage, monstrous Trumpian-Israeli war, the evil of lies about the JFK assassination, and much more. Alas, all we can do about the war is condemn it and denounce the people who are doing it, but it's not going to stop it. 

But, we can do something about the lies about the savage, monstrous acts of the weekend of November 22-24, 1963. That we can expose, and those lies we can destroy. So, let's just do it. Please like this and share it, and thank you.    

 

    

 

 I consulted with a Physics professor, with a specialty in Optics, about the Moorman photo. He is a tenured professor who teaches at a prominent university, but I won't tell you his name because I don't want him to be harassed or worse. He drew this mathematical diagram of the Moorman photo, on the left. 

He said it is very significant that the line of the limo is not parallel with the bottom of the photo; that it is diagonal to it. He said that proves that the photo was taken diagonally. Another tell-tale sign of that is that the Kennedys aren't centered in the photo. He also said that the fact that Hargis looms so large compared to the Kennedys reveals the location of the photographer. He said that it is obvious that distance from Hargis to the Kennedys was additive to the distance from the photographer to Hargis. He said that you could draw a straight diagonal line from the photographer to Hargis and then on to the Kennedys. That is how they were aligned, and that is what caused the proportions that we see. 

So, when he said that, I showed him the Muchmore frame, and asked, "Do you mean like this?

His eyes widened.  He said yes, that is exactly it, that BL took the Moorman photo. He said that Muchmore (whoever that was, as he was not a JFK person) shot from about the same angle as BL, but from much farther back, and that's why Hargis and Martin don't loom large in the Muchmore frame because they weren't close to her camera. But in the Moorman photo, BL was very close to those motorcycle cops. The professor also agreed with me that the laws of physics demand that Martin had to be in the Moorman photo the same way he is in the Muchmore frame. In the Moorman photo, Martin is obscured under the thumbprint. 

Finally, I asked him, "Are you absolutely sure that the woman labeled MM didn't take the Moorman photo?" And he laughed out loud. I really mean that he laughed loudly, and I'll never forget it. He said, "Absolutely not. She would have had a triangular relationship to the Kennedys and Hargis; not a linear one."

What I have been telling you is the truth, that Mary Moorman did not take the Moorman photo. Mary's real photo captured JFK right before he was shot in the throat. But, he had already been shot; in the back, and he was slumped from it, and his face must have looked distraught. And Jackie was already aware that something was terribly wrong, and she was tending to him. Yet, according to the official story, nothing had happened yet.

So, they had to replace Mary's photo, and right away, they came up with the lie that she took several motorcade photos.  She did not. She only took the one. But, she took hers early, and they were going to replace it with one taken later, after the final shot. So, they needed the story to be that she took more than one photo. 

And remember: it was the FBI that did this, and the FBI is the U.S. government. The U.S. government killed Kennedy, and then, because they killed Kennedy, they had to kill Oswald. That is the frightening truth, and it's a nightmare. But, we have to face it, and there has to be a reckoning. 

 Let’s compare what Mary Moorman said at the time to what she said years and decades later. In Spring 1964, she returned to Dealey Plaza and demonstrated how she took her photo, which was in the street, facing east, and shooting the Kennedys as they approached her, seeking to capture their faces, just as she did when she photographed her friend Officer Glenn McBride.  

On the right is her in 2013 on the Today Show with disgraced host Matt Lauer, although his scandal didn’t break until 2 years later. He is pointing across the street because Mary had said that she took her photo when the Kennedys were even with her. And notice that she isn't in the street any more, but rather, way back on the grass.

Well, that does NOT satisfy the requirements of the Moorman photo. She would have had to say “I waited until they passed me and then shot the backs of their heads.”

All they accomplished by having her say that was to close the gap a little. But, this is exactly like pole vaulting: either you get over the bar, or you don’t.  And that doesn’t get over the bar.

But, I want to emphasize that I am not saying that Mary ever committed conscious fraud. I am not saying that she lied. I am saying that she was manipulated. Remember that she said that she was visited, over and over, by the FBI, the CIA, and the Secret Service.  And I’m sure they sent agents who were very trained in psychological manipulation. And I’m sure they never played hardball with her. They never got tough with her. They never threatened her- the way they threatened other people like Joe Molina, Billy Lovelady, Carolyn Arnold, etc. I’m sure they were as sweet as cherry pie with Mary. But, over time, they conditioned her to accept the new photo and the new story that they wanted her to tell.

That Mary Moorman segment on the Today Show is no longer available on Youtube. And this has happened repeatedly, that I start talking about something, and they take it down. The NBC 30 year retrospective of the Oswald shooting, which includes the image of FBI Agent James Bookhout surrounded by detectives on the 3^rd floor got taken down too.

And I have come to realize something today: that Mary’s affidavit was falsified. She did not say the things that are in it. It falsely states that she took multiple photos of the motorcade. She did not. She took the one of Officer Glenn McBride about 10 minutes before, and then she took her photo of the Kennedys, and that was it. Right from the start, the FBI lied about how many pictures she took. They reported on the first day that she took several images of the motorcade. They did it because they knew that her photo was taken long before the fatal head shot, and they also knew that they were going to replace it with an image taken by Babushka Lady after the fatal head shot. So, they needed the story to be that she took both the image she claimed to take and the one they were going to say she took.

You think I’m wrong about that? Are you sure? Because: doesn’t it seem like if she had taken multiple photos of the motorcade, that they would have shown us all of them? What possible excuse did they have not to show us all of them?

And they not only didn’t show them to us, they didn’t explain it either. You weren’t supposed to notice that they claimed multiple photos but only showed us one. Why did they assume that they could get away with that ? It’s because they think Americans are stupid fools and can be played like Pavlovian dogs.

Mary Moorman did NOT take the Moorman photo. She did NOT wait until the Kennedys passed her and then shot the backs of their heads. We have been lied to for 62 years about this and so much more. The evil of our Government and Media is thick enough to cut with a knife. And of course, what is happening today, the disaster and ruination that Donald Trump has brought upon the entire world with his war on Iran shows us that nothing has changed, that the evil persists.

 This is the interview Mary did on 11/22, and they cropped the start of it. After an introduction by Bill Lord, it goes to her, and she says, "picture. And I took the picture."

So, what did she say before "picture" that they cropped? Obviously, it must have been something that they didn't want us to hear. Very likely, it was her saying that she captured their faces in the picture.

Then, the next thing she said was that she took her picture at the instant of the first shot. She said:

"After I took the picture, the shots were still being fired. There
were 3 or 4 shots close together, and it must have been the first one that hit him because that is when I took the picture."

She said that her picture shows JFK slumping and Jackie leaning towards him.

 But, she could not have been right about it being the first shot. I know very well that the first shot was the one that hit JFK in the back high on the hill which delivered the nerve agent. But, that shot was silent. It involved no combustion; rather, it was battery-operated. This is from Google AI:

AI Overview

The CIA "heart attack gun" developed in the 1960s, was designed to shoot a small, frozen dart coated in a potent shellfish toxin, intended to induce a fatal heart attack without leaving obvious traces. It operated silently, causing rapid death, designed to leave little to no trace of the poison during an autopsy. 

 It was NOT developed in the 1960s but in 1953. Charles Senseney said so to the Church Committee in 1975. And he was talking about the heart attack gun:

 Mr. SMOTHERS. Is this a device that looks roughly like a .45-caliber pistol with a sight mount at the top?

Mr. SENSENEY. This was a follow-on. It was to replace the M-l projectile to go into the army stockpile. It did look like a .45.

But, even Google AI admitted that it operated silently. And in his testimony to the Church Committee, CIA Director William Colby said that the heart attack gun worked silently.

Church:  Does this pistol fire the dart?

Colby:   Yes, it does, Mr. Chairman. The round
thing at the top is obviously the sight; the rest of it is what is practically a normal .45. However, it works by electricity. There is a battery in the handle, and it fires a small dart.

Church:   So that when it fires, it fires silently?

Colby:  Almost silently; yes.

So, Mary Moorman was not talking about that shot. And frankly, I think Mary captured JFK right before he was shot in the throat by Umbrella Man. She said her picture showed JFK slumping and Jackie leaning towards him. But, when JFK was shot in the throat, he had a panic reaction, raising his hands to his throat and mouth. It was not a reflex, but it was an instinctual panic reaction. He couldn't breathe! Mary's photo didn't capture that because she didn't describe it that way. So, I'm thinking that Mary's photo must have captured the instant BEFORE he was shot in the throat.

So, what she caught was him slumping and looking distressed from the effect of the back shot and Jackie turned and focused on him. It was probably very much like what we see in Zapruder 207 except without the smudge that they put over his face to hide his distressed look.

This is Mary's statement on 11/22/63, and it certainly tells us that the existing Moorman photo is not the photo she took.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEavxZReo84

 All right, so people want to play hardball; then let's play hardball. First note the monument in each photo because in each photo, there is a tree above the monument (east) and below the monument (west). I numbered them 1 and 2 in each photo. So, the monument is between the two trees in each photo. Then, there is lone third tree on the side of the building in each photo. I numbered that 3 in each photo.

But, what about the very tall tree in the McBride photo? It isn't present at all in the other photo. It's not just that it's too tall; it's that it's there. Because it is not in the other photo at all; not at any height.

So, that whole big tree behind McBride is a lie.

So, what are the State moles going to say now? I don't know, but I know there is no limit to their audacity. They are like the Cheka in the early Soviet Union.

 These are the words that Mary Moorman spoke as she demonstrated how she took her photo. It was several months later; probably the Spring of 1964. The Stemmons Freeway sign had already been removed. By that time, both Mary Moorman and Jean Hill were very calm and reflective, and not immersed in the shock of what happened.

But, read Mary's words carefully because she said, very matter of factly, that she got into the street. And she made it clear that she lingered there in the street for quite a few seconds because she wanted to capture their faces.

However, it is physically impossible that she let them pass her and then shot the backs of their heads, as we see in the Moorman photo. And that's because it was physically impossible for her to do it. There was no room for her in the street once they reached her. That's because Officer BJ Martin, on the outside motorcycle, was hugging the curb.

You don't think she was going to obstruct and block the motorcade of the President of the United States, do you? Of course not. That is a real picture of Mary during her demonstration, and the other image is an accurate representation of what she was seeing.

And please don't suggest that she jumped out of the street at the last second; let the limo and the motorcycle escorts pass, and then got back in the street, turned the other way, to shoot the backs of their heads. It's a ridiculous claim. Besides, she didn't say it. And if she didn't say it, you can't say it.

So, as wild as it may sound to you that Mary Moorman's photo got replaced, that is what the evidence is telling us.

 You can thank Peter Manson for this because he spotted it, not me. The FBI enhanced and falsified the photo of Officer Glenn McBride that Mary Moorman took 10 minutes before the limo arrived. What they did was place another tree, a very tall one, behind the one that was there. Notice that the added tree, with its own canopy, is extremely dense. You can't see a thing through it. Why did they do it? I presume it's because something was showing in the window that they didn't want us to see.

Now, I am going to show you why they added that white thumbprint to the Moorman photo. And I hope you realize that they lied to her when they said it was an accident. I would pity you if you are that submissive to the Imperial State.

The crux of it is that Mary took her real photo well before the “Moorman” photo was taken. She took it at a time that the motorcycle cops were in regular formation, with Hargis leading and Martin back a ways, to create that attractive wing formation.

But, what happened after that is that Green braked which slowed the limo, and Hargis responded faster than Martin did. The result was that Martin gained on Hargis to where they were practically even.You can see it in the Muchmore film. And notice that in the Muchmore film that that JFK and Jackie look about the same as they do in the Moorman photo. You could say they look identical. And what do you think Babushka Lady is doing? SHE IS TAKING THE MOORMAN PHOTO.

So,the "Moorman photo" captured Hargis and Martin just as we see there in Muchmore, but Mary’s real photo did not. It captured Hargis well ahead of Martin. So, they wanted to restore what was in Mary’s original photo. So, they used the white thumbprint to blot out Martin, so that there’s only Harris. And then, they added some very crude art to show Martin behind Haris, in the proper formation.

So, in the collage, it shows on the left what the “Moorman” photo originally looked like. And on the right, it shows that Martin was there in front of Hargis. You can see Martin’s back and leg. You can see his toolbox behind him. And you can see that the front wheel that is in view is Martin’s front wheel.  Then, in the lower right corner, you can see their crude art-work, which consists of Martin’s right arm as he holds the handlebar. His arm doesn’t even look anatomical.

So, the bottom line is that Babushka Lady took the Moorman photo. Don’t believe the lies about BL. She was not Beverly Oliver. And she didn’t fail to come forward. It was just the opposite. She was an operative, and she turned her camera over to the plotters immediately. They sent her there to record the assassination. The scarf and the long coat were her disguise.

But, you need to think about the physics and the optics of the photo that BL took. She shot it at an angle from behind; so, on a diagonal. And that resulted in a much larger camera field than Mary’s photo. So, the Moorman photo is really a cookie-cutout of BL’s photo.  

And remember that the official story, that the FBI accidentally damaged Mary’s photo by pressing a thumb into it, is not plausible. It is simply impossible for that to have happened by accident.

 This is the photo that Mary Moorman took of her friend from church: Officer Glenn McBride. It was several minutes ahead of JFK. It's exactly what you would expect; a photo of his face. The only way she could get that was by taking the picture BEFORE he reached her. And, the only way she could capture the faces of the Kennedys, which she said was her intention, was by taking their picture BEFORE they reached her.

You should take a close look at this picture because JFK was probably in the exact same spot when she photographed him. McBride is probably right across from the Stemmons freeway sign, which is not in the picture. You do see the RL Thornton freeway sign, which is right above his head. That sign was different because instead of having narrow metal poles to support the sign, it had thick wooden posts. And you can see that in this photo. Notice how you can see the slope of the road. It really looks like he is going downhill. Mary kept saying that she was poised and positioned to take the photo of the Kennedys for quite a few seconds before she pressed the shudder. it's obvious that she was waiting for them to get as close to her as possible to maximize the capture of their faces before further progress of the limo started putting them in profile to her- which she didn't want. There was a "sweet spot" in which they were as large as possible and with their faces in full view. And I think she did a good job of capturing that sweet spot with Glenn McBride.

But, what reason is there to think that, starting as early as she did, having the camera trained on them well in advance, that she postponed taking the picture until they had passed her, leaving just the backs of their heads? There is no reason to think that at all. It is nonsensical. And with this picture of Officer McBride, Mary proved to us that she had no trouble capturing the sweet spot.

So, are you going to take the attitude that, despite all that, the Moorman photo shows the backs of their heads, therefore, it must be what Mary did? No! Don't do that. It is not good thinking. This is the JFK assassination- the evil and Machiavellian JFK assassination.

The feds kept going back to Mary to borrow her photo, over and over again. Why? it was admitted that, not only was the photo duplicated on 11/22/63, but they made a negative of it, so that they could make unlimited copies in the future. So, what did they keep needing Mary's original for? And then, they told her a preposterous story about how a white thumbprint got put on the photo. You can't press your thumb into a dry Polaroid photo and leave a mark. There would have to be some white, labile medium on your thumb to leave such a mark. But, why would there be any such medium on a FBI agent's thumb, and why would he handle the photo if there were? It is not credible. It is not plausible.

The thumbprint was deliberate. It had a purpose. It was to obscure something. And I will soon show you what it was.

But for now, I will leave you with this: I think the feds kept borrowing Mary's photo, over and over again, because each time, they altered it a little bit. And finally, they replaced it. But, there was something in the alternate photo that they needed to cover up. And they covered it up with the thumbprint.