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.