No, Backes. To be precise, they added 4 people to the Altgens photo, and they are: Black Tie Man who was crammed next to Oswald, Roy Lewis who was placed below him, and the Woman and Boy who were placed in front of Fedora Man. And that's it. 

And note that some of the detail that we see above must have been added afterwards. For instance, on Black Tie Man, we actually see the line of his shirt collar above. But, take a look at the AP version that Robin Unger put up:

https://app.box.com/s/j60z96v2b4kqo1ruh7ud

When you get there, use the + icon to telescope in, and you can make it as large as you want. This is the AP's version, and it's their photo, and it goes to show that even in their photo, the resolution isn't there. It never was. There was some enhancing done after the fact just to make that guy look photographic. 

Think about how far Altgens was away, and think about how poor the resolution was overall. Do you really think that Altgens would have captured the distinction of that collar? I assure you he didn't. That's just photoshopping. If you look at Black Tie Man as he actually looks in the photo- and I have the actual physical photo from AP; I paid $60 for it- all you see are two white stripes. It is extremely crude.  

And a lot of people, when asked, don't even take Black Tie Man's image as that of a human being. Above you do, but again, that's because it's doctored; it is enhanced.

Black Tie Man wasn't there. He is overlapping Doorman's shoulder in an impossible manner, and I mean that it is both physically and photographically impossible. On the right below, you see how Doorman was before they pasted Black Tie Man in there. 

  
And on the left, you can see that Doorman is not anatomical. That is an impossible anatomical configuration. He is a freak.  

You can watch and listen to the interview of Police Inspector JH Sawyer here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrPhED9YhlE

We know now that he was the police officer talking to the Oswald-like figure after the assassination in the Three Tramps photo.

You know, anyway you look at this, it stinks. Because even if you want to claim that there was someone else there who just happened to look like and be dressed like Oswald, how would Sawyer know that? Why didn't he have a Roger Craig reaction that he saw Oswald OR at least may have seen him? How come he didn't say a word about this? I still think the man talking to him was Oswald.  

In his film, The Assassination of John F. Kennedy Jr., John Hankey alleges that George W. Bush was involved in the murder. And John Hankey is not the only one who says so.  

It's based on the fact that George W. Bush went missing the weekend of JFK Jr.'s death. He was seen flipping pancakes at an Iowa eatery on the Friday, and then he didn't surface again until the Monday. A nervous spokeswoman of his had to express his condolences to the press over the weekend without providing any clue as to his whereabouts. But, there were witnesses who saw Bush and his father at the small New Jersey airport with two Mossad agents in advance of JFK Jr's flight. Here is how investigative reporter Tom Flocco put it:

"Two witnesses said they saw George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush at the Essex County, New Jersey airport with Israeli Mossad agent Michael Harari and another Mossad agent who were both seen standing next to JFK Jr.’s Cessna--all four were at the airport just two days before the doomed plane took off with JFK Jr., his pregnant wife and her sister."

But, my point is that there was a big difference between killing JFK and killing JFK Jr.- in terms of justification. To the plotters in the JFK assassination, JFK was perceived as a traitor. I really think they looked upon his murder as the execution of a traitor during war. The penalty for treason is death. And according to them, Kennedy appeased Castro, where instead of deposing him at the Bay of Pigs, he paid him off millions of dollars, in humiliation of our country. Kennedy also conducted unauthorized negotiations with Khrushchev about disarmament. And Kennedy's whole drive to end the Cold War with the Soviets was perceived by them as treason.

So, when they killed JFK, even though he was a family man with a beautiful wife and two young adoring children, they justified it on the basis of "national security." And that is why OIC senior member Vincent Salandria characterizes JFK's execution as a "national security event." 

But, fast-forward to the killing of JFK Jr. What had he done? And it's not that I am saying that I think there was anything traitorous about what JFK did, but I can at least understand how Cold Warriors might perceive his actions that way. 

But, in the case of JFK Jr., what had he done that could possibly be construed as deserving the death penalty? There was nothing! Not by the wildest stretches of the imagination could his murder be justified as punishment for traitorous acts. There was no remote way to frame any of JFK Jr.'s actions, at any time in his life, as disloyal to the United States. 

And at least when they murdered his father, they went out of their way to avoid killing or harming his wife. But, with JFK Jr., there was no such courtesy. That is, his pregnant wife. 

My point is that when it came to the raw evil of it, there weren't even any mind games they could play to justify it.  They knew exactly what they were doing and what it represented.  It was pure gangsterism. They couldn't dress it up as a patriotic act, as duty to one's country, as I'm sure they did the first time. This was just the case of a crime gone wrong in which they had to double-down 36 years later by killing the son of the man they killed in 1963. 


  

I am very pleased with this concise statement I thought of:

The state murder of JFK Jr. is proof of the state murder of JFK. 

You know from watching Hankey's movie that JFK Jr. was murdered. It was no accident. He contacted the Tower in Martha's Vineyard at 9:39. At that point, he was just minutes away from landing. But then, his plane disappeared, and they quickly issued a statement that there was never any contact. They didn't even have the decency to announce that their previous statement was "inoperative".  It was like they never made it. In other words, it was right out of Orwell. 

Then, they delayed the start of a search for many hours. They did nothing. Even when Senator Ted Kennedy called the FAA at 11:30 PM, they still wouldn't do a thing.  Then another Kennedy relative, out of desperation, called the Coast Guard at 2:15 AM. But then, the Air Force stepped in and neutralized any effective action by the Coast Guard. Finally, Ted Kennedy called the White House and woke up Clinton. That was at 7 AM the next morning. And Clinton ordered the Air Force to start searching. And they searched alright: they sent two planes and two helicopters to cover an area of over 20,000 square miles. The man was about to land at Martha's Vineyard for Christ's sake! Yet, the Air Force had them searching this vast expanse for the next 5 and 1/2 hours. But, they already knew from the radar reports that the plane made a sudden plunge 19 miles off Martha's Vineyard! But, they actually waited until a piece of Carolyn Bisset's luggage washed up on the shore of Martha's Vineyard before they started looking around there!

Look: Why would they want to kill JFK Jr.? And not just want to kill him but actually do it, actually go through with it. Two reasons jump out: 1) he was just entering the serious political phase of his life, and it was obvious that he was going to be a powerhouse; and not just because of his status as a Kennedy and the son of JFK, but because, on his own right, and as his own man, the public loved him immensely. He was going to be the Republican Party's worst nightmare. But 2) John was already delving seriously into assassination research. He did a detailed interview of Oliver Stone; he covered the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in more depth than any establishment media; and, he was planning to cover Attorney William Pepper's wrongful death lawsuit concerning Martin Luther King, which was upcoming in Memphis. With that much interest in assassinations, how long would it have been before JFK Jr. blew the roof off the official story of his father's assassination? And 3) what if he actually became President? And it wasn't far-fetched. He was talking about running for New York Senator, and he would have won that as handily as his Uncle Robert did. In fact more so, because unlike RFK, he actually lived in New York for a long time and was a favorite son of the city of New York. How could he possibly have lost?  And once he became a Senator, he could have conceivably ran for President before he even finished his first term. And if not then, if it took a little longer, so what? He was young! He had plenty of time.

They just couldn't take the chance that JFK Jr. would blast the official story of JFK to the high heavens. They had to kill him because they very well knew the truth about what they did to his father.  And they also had no doubt that he would succeed. Yes;


The state murder of JFK Jr. is proof of the state murder of JFK. 
  

Howard Blenner is doing some good work over on McAdams' forum. He put up these images of Oswald. On the right is from Dallas; center is from New Orleans when he was 9 pounds heavier than Dallas; and left is supposedly from Minsk. 

I say supposedly because I have never been comfortable with that image. It just doesn't look like Oswald. He seems too stocky. His posture is different; he is extending his head on his neck. His nose seems wrong. I'm just not buying it. 

One thing is for sure: if you are going to look at images of Oswald without considering the possibility of photographic alteration then you are looking at them blind. 

Here it is alongside another image of him from Minsk. 

Now, that looks like Oswald on the right, and he looks typically thin. Obviously, the guy on the left was much huskier. Could Oswald's weight have fluctuated that much in Russia? Again, I think there is a very different head/neck balance between the two of them.  Their hair is parted on opposite sides. 

That settles it for me: that left image is bogus. The noses are different. And look at the difference in the lip pursing. Oswald, on the right, had a strong habit of pursing down hard, which you see him doing on the right. But, he's not doing it at all on the left. The right ears are different with a thicker helix on the guy on the left and more pitch on Oswald on the right.

So, who is that guy on the left? It may be the other Oswald, "Lee" as per John Armstrong. How did he wind up in Minsk? He didn't. But, the other possibility is that it's another composite photo with "Lee" on our left and "Harvey" on our right. The most famous composite photo is this one:

 Of course, this one is bad. Look how the hairline zig-zags, and look how different the tone of the skin is. You can really see how they stuck those two pieces together. It's "Lee" on our left and "Harvey" on our right. Awful, isn't it? 

As Stephen Requa requested, I put up the link to John Hankey's excellent film "The Assassination of John F. Kennedy Jr." in the previous post, and I'll post it again here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vehk03v23y4


And here's why it is so upsetting: 

Coast Guard Petty Officer Todd Bergun informed local television that Kennedy's plane contacted the tower at 9:39 PM when he had descended to 2500 feet on his approach to Martha's Vineyard.

And that is exactly what JFK Jr. was required to do. When you are descending your plane, when you get to 2500 feet, you have to stop descending and contact the tower and wait for permission to land. That is exactly what JFK Jr. did.

    
You see where it says Petty Officer Todd Burgun, right? Here is what he said: 

"All I really know is that his last communication was at 9:39 PM with the Air Traffic Control Tower when he was on his final approach to Martha's Vineyard."

And after JFK Jr. made contact at 9:39, if he didn't land within 5 minutes, it should have automatically set off alarms and started an investigation.  

But, Burgun's report disappeared after that, and the story became that JFK Jr. never contacted the tower. Multiple spokesmen, of high military rank, stated that there was no contact with the Tower. Burgun's report got buried. It was like he never said it. 

After that, the Pentagon took over communication. They brought out Colonel Steven Roark who said that Kennedy's plane never made contact with the tower. His exact words were: "They never made contact with the tower at Martha's Vineyard." In fact, Colonel Roark said that JFK Jr. failed to contact any of the radar centers along the route. He also claimed that John failed to file a flight plan, which is something that John always did. Always. Every single previous trip. 

Colonel Roark was the head of the National Search and Rescue Center and the former director of the Air Force's Rescue Coordination Center. So, he was very high up. And other high-ranking officials said the same thing: that Kennedy's plane never made contact with the tower.

And what happened to Todd Burgun? He disappeared. I don't say they killed him, and I don't know that he lost his job either. But, he disappeared from public view. We never heard a word from him again. It was as though he never spoke. 

And it wasn't just Todd Burgun. There must have been individuals at the Martha's Vineyard Tower- air traffic controllers- who received the actual contact that JFK Jr. made with the tower on his final approach to land. How haunted must those people be today knowing, as they do, the ugly truth?

But, what enabled someone like Colonel Roark to lie the way he did? Where does it come from? Undoubtedly, he was told to do it, to say what he did, but why did he actually do it? Why didn't he say no? Why didn't he go ballistic? Why didn't he blow the case wide open?  Why did he submit to such evil? Why didn't he resist?

On Veterans Today, they are making some very good headway getting the truth out this Christmas Eve.

First, there is an excellent article by Jim Dean about the CIA torture revelations and the false intelligence reports that resulted from torture: 

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/12/21/insiders-mislead-us-based-on-false-cia-interrogation-reports/

Then, there was piece about Sargent Paul Shuraga, the first cop to arrive at the scene of the RFK murder. Shuraga encountered an older couple who told him they overheard a young couple, including a young woman wearing a polka-dot dress, saying that they had killed Kennedy. Shuraga filed multiple reports about it, but they all vanished.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoRG5cMrfIk  

An RFK campaign worker named Sandra Serrano witnessed and reported the exact same thing. Here she is describing it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw3PXULxqXg   

And here is a tape of the a policeman harassing Sandy Serrano, telling her, in no uncertain terms, that it didn't happen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSgcr00Ou-c   

I'd be willing to bet that the exact same thing happened after the JFK assassination to any witness who tried to claim to seeing Oswald in the doorway. I'm sure they shut him up fast.  

So, Paul Shuraga and Sandy Serrano, who were completely unconnected to each other, reported the exact same thing in minute detail.  

Here is how OIC senior member Stephen Requa put it in a communication to assassination attorney William Pepper just today:

"A critical factor for your Sirhan case is related to the CIA interrogation of the witness to the Polka Dot Dress Lady who must have been managing Sirhan Sirhan. As you know, Sirhan was "key word prompted" to start firing as a distraction from the front to the real assassin who was crouched behind and below RFK, which your CNN-broadcast second witness testified to. The interrogation tape surfaced and shows how CIA/LAPD plant Hernandez "grotesquely" abused Sandy Serrano. He terrorized and browbeat the poor woman.  Hernandez, a long time CIA Operative, was planted (with another) into the LAPD to organize the RFK assassination. This is a key, perhaps "the" key, to breaking your Sirhan case wide open. I will send you the transcript of  the Hernandez recording."

"You'll hear this former CIA agent's interrogating of the female witness about her seeing the Polka-dot Dress Lady managing Sirhan just before he was "key word prompted" to start firing in rote-programmed mode. The interrogating CIA agent Hernandez was put into the LAPD just before the assassination to organize the assassination and cover it up. You'll cringe when you hear an LA cop describe it as "the most grotesque abuse" of LAPD police power that he had ever seen. The LAPD also falsified and fabricated this officer's reports on witnesses who saw the Polka-dot Dress Lady flee."

"These are the critical facts that have a bearing on the RFK case and all the 1960's assassination cases. I say that it is not enough to prove that Sirhan could not have shot RFK.  IMO, the involvement of the CIA needs to be brought into it and made crystal clear. And these revelations about a corrupt LAPD cop with ties to the CIA does it 100%. This needs to be seen and heard by one and all. And it dove-tails beautifully with the lead article above in VTN News today."

"With the above VTN lead today, we are at a critical juncture."

Ralph Cinque: 

Reading Stephen's reference to Sirhan's "key word prompting" brings to mind one of my favorite movies The Manchurian Candidate starring Frank Sinatra. That was the original. The remake that came later starring Denzel Washington was very different. 

But, in the original, the programmed assassin, played by Laurence Harvey, who was a real life refugee from Lithuania, was key word prompted too, but it wasn't really a word. It was a playing card: the Queen of Diamonds. 

So, when they wanted him to act, they would invite him to relax by playing Solitaire, and when he turned over the Queen of Diamonds, it would trigger the submissive state of his mind which they controlled, and then they would give him the order to kill whomever they wanted killed.

That was from 1962, and it was fiction. However, we know that the CIA MK-Ultra Program was real. Sirhan Sirhan was programmed that way, and I have absolutely no doubt that Mark David Chapman, the accused assassin of John Lennon, was programmed that way too. 

What about John Hinckley? And what about the instructor pilot who was sitting next to JFK Jr. in the cockpit of his plane as it approached Martha's Vineyard? Yeah, I wonder about them too. 

Rapid response from Stephen Requa:

"Ralph: Great job. Just what is needed. This was most welcome for Christmas. All the assassination realities can and are finally coming out now. Of course JFK Jr.'s plane was brought down by the MK ULTRA instructor programmed also like Sirhan. They had to prevent JFK Jr. from attending Pepper's 1999 Memphis trial and covering for his George Magazine all the military brass in on the MLK assassination in 1968. JFK Jr. would have covered that and then very likely have won the next election he decided to enter to bring down the Bush Cabal.  The military had to prevent being exposed in Pepper's 1999 trial with JFK Jr. going there and covering it for the press. He interviewed Oliver Stone, and he also covered Rabin's assassination. Both were no-no's, and his doing that in Memphis was a real no-no for the brass, hence all the things they did to cover up their bringing down JFK Jr's airplane. John Hankey nailed them in his film as completely as they could be. You might put in links on that."

"The VTN lead, and all this on RFK/CIA, can really now expose this Shadow Government of assassins. The RFK assassination is perfectly and completely, and rather simply, exposed in all its details for anyone to see. There is not the slightest doubt that the CIA organized it through LAPD. We have all the proof we need."

Ralph: here, as Stephen requested, is the link to John Hankey's brilliant film "The Assassination of JFK Jr."  It is a masterpiece of investigation and discourse. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vehk03v23y4