Why are the spectators in Bronson so different from Betzner and Willis? It's the same time and place. They tried to match Betzner and Willis, although there are subtle differences. But in Bronson, they didn't even try. Because, after all: who is going to notice?

 Let me give you the lowdown on the Willis photo, which was taken right before JFK was shot in the throat. Of course, Officialdom has it that he wasn’t shot at all until after Willis, but that is ridiculous. He was shot in the back before Croft.  

Let’s start with JFK, whose image is crude and non-photographic. In Betzner, JFK looks too burly, while in Willis, he looks too pencil-necked. I put no stock in either image.

In Willis, Jackie is looking at JFK, and they let it happen. Why didn’t they get rid of it? It’s probably because they couldn’t. There are limits to everything.

But then, there is Umbrella Man. Even though the Bronson photo and the Willis photo were taken at the same time, in Bronson, Umbrella Man is above the Stemmons freeway sign, while in Willis, he is below the sign.  Notice also that in Bronson, he was holding his umbrella higher.

So, which one is real? I truly believe Umbrella Man took the throat shot; so he must have been holding his umbrella in position to do that. But, even if you won’t buy that, surely you can see that they have him in different locations and holding his umbrella at different heights. And I have got Dark Complected Man covered up in Willis, but he was well below Umbrella Man, whereas in Bronson, he is above Umbrella Man. So, that is another contradiction. And again, I think they padded the spectators on Elm. Notice how crude their images are, with no facial features at all.

That throat shot was a very small target. Too high and it would have hit him in the face. Too low and it would have hit him in the chest. And too left or right, it would have missed him completely. I assume they absolutely wanted to hit him where they hit him. So, from what distance could you hit such a very small target?  Well, not from very far. It had to be taken from up close. Umbrella Man was very close, and we know the CIA contracted Charles Senseney to make the umbrella gun. There is no better hypothesis than Umbrella Man as the source of that shot.

 Realize that, sometimes, you are forced to conclude something. It’s like being in check in Chess. You may not be limited to one move, but sometimes you are. You either make that move or you concede.

That is the situation with the JFK assassination. We know that the plotters planned in advance to claim that all the shots came from the rear- from the 6^th floor window. So, why did they shoot Kennedy from the front- and right in the throat? How did they expect to get away with that when it was almost 180 degrees from the direction they were going to claim all the shots came from?

Well, there is only one possible answer, and that is, that they decided in advance to claim that the throat wound was an exit wound.

Now, stop and think about that for a moment. Rack your brain and see if you can conjure up any other possibilities. I know of a researcher who came up with the idea that the throat wound was an accident, that the shot through the windshield caused glass shards to fly about, and one struck JFK in the neck. I give zero chance that, especially since there was no shot through the windshield. Tell me: why would anyone shoot through the windshield when the target was riding in a convertible? You have so many directions from which to hit him from without going through glass. Why make it harder than it has to be? Plus, the safety glass of a windshield is designed not to spew glass shards.  Plus, claiming a random accidental event is always wildly speculative.

Are there any other ideas? Well, if there aren’t any, then it means that they must have planned to claim that the throat wound was an exit wound. And of course, they did go on to claim that. So, if they could claim it after the fact, why couldn’t they decide to claim it before the fact?

Of course, there was no missile found in his throat. And there was no missile found in his back either.  So, what do you make of that? Don’t tell me that they were dug out at a pre-autopsy. That’s not good enough because the plotters know that before the pre-autopsy there was going to be an uncorrupted medical exam at Parkland, and they would not expect to get past that.

Do you think the back bullet fell out? That’s more random chance. Plus, going in, the bullet had to penetrate three layers of clothing. So, do you think the back bullet fell out through the same holes?  You might as well expect a planetary alignment.

Of course, the Single Bullet Theory is nonsense, but only the part about traversing Kennedy was planned in advance. Connally wasn’t even supposed to be hit.

So, it was really just a shallow wound in JFK’s back, affecting only skin, fascia, and muscle; and a shallow wound in his throat that damaged the trachea on the left side and caused a mild contusion in the apex of the lung on the right side.

And in neither case was a bullet present. What does it mean? It means that dissolvable bullets were used. I don’t say they were identical. The one to his back was ice. And I don’t know what material was used for the throat missile. But, I do know that the weapons existed for both. For the back shot, there was the CIA heart attack gun that was showcased by the Church Committee in 1975, and for the throat shot, there was the CIA umbrella gun that was showcased by Charles Senseney to the HSCA in 1977, although in his case, there was no model for it.

But, let’s get back to the chess game. So, the need to rectify a shot from the front with the lone gunman from the rear is the conundrum.  And the only move out of check is that they were never going to claim that the throat shot was from the front. The Single Bullet Theory, but without Connally, was the plan all along.

 Important question: Which came first, the Altgens photo or the Willis photo? Altgens is on the right, and Willis is on the left. It is widely accepted that JFK was not shot in the throat yet in the Willis photo. But, in the Altgens photo, you can see JFK reacting to the throat shot. Here's a hint: the Altgens photo is still in the city; the Willis photo is down in the country. So, which came first? Altgens came first. But, if JFK wasn't shot in the throat yet in Willis, how could he be shot in the throat in Altgens? The imagery of him reacting to the throat shot in Altgens is fake. There is a good chance, like 75%, that JFK was shot in the back a split-second before the Altgens photo was taken, and that is what it showed, him reacting to the back shot, which was taken from a low window in the Dal-Tex building.  And, it was no ordinary bullet.

 So, JFK was shot in the back high on the hill, just a second before the Crofts photo was taken, and they had to massively alter that photo to hide it. But, let's keep going and look at the next photo, which is the Betzner photo.

The first question is: was that guy really there? I have my doubts. It seems like anyone lining up a picture, upon seeing that in their viewfinder, would step around him to remove him from the frame before pressing the shutter.

And look what I found online:

"Hugh Betzner, who took a photo of the Kennedy motorcade on November 22, 1963, said he did not remember a "big man" obstructing his view and that the image appeared unobstructed in his photo."

I'm amazed that a major search engine coughed that up.

But conveniently, JFK is visible, even though he is completely unrecognizable. I have not been able to find any images of him from behind, but I still say that that guy does not look like him. His hair is too long, and it's all swept back. My intuition does not equate him to JFK.

But, I am not suggesting that JFK was shot again. I am sure he wasn't. He was still reacting to the back shot, and the next shot to hit him would be the throat shot.

And notice that he isn't waving. He was not waving in Croft, and he isn't waving here.

We can't see Jackie. Is that why they put the big guy in there? Because if we could see her, I'm sure she would be turned and looking at JFK. In Croft, they dealt with that by replacing her head. So, did they deal with it here by putting the big guy in? Look: the Zapruder film confirms that Jackie was turned and looking at her husband by frame 188. And she didn't take her eyes off him after that. So, she was definitely looking at him in Betzner.

But, there is another convenience thing: the fact that Umbrella Man's umbrella peeps up. But, it is small. In fact, it is too small to be a man's umbrella. It's between the Stemmons Freeway sign and the big man. I think it's art.

So, the big man may have been put in to hide Jackie being turned and looking at her husband, and also to hide Umbrella Man, and whatever he was doing.

Notice that on the right side of the picture, you see all these enthusiastic spectators waving excitedly. How come the people under the Stemmons sign aren't waving? In fact, the people in the midsection, adjacent to the Secret Service car, aren't waving either.

So, under the Thornton sign, they are waving; between the signs they aren't waving, and under the Stemmons sign, they aren't.

How do you account for that difference?

And remember: supposedly, nothing has happened yet.

I'll tell you what I think. It's that they wanted as few people as possible in the Kill Zone. But, I think they wanted to hide its sparsity. So, I think that some of those people, perhaps most of them, were added. And it would have been a lot harder to add waving people than stationary people. So, they settled for stationary people.

On the left, it shows how Jackie's hair looked on 11/22. You can see that it looked nothing like how it looks in the Croft photo, which was a dead ringer for how her hair looked in mid-January on television, when she was in mourning.

So, her face was pasted in there, and it resulted in a degree of cervical rotation that is uncomfortable for me, a former chiropractor, to look at. That is about the limit of cervical rotation: 80 degrees. But, just because people can force that much rotation doesn't mean that they do it in daily life. It's uncomfortable to twist your neck that far. So, what people do instead is start rotating their shoulders. So, they get where they need to be by combining cervical rotation with turning the whole torso. She wouldn't do what she appears to be doing there.

But, why did they replace her face in the Croft photo? It wasn't because they wanted a morose look. Of course not. I believe it was because Jackie was already turning towards her husband. And that they couldn't have because, supposedly, nothing had happened yet and all was well.

But, didn't that morose look of hers give it away? Yes, and I'm sure they combed the images from 11/22 trying to find something better. Using what they did had to be a last resort.

And if you read Jackie's testimony, she said that she heard a terrible noise, and then she turned and looked at husband and saw that he had a "quizzical" look on his face. So, this may have been that very moment. But, her eyes on him meant that something was wrong with him. So, they had to replace it. 

And I will tell you, as a retired chiropractor, that JFK is showing us in the Croft photo that he was in trouble. He was raising his chin and pinching his head back on his heck. That is a classic stress reaction.

I put the other image of JFK in for comparison. In it, you can see that JFK's posterior cervical muscles are lengthened. He isn't contracting them. He is relaxed. But, in the Croft photo, he is in a startle with his posterior cervical muscles clinching. Would you please compare the two? So, on the right, he is relaxed, and in Croft, he is stressed like hell. And it's because he had been shot. And if it had been a regular bullet, he would have known that he was shot, and he would have taken action. But, it wasn't a regular bullet. It felt more like a mosquito bite according to CIA Director William Colby. Then, rapid changes were occurring to his mind and body. I'm sure he was totally overwhelmed. What a nightmare the last 12 seconds of his life were.

 Take a look at Croft again because I flipped the image of Jackie from her mournful address to the nation in mid-January. You can see how well it matches, in mood and expression, her face in Croft. I'm not saying they used that exact frame but one from the show.

And remember that this was a political trip, and Jackie was a political wife. She had a job to do, which was to look gorgeous and glamorous and wave to the voters. If nothing had happened yet, why is she so pain-stricken?

But, the other thing I want you to see here is that there is a black patch high in his back and above it a very oblong panel. This was their doing. They put that over JFK's back. It's right in the spot that he was hit in the back. Apparently, this was so soon after the back shot that the disruption of his jacket from the impact of the ice bullet was visible. The tear must have been obvious, so they covered it up with that handiwork. I put a white arrow to it.

Now, the story became that his jacket was "bunching up." JFK wore personally tailored, handmade, custom jackets that cost a thousand dollars each, and just remember how much more a thousand dollars was worth in 1963 than it is today. His jacket did not bunch up, and nobody's jacket ever bunched up and looked like that. He was shot, and the violation that it did to his jacket was, apparently, showing.

And to any doubters out there, notice that it is the very spot that he was shot in the back. The image on the right was by Gerald Posner, the author of Case Closed, showing where the back shot hit him.

I don't believe in JFK coincidences, do you?