Now, people are claiming that the reason LIFE magazine distorted what the Zapruder film showed, hiding the fatal head shot, in effect lying to the American people about what happened, was because Zapruder wanted it that way.

If it were true that Zapruder tried to tell them not to publish Z-313, and I don't believe it, they would have told him, in a gentle, kind way:

"We understand how you feel, Mr. Zapruder. But you see, we have a responsibility to tell the truth to the American people about what happened. And they are entitled to know it because all of them are affected. And sooner or later, the whole film is likely to be released, and they'll see it anyway. So because of the grave importance that this has to the history and the future of this country, we simply have to use our own judgment about it. I'm sorry to disappoint you, and I hope you understand."

And Zapruder would have nodded, and that would have been the end of it.

The claim that pleasing Zapruder was the reason LIFE magazine lied to 190 million Americans is complete bull shit.

And consider also that even if that ridiculous claim were true, couldn't they have at least described what was there?

"The film contains a frame which shows the President taking the fatal head shot, but we're not publishing it at the insistence of Mr. Zapruder. However, in it, you can see the explosive effect with a large cloud of misty red blood. It is very graphic."

Wouldn't they have at least done that? Or did Zapruder also forbid them from describing it?

I'm attaching what they published, and it is all a lie. It is all they said about the fatal head shot, which is to say: nothing.

Everything you are going to read in their statement is a lie. Jackie was aware that something was terribly wrong long before frame 262, which is what they're claiming. She started ignoring the spectators and became focused on her husband before they even reached the bogus freeway sign in the film. And when she reached over to help, what she did was try to get him to put his spastic arm down. She took his arm above and below the elbow. You can see that. And she tried to get him to relax, to put his arm down. She was coaxing it down. But, it didn't help because he was in spasm. And it wasn't from trauma; it was from the nerve agent. And as she pressed, the effect was to get him to lean a little- to tilt his whole body towards her. But, his spasms just continued and got worse.

And he may have died from it, had he not received the fatal head shot and died from that, because it's obvious that his spasticity was worsening, and it may have spread to his respiratory muscles. And if you can't breathe, you can't live.

When it says, "the President collapses on his wife's shoulder" it is referring to Z-322. So nothing was said about him having been shot at 313. If they couldn't publish it because Zapruder said no, couldn't they have at least described it? It should be obvious to you that what they did had nothing to do with Zapruder. For some reason, they did not want to disclose the fatal head shot. And it had nothing to do with Zapruder.

So, the next time someone tries to tell you that they lied in order to please Zapruder, you'll know that they are lying again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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