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.