Tampering with the limo in the JFK Altgens6

by Dennis Cimino and Jim Fetzer


A significant amount of speculation has taken place over the years, regarding the photograph known to the world as the Altgens6, taken by AP photographer James “Ike “Altgens in Dealey Plaza, with his camera, on the day that President John F. Kennedy was brutally murdered by the CIA and other elements of the US Government, including the Secret Service and even the Joint Chiefs of Staff of our own American armed services.

In the following work, some layers of the onion will be peeled back to expose that Altgens6 is not only the key to establishing that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn’t even a shooter–because he was clearly photographed in the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository at the moment that a shot from in front of the President’s limousine penetrated the vehicle’s windshield, struck and spun the vehicle’s rear view mirror and caused the passenger seat Secret Service Agent, Roy Kellerman, to gawk in astonishment at the spun mirror, necessitating his face be obscured by later alterations–but that a disinformation program to alter evidence has been ongoing for nearly 50 years.

For a bullet to have obviously come from forward and to the left of the vehicle, as it came down Elm Street, means that at least one assassin who took part in this “turkey shoot” was located forward of the vehicle, which means that not all the shots came from above and behind.  In addition, Oswald wore such a unique shirtt that day that it was impossible for the CIA murderers to obtain that same shirt for Billy Lovelady to claim that he had been in that doorway standing on the left, when he was instead standing on the right (as we view the photo).  That shirt was so distinctive it forced the CIA to try to alter it out of existence, where alterations to Altens6 were even made to impose facial features of Lovelady on Lee.

The Faxed Photo

Ironically, that very shirt is one and the same with the shirt worn by Lee Oswald when arrested by the Dallas Police Department, where a series of studies published on Veterans Today have confirmed that Lee was wearing the same shirt as Doorman and have refuted the alternatives that Doorman could have been either Billy Lovelady or “Checkered Shirt Man”, which illustrates the importance of falsification in the study of these questions.

Although the claim has been made that the photograph was faxed shortly after the film was processed, Roy Schaeffer, who was working for a Dayton, OH, newspaper at the time, took it off the photo-fax the next morning.  This time window created ample opportunity for the initial alterations and re-shooting of the negatives in a photo lab, so that Altgens did not get his original negative back.  Here is a partial of the faxed photo, which was the subject of an important article by Douglas Weldon, J.D., “The Kennedy Limousine”, which appeared in Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000):

Weldon identified the hole in the windshield, which Douglas P. Horne, who served as the Senior Analyst for Military Records for the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB), has discussed in an 2012 article on LewRockwell’s website.  This specific image was faxed (clearly visible as a fax) showing the location that Horne (in 2009) believed proved that  alterations to the photo to hide the bullet hole had not yet occurred.  In later versions of this photo, this area has been so modified to obscure SSA Roy Kellerman’s facial reaction  to the bullet impact and the rear view mirror which was struck by the bullet as it passed through the glass, but the hole itself remains visible.

The Throat Wound

The bullet hit the President in the throat, the second of four hits he would sustain, where Malcolm Perry, M.D., would subsequently perform a simple tracheotomy incision though the wound after JFK was brought to Parkland.  Dr. Perry thereafter described it three times as a wound of entry during the Parkland Press Conference, the transcript of which appears in Assassination Science (1998), as Appendix C; and Charles Crenshaw, M.D., who was also present in Trauma Room #1, drew diagrams at Jim Fetzer’s request based upon his direct personal observations, which also appear there as Appendix A:

In this much clearer shot, which was not faxed and lacks the grainy pattern of pixels that are features of the fax, the approximate location of the hole that Weldon and Horne identified in the windshield is distinguishable as a small, white spiral nebula with a dark hole in the center, where lateral cracks (discussed below) that appear to have been made by the bullet impact are not visible, because they had been masked out of the shot before THIS VERSION was released to the photographer:

As we are about to discover, multiple alterations were made to the image of the limousine in the Altgens6, where simply whiting out the dark hole at the center was the simplest move that tended to conceal the existence of the bullet hole, but it can still be seen where JFK’s left ear would be visible had it not been obscured by that image.  Well aware of the problem that it posed, which revealed the existence of at least one shooter who was firing from in front of the limo rather than above and behind, as the “lone assassin” scenario requires, the Secret Service would deftly respond by effecting a substitution.

The Windshield Switch

The limo was sent to Ford its manufacturer, Ford Motor Company in Detroit, MI, on Monday, 25 November 1963, stripped down to bare metal and  completely rebuilt, including replacing it with a new windshield, where the presence of the through-and-though hole was confirmed by the Ford official, George Whitaker, Sr., who had supervised its replacement, whom Doug Weldon had tracked down and interviewed. The Secret Service, however, would later release the image of yet a third windshield and claim that it had actually been on the limousine in Dealey Plaza:

In addition to Doug Weldon’s brilliant study, Douglas Horne would pursue this issue and published his confirmations of Doug Weldon’s work in his own masterful five-volume work,  Inside the Assassination Records Review Board (2009), Vol. V, pages 1439-50.  There and in several other articles, including “JFK Conspiracy: The bullet hole in the Windshield” (2012), Horne summarized the testimony of a half-dozen witnesses who had observed the through-and-through bullet hole, whose existence is not in doubt, as the following testimony confirms.

The Witnesses Speak


(1) Dallas motorcycle patrolmen Stavis Ellis and H. R. Freeman both observed a penetrating bullet hole in the limousine windshield at Parkland Hospital. Ellis told interviewer Gil Toff in 1971: “There was a hole in the left front windshield … You could put a pencil through it … you could take a regular standard writing pencil … and stick [it] through there.” Freeman corroborated this, saying: “[I was] right beside it. I could of [sic] touched it … it was a bullet hole. You could tell what it was.” [David Lifton published these quotations in his 1980 book, Best Evidence.]

(2) St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter Richard Dudman wrote an article published in The New Republic on December 21, 1963 [and reprinted in Assassination Science (1998)], in which he stated: “A few of us noted the hole in the windshield when the limousine was standing at the emergency entrance after the President had been carried inside. I could not approach close enough to see which side was the cup-shaped spot which indicates a bullet had pierced the glass from the opposite side.”

(3) Second year medical student Evalea Glanges, enrolled at Southwestern Medical University in Dallas, right next door to Parkland Hospital, told attorney Doug Weldon in 1999: “It was a real clean hole.” In a videotaped interview aired in the suppressed Episode 7 of Nigel Turner’s series, The Men Who Killed Kennedy, titled “The Smoking Guns”, she said: “… it was very clear, it was a through-and-through bullet hole through the windshield of the car, from the front to the back … it seemed like a high-velocity bullet that had penetrated from front-to-back in that glass pane.” At the time of the interview, Glanges had risen to the position of Chairperson of the Department of Surgery, at John Peter Smith Hospital, in Fort Worth. She had been a firearms expert all her adult life.

(4) Mr. George Whitaker, Sr., a senior manager at the Ford Motor Company’s Rouge Plant in Detroit, Michigan, told attorney (and professor of criminal justice) Doug Weldon in August of 1993, in a tape recorded conversation, that after reporting to work on Monday, 25 November 1963, he discovered the JFK limousine – a unique, one-of-a-kind item that he unequivocally identified – in the Rouge Plant’s B building, with the interior stripped out and in the process of being replaced, and with the windshield removed. He was then contacted by one of the Vice Presidents of the division for which he worked, and directed to report to the glass plant lab, immediately. After knocking on the locked door (which he found most unusual), he was let in by two of his subordinates and discovered that they were in possession of the windshield that had been removed from the JFK limousine.

They had been told to use it as a template, and to make a new windshield identical to it in shape – and to then get the new windshield back to the B building for installation in the Presidential limousine that was quickly being rebuilt. Whitaker told Weldon (quoting from the audiotape of the 1993 interview): “And the windshield had a bullet hole in it, coming from the outside through…it was a good, clean bullet hole, right straight through, from the front. And you can tell, when the bullet hits the windshield, like when you hit a rock or something, what happens? The back chips out and the front may just have a pinhole in it…this had a clean round hole in the front and fragmentation coming out the back.” Whitaker told Weldon that he eventually became superintendent of his division and was placed in charge of five plant divisions. He also told Weldon that the original windshield, with the bullet hole in it, had been broken up and scrapped – as ordered – after the new windshield had been made.

When Doug Weldon interviewed Whitaker in August of 1993, his witness insisted on anonymity. Weldon reported on the story without releasing Whitaker’s name in his excellent and comprehensive article titled: “The Kennedy Limousine: Dallas 1963,” which was published in Jim Fetzer’s anthology, Murder in Dealey Plaza, in 2000. After Weldon interviewed Whitaker in August of 1993, Mr. Whitaker subsequently – on 22 November 1993 (the 30th anniversary of President Kennedy’s assassination) – wrote down all he could remember about the events he witnessed involving the Presidential limousine and its windshield. After George Whitaker’s death in 2001, his family released his written testament to Nigel Turner, who with their permission revealed Mr. Whitaker’s name, as well as the text of his “memo for history,” in Episode 7 of The Men Who Killed Kennedy, “The Smoking Guns.”

In “The Smoking Guns,” the text of Whitaker’s memo can be read on the screen employing freeze frame technology with the DVD of the episode. It said, in part: “When [I] arrived at the lab the door was locked. I was let in. There were 2 glass engineers there. They had a car windshield that had a bullet hole in it. The hole was about 4 or 6 inches to the right of the rear view mirror [as viewed from the front]. The impact had come from the front of the windshield. (If you have spent 40 years in the glass [illegible] you know which way the impack [sic] was from.”

(5) The sixth credible witness to a bullet hole in the windshield of the limousine was Secret Service agent Charles Taylor, Jr., who wrote a report on November 27, 1963 in which he detailed his activities providing security for the limousine immediately after the car’s return to Washington following the assassination. The JFK limousine and the Secret Service follow-up car known as the “Queen Mary” arrived at Andrews AFB aboard a C-130 propeller-driven cargo plane at about 8:00 PM on 22 November 1963. Agent Taylor rode in the Presidential limousine as it was driven from Andrews AFB to the White House garage at 22nd and M Streets, N.W. In his report about what he witnessed inside the White House garage during the vehicle’s inspection, he wrote: “In addition, of particular note was the small hole just left of center in the windshield from which what appeared to be bullet fragments were removed.”

Outward Cracking

As Horne emphasizes, six credible witnesses–Stavis Ellis, H.R. Freeman, Richard Dudman, Evalea Glanges, George Whitaker, and Charles Taylor (who was subsequently forced to recant his report)–all testified to observing a through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield either on the day of the assassination itself (for five of the six) or the following day (for Whitaker, who observed it at Ford when he came in to work on Monday, 25 November 1963).  Two were positive it had been caused by a shot fired from in front, which by itself falsifies the “official account” of the death of our 35th president.

Moreover, Dennis Cimino has discovered that the rear view mirror of the vehicle had bullet scuff marks on the front side facing the windshield, where it was struck by the bullet passing through from front to rear.  In the below photo, taken at the Parkland Memorial Hospital after the slain president was removed from the car, both the bullet hole and some lateral outward cracking from both sides of the hole is discernible.  He has marked that area with CYAN to highlight the bullet strike area:

Close examination of the vehicle’s rear view mirror also seems to show the possibility of a hairline crack running from one side of that to the other side of it. The mirror partially obscures the actual bullet entry hole and some of that stress cracking, which extends for at least six or more inches behind the mirror blocked portion of the windshield, as other photos show. Some of the crack extends from upper windshield down to about mid-level on passenger front.  [NOTE:  Evidence of patching done to the flip up driver’s visor as well seems visible in this shot, but because it was taken so soon after the assassination, it’s difficult to imagine them taping that over so quickly; but it does look very odd and appears to be worth mentioning.]

The Deeper Tint

Below is a shot of the limo, taken on 23 November 1963, the day after the assassination.  Carefully compare the visibility of the doctor’s coat above in this shot, showing how ‘non tinted’ the windshield is in the upper region, because in the lower shot, this is clearly NOT THE SAME WINDSHIELD when compared to the deeper tint below the top of the windshield, an extension of the tinting in the REPLACEMENT.   One might ask why a six or more inch strip of window tinting could be acceptable on a vehicle with any dignitary in it, let alone the President.  The Secret Service’s job is to see ahead and upwards with clarity, looking for snipers or anyone who could harm the passengers of this particular car.

It doesn’t make much sense that the glass would have much  more than a modest narrow tint across the very top, as was the case in the Parkland Memorial Hospital photograph clearly showing.  The doctor’s smock is easily seen just inches from the rear view mirror.  From this photograph in the garage at the White House, it’s evident that this windshield is not the same one. The tinting extends easily six or more inches downward and is NOT PRESENT in the photo above, taken at Parkland Memorial the day before.

Below is a side shot, where you can again see the tint gradient, much deeper down into the windshield compared to the top photo taken immediately after the assassination occurred in Dealey Plaza that day.

So, one might well ask, given the other damage to the vehicle, including the blood and brain tissue and other parts of the now dead president, why was it imperative to change out the windshield and replace it with a much more heavily TINTED ONE?  That is a very interesting question–especially on a car where exceptionally unobscured forward visibility not only was desired, but mandatory for protection of the President and any dignitaries who may ride with him in this vehicle.

A couple of glitches

Take a good look at this one.  They masked the windshield to hide the tinting, but overlapped the mask onto the chrome frame of the windshield and blowing it badly.  This reveals their concern about the tint:

Here is anopther shot taken in the garage, from behind, showing that someone now has dropped down the glare shields on both sides to make sure we don’t really get a good look at the heavy tinting of this windshield.  Why?  I don’t think sun was a problem in the parking garage.

The Rear View Mirror

Here’s a shot of the rear view mirror, facing the windshield, showing the bullet scuffing that was evident at Parkland that day after the assassination took place. There is a scuff center of the mirror, and further to the left, another scuff, as well as the possible hint of clear scotch tape from one side of the mirror to the other, covering the dark outer rim on both sides of the inexplicably damaged mirror.

This mirror appears to have been dented in and scratched by the entering bullet, after spinning it on its post, which comes down from the top of the windshield frame.  Normal hand wear on this mirror using the anti-glare rotator tab, for example, would not account for these scuffs.

And, once again, the tinting gradient is positively not there in this mirror shot, certainly not to the extent it is in the “changed out” windshield put in before the car went back to Washington, D.C. the next day.  In this photo, the scotch tape is much more clearly evident.  It appears to extend from one side of the mirror to the other, covering the dark outer rim on both sides.  Did it crack when it was struck by the bullet?

Back at Parkland

Below is another shot of the limousine at Parkland, showing the tint gradient is not there on the car at Parkland Memorial not long after the shooting took place.   Notice the bullet-proof glass leaning against the left-rear fender, which was NOT USED that day, which may have protected the president had it been installed.  But of course the plan was NOT TO PROTECT THE PRESIDENT BUT TO SET HIM UP. If you look closely at the second nurse on the right, her hands and smock are clearly visible with minimal tint.

Now, I have taken the liberty to add in this shot of the very very visible windshield and rear view mirror scuffing, taken at Parkland, where the bullet hole and lateral cracking is clearly evident and clearly visible to the eye.   if you look closely at the rear view mirror, you can easily see the scuffing on the rear view mirror.  It’s very evident on the lower portion of the mirror.

This is an especially important photograph, because this appears to be the third of the three windshields, which the Secret Service would produce and which would become Warren Commission Exhibit 350 (shown above).  It shows cracking caused by (what would be claimed to have been) a fragment of a shot fired from in front, where the through-and-through hole visible in some versions of the Altgens6, which six witnesses confirmed having observed, no longer exists.  Notice, moreover, the absence of tinting.

And another look at the mirror.  Something struck this mirror pretty hard in the front side of it, facing the windshield, and scuffed it not only on the middle but on the left (to us) side.  With such a long scuff pattern on the rear view mirror, something more than the driver’s hand has to have done this.  (SCUFFS MARKED IN CYAN)

Clearly the mirror is dented in based on the shading there as well.   Unfortunately for the CIA, which modified the Altgens6 extensively, they had no idea that many photos of the limosine were out there that would in fact show that the vehicle took a bullet hit in the windshield, which struck the mirror, at precisely the same moment that the president is clutching at his throat just before the limo stop takes place and the fatal head shots occur.

The Beat Goes On

With regard to the Altgens6 shot, we have barely touched upon the other much more significant alterations done to hide the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was standing in the doorway at the Texas Book Depository at precisely the moment this bullet made a hole in the windshield and struck the rear view mirror and JFK that morning. Other alterations to the photo, however, are the result not only of what the CIA did on that day to the original negatives and their processing but later, through the years, DIGITAL ALTERATIONS to this photo have been facilitated by the emergence of new technology.

Here is a much much later version of Altgens6, which came from the internet and cannot be tracked or validated as to who’s custody it was in before it was published online.  In this shot, you can clearly see that the Secret Service agents are very concerned, as they look at Lee Harvey Oswald and others in a very retouched portion of the photograph.


Notice the fact that JFK is clutching his throat and Texas Gov. John Connally is turning.  The face of Roy Kellerman is obscured here, whereas in FACSIMILE VERSION, you can see facial features much more clearly. NOTE: In this photo, the windshield damage has been altered out so it is not visible to the naked eye, and there is heavy digital alteration as well as manual cut and paste alteration in the top of the windshield.  By taking that shot and turning it into a NEGATIVE, Dennis has been able to highlight the areas of alteration with regard to the windshield itself.


Thus, has marked the most heavily altered portions of the photo with RED.  Once again, comparison to the grainy FAX shot on the top of this article shows much more detail in some of these areas.   Clearly, the upper windshield area has been hazed out or altered, which is much more visible in NEGATIVE, revealing the tinting gradient on the day of the assassination.  The windshield tinting was not there, which means that someone made an effort to add it in or obscure the upper windshield.  The area where the bullet damage has occurred has been altered here, while the face of SSA Roy Kellerman has been obscured.

What is also evident is that in the area where Jackie Kennedy and SSA William Greer, the vehicle driver, are situated, has also been ALTERED To obfuscate them.  If you look closely at this shot in both NORMAL and in NEGATIVE, you can see what appear to be alterations to the shot. On some of these later Altgens6 photos, indications of DIGITAL alteration are in place over the more crudely done alterations when the film was first re-mastered by the CIA, proof that the agency has an ongoing program to fake evidence in the death of our 35th president that continues to this day.


Dennis has also zoomed in to accent the obfuscation of Kellerman’s face, presumably because his expression would have drawn attention to the occurrence of something that had startled him as the bullet passed through the windshield. The scuffing on the mirror is discernible, where making a change from the white of the spiral nebula to the dark of his ear and head must have been regarded as too conspicuous to undertake.

The upper portion of the windshield appears to have been masked using a rectangular pasted object in black (on our right), then later it was decided to dab on black to obscure the upper windshield.  Notice again, there is no tint on the upper portion of this windshield or it would be over Kellerman’s face and uniformly across the upper portion of the windshield. Dennis has identified the portions that appear to have been altered in CYAN.

What this means is that interior portions of the limousine have also been heavily altered to obscure collateral damage from the impact while obscuring the facial expressions of both SSA Roy Kellerman and William Greer from the photograph.  It also would appear that obscuration of Jackie’s face took place here as well.  The reason may have been that she was looking at and reacting to the bullet hole in the windshield as she held her husband’s arm.

Dennis Cimino, who has extensive engineering and support experience with military electronics, predominantly US Navy Combat Systems, was the Navy’s top EMI troubleshooter before he went to work for Raytheon in the 1980s.

Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth.


Jim Fetzer

A former Marine Corps officer, Jim Fetzer has published widely on the theoretical foundations of scientific knowledge, computer science, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, and evolution and mentality.McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth, he has also conducted extensive research into the assassination of JFK, the events of 9/11, and the plane crash that killed Sen. Paul Wellstone.

The founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, his latest books include The Evolution of Intelligence (2005), The 9/11 Conspiracy (2007), Render Unto Darwin (2007), and The Place of Probability in Science (2010).

Related Posts:

The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT or any other VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors or partners and technicians. LEGAL NOTICE - COMMENT POLICY

Posted by on March 20, 2013, With 0 Reads, Filed under Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments Closed

15 Responses to "Tampering with the limo in the JFK Altgens6"

  1. Lifeboy  April 9, 2013 at 5:10 pm

    There is a lot wrong with Altgens6 and a direct comparison with Zapruder. If you frame through Zapruder then around frame 253-254 is where Jackie holds on to the president’s left arm with her left hand (with the very distinctive thumb up and index finger pointed shape you see in Altgens6) then you can assume that this is the point where we are to believe that Algens took his photograph. 1. In Zapruder the windshield tint is clearly very deep – down to the top of the mirror. If the windshield photographed by Altgens shows some tint on the left and the tint fading out as you look to the right where you can see straight through with no tint at all – not possible. 2. The bystanders to the left from the lampost with the small sign – The first bystander is a man with a helmet on in both Zapruder and Altgens but I think even the helmets are different. (you will need to frame back to about 150 in Zapruder to see the line of spectators by the lampost). More importantly none of the other bystanders to the right of the man in the helmet appear to match up. For example in Altgens there is figure head and shoulders above the single row of spectators whereas just a few frames before the limo goes behind the large sign in Zapruder there is no-one behind the single row. 3. The biggest problem I have however is the motorcycle cop riding to the right of the limo. In Altgens the cop is clear as day – almost level with the president looking right at him. In fact you could almost say the 2 cops on the left are looking directly at the cop on the right as well. However the cop on the right is completely missing (in a sprocket hole) when the limo emerges from the large sign in Zapruder. It is inconceivable that not a single shred of that cop is visible in Zapruder after the limo clears the large sign when he is so close to the limo in Algens6. But – hey like everything else in this mess – nothing seems to fit so you cant tell the real stuff from the fake stuff!! My own crackpot theory (for what it’s worth) The cop was part of the hit squad and was supposed to be the close in man in case the riflemen failed (which they did initially) The president was clearly alive after the the first hit so the cop drew a gun and tried to shoot the president again but missed and hit Connelly in back, wrist and thigh instead. (So he stopped his bike and ran up the grassy knoll to escape and in the confusion became badgeman. The Altgens photo had the cop in the correct position to carry out the hit so the Zapruder film had to be altered to take the cop completely out of the picture and this created the ‘wierd” movements of Connelly in Zapruder. The Nix film does not show the action around the time of the Altegens photo but it does clearly show the cop stopping his bike as soon as the last shot is taken – he knew for sure the job was done and was clearly the first to react. As the CIA planned all of this then they had to basically alter all the existing documents in some way afterwards to make them all fit together and to the 3-shot lone gunman theory that did for Oswald. So as far as I am concerned there are no genuine records of what really happened. I think Oswald was involved and he was not in the doorway but rather he was exactly where the cops knew he was going to be. He was, of course, working for the CIA so he was told he was going to be a hero and foil the assassination attempt by firing warning shots over the cavalcade with his ancient Mannlicher Carcano rifle (that is how James Tague got injured). On hearing the warning shots the cavalcade should have sped up and escaped but instead it slowed down and allowed the ‘real’ hit to be carried out. Oswald, knowing things had gone badly wrong went to the cinema to meet his CIA handler right away and have it out with them (he took a gun with him). But his CIA handler did not show up – instead the cops showed up as they knew exactly who he was and where to find him from the CIA. Oswald was clearly bewildered at being arrested for the murders but would not have dropped the CIA in it right away – who would believe him at that stage – he would have just sounded like a lunatic. The CIA knew however that it would only be a matter of time before Oswald talked and so sent in Jack Ruby to silence Oswald. (I say CIA but you can insert “the MOB”. I think at the time a lot of people worked for both sides.)

  2. stephanaugust  March 24, 2013 at 12:22 pm

    Maybe this is explained somewhere, but I have no idea where, so I can only ask if anyone knows why the two bodyguards on the car are looking to the doorway AND NO ONE ELSE is looking to the doorway.

    • Jim Fetzer  March 24, 2013 at 12:47 pm

      It’s a great question! I think they saw someone there who should not have been there. BIG TIME! And of course the agency took pains to make sure that his presence would be obfuscated, which has taken 50 years to unravel.

    • Jim Fetzer  March 25, 2013 at 10:09 pm

      Dennis adds:

      Thank you, Stefan for your observation. I wanted to state that I have wished to concur with your assessment about Ike Altgens complicity in the crime that day based on the statement you clarified about repetitively, over and over again, stipulating that the limosine DID NOT STOP when nobody had any reason to press him on this point, given the fact that ZAPRUDER was not made available to ‘wang jerk’ us into believing the limosine smoothly drove along and had not come to a complete halt, facilitating the most lethal shots of the day. So I wanted Jim to post this to thank you for your contribution which I had read in other analysis of yours.

      Second, I wanted to also state that for the record, there is an issue with ALTGENS 6 that did not make it into this article but is of moderately HIGH IMPORTANCE, and that is that there are a plethora of non-prioritized major clues that are really not discussed anywhere but in my original draft, those being that several visual CUES are evident in the ALTGENS 6 photo that are so glaring an issue that they need mention here in comments. One is that in the upper right of the photo, a white FORD is with doors partially open and the occupant’s faces are OBSCURED by photo alterations of these agents in this vehicle.

      The open door visible on the passenger rear means someone is about to disembark or get in, one of the two. The reason I mention this is that in no other analysis is it mentioned that this is a significant CLUE as to something going on by that FIRE ESCAPE there to the side of the TSBD building. I have isolated at least some masking on that fire escape that indicates that whomever made these alterations made it a point to alter someone or something on that fire escape just above the WHITE FORD with the door partially opened and the facial obscuration and masking evidence.

      In addition to this, as you have mentioned the INTENT look on the S.S. Agents faces looking at the doorway, they went to unusual lengths to mask out the following limo with the passenger front seat agent talking on a masked out microphone.

      IF my assumption is correct, there can be very little doubt that the two agents who are so focused on the doorway did in fact see someone who was not supposed to be there. Jim Fetzer is correct in alluding to the fact indirectly that these two agents must have just MADE DIRECT FACE RECOGNITION OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD, and this kind of recognition of this area of the photo seems to indicate that several of the Secret Service agents had to have, as these two men had to have been, absolutely part of the assassination plot to kill the president to have such a strong obvious reaction to OSWALD, because they had no constructive reason to be concerned about him or for that matter, any of the people standing there in front of him either unless they knew he was not supposed to be there.

      In addition, in my original draft, I have identified a man in the photo who is wearing dark sunglasses and is making direct eye contact with IKE ALTGENS CAMERA LENS as this photo is being snapped, and not the limosine the President is in, which infers he is making sure ALTGENS IS IN POSITION for these shots. He is the only man in the entire group on ELM who is looking DIRECTLY AT IKE ALTGENS CAMERA.

      So, we have a white ford FAIRLANE with back door partially open, with obscuration of the faces in the LIMO that is not natural meaning CIA needed them to not be identified. In addition, we have someone or something on the FIRE ESCAPE itself, which is masked out by alterations but has not been included in the article. And we have the man making direct contact with IKE ALTGENS CAMERA LENS and not the presidential limo, and we have an agent talking on a microphone they masked out of the photo.

      My best guess is that the agent on the microphone is WARNING SOMEONE that OSWALD IS IN THE WRONG POSITION and poses a danger to the PATSIFICATION OF HIM because he is so clearly NOT ANYWHERE NEAR THE SIXTH FLOOR WINDOW.

      Given these details NOT MENTIONED in the article, it is clear that agents RECOGNIZED HIM and reacted, and a radio transmission is being made perhaps about that fact, and someone is about to get off the FIRE ESCAPE and leave in the white ford FAIRLANE with the door open. Possibly TWO persons even because even though I cannot see the passenger rear door of the FAIRLANE with the driver side rear door PARTLY OPEN, for both doors to be ajar like this means they are going to pick up TWO PEOPLE at this spot in a hurry. A bystander is watching this transpire, and is rather intently focused on this.

      Lastly, there are major alterations adjacent to the man with sunglasses looking directly at IKE ALTGENS CAMERA, as well as more alteration of a face behind the white ford making that face appear to be TWO FACES.

      My guess is that whoever at CIA or FBI in Rochester who made all these alterations to ALTGENS 6 weren’t doing these just for practice. They did them out of NECESSITY. Recognition of OSWALD is clearly evident in those agents, and the masked out microphone notification of that seems to indicate they felt it important enough to report it on the S.S. frequency.

      I wanted you to know of these issues in this comment, Stefan, and I welcome your comment to us on these. And lastly, for Jack Martin, I wanted to thank you too for your participation in the discussion. We may not agree with everything but we do appreciate you taking the time to speak your mind here.

  3. Jack Martin  March 23, 2013 at 6:51 pm

    One further comment:

    Regarding the question, “If Oswald had been a conspirator, much less a shooter, why would he not have simply walked away from the building after the shooting, never to be seen again?”

    That of course would not have been a viable option for him. He was an employee of record at the Book Depository. His sudden disappearance would have immediately made him the number one suspect, setting off a manhunt from which he would have had no prospect of eluding.

    • Jim Fetzer  March 24, 2013 at 12:20 pm

      Those standing in the doorway were not in jeopardy of being suspected of shooting at JFK. Lee was an employee. While something had happened, it was not entirely obvious what precisely that had been. We are, in fact, still arguing about that 50 years later. We can speculate all we want about what he could have or should have done under various postulated scenarios, but what we have to work with does not include his thoughts about evading discovery. He had a long history with US intel agencies, where he appears to have been recruited by ONI as a recruit, defected to the Soviet Union at the behest of the CIA, and was serving as an informant for the FBI right up to the time of his death (which is why his W-2 forms have been inaccessible, as though the federal government could not get its hands on them). Thanks for sharing your thoughts. You might like my other articles on JFK at VT.

    • Jim Fetzer  March 24, 2013 at 12:56 pm

      Dennis has asked me to add his own reflections:

      1) First, Oswald had no constructive reason to believe he was patsified and hence NEEDED AN ALIBI. Based on Martin’s logic, every person who worked in that building SHOULD HAVE BEEN STANDING IN THE DOORWAY FOR SEVERAL HOURS TO PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE!

      2) Oswald may have had NO AWARENESS of either the PLOT or the actual gravity of what had occurred there, is clearly obvious here, based on his actions and reactions to his being so quickly RAILROADED BY THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT and his arrest about an hour thereafter.

      Oswald had no constructive reason to ALIBI HIMSELF by hanging out in the doorway, because that implies KNOWLEDGE OF THE PLOT, which he clearly did not have, and also implies GUILT, which he also lacked. Jack Martin is behind the back of a dead man, implicating him as a co-conspirator.

      This isn’t born out by the facts we know now about him. At this point in time, he may have had NO REASON TO BELIEVE HE WAS A PATSY or SET UP until later in the day when it became clear to him that he had obviously been FRAMED. He probably had no reason to stand in the doorway.

      No reason more than any other TSBD employee would have, because none of the rest of them felt they were potential suspects any more than he should have felt. He had probably done absolutely nothing wrong. No innocent man will try to establish an ALIBI regarding a crime he had not committed.

  4. Jack Martin  March 23, 2013 at 6:32 pm


    I certainly did not mean to imply that Oswald was a “shooter,” or that he was a “conspirator” in the assassination itself although, according to much evidence, he was presumably a “conspirator,” at some level, in something that involved his presence in the Book Depository building. All things considered, his employment there was, by no means, coincidental.

    My comment was not meant as a “suggestion” at all… but merely a question concerning a very perplexing paradox, namely the unexplained presence of Oswald, in two places, within an inordinately short space of time (90 seconds), in such extraordinary circumstances as should have precluded such incongruous behavior.

    You wrote: “He made his way to the lunchroom following the shooting, where he obtained a coke…”

    I absolutely cannot conceive of any rational explanation for Oswald – or anyone else – to actually observe the shooting of the President of the United States and then just saunter off to buy a coke for himself. Why would Oswald do a thing like that… regardless of whether he was involved or not?
    Why would _anyone_ do a thing like that?

    • If Oswald were in fact somehow involved, there would have been no safer thing for him to do than to simply remain in that doorway, surrounded by witnesses who could account for his presence at the crucial time.

    • If he had no prior knowledge of the assassination he would have, like any reasonable person, also remained where he was, either to make sense out of what was happening, or to be a conscious witness to a momentous historical event.

    • If it had occurred to him that he had been set up to be the patsy, there would still have been no safer place for him to be than that selfsame doorway.

    Rushing into the building at such a time, to buy a coke, would not be the act of a rational person.

    At all events, Oswald was certainly not a “shooter,” whether he was the man in the doorway or not.

    And, again, I am not proposing a “suggestion” here at all, but merely posing a question… a question that cries out for some explanation … and a question that cannot just simply be brushed off as having no relevance or significance.

    • Jim Fetzer  March 24, 2013 at 7:41 am

      Well, he wasn’t in two places at the same time. He was in the doorway during the shooting and within 90 seconds was confronted in the lunchroom by Officer Baker. The latter is not in dispute and we have proven the former. You can find Officer Baker’s handwritten statement on line, where he subsequently struck out the park about “drinking a coke”, no doubt to make the official time line more plausible.

      I have often observed that no one would have written “drinking a coke” had he not been drinking a coke. As a parallel, imagine someone wrote, “he was wearing a green beret” and later struck it out. Is there any reason to imagine they would have written that had he NOT been wearing a green beret? I don’t think any rational person would have written either had they not actually been the case.

      The coulda/woulda/shoulda line of argument you offer has a certain kind of appeal, but for those of us who are trying to sort out WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED, it has scant significance. He was standing in the doorway during the shooting. He was confronted in the lunchroom around 90 seconds later. He was drinking a coke. It may even have been to relieve a growing sense of stress that he was being set up.

      There are other situations in which that line of questioning makes more sense, however. Those who are enduring in their efforts to make Billy Lovelady into Doorman insist that HE WAS JOKING AROUND when he went to the FBI and showed them the red-and-white, vertically striped shot-sleeved shirt he said he had been wearing that day. I submit no rational person would have done this and that Billy was not a nut.

  5. Jack Martin  March 21, 2013 at 10:28 pm

    How can Oswald’s presence in the doorway at the moment of the shooting be reconciled with the claim that Oswald was accosted by Dallas motorcycle patrolman Marrion Baker in the second floor lunch room only moments later? It hardly makes sense that Oswald would have witnessed the shooting outside and then hurried up to the lunch room to buy a coke for himself.

    It would seem that one or the other of these claims must be false.

    • Jim Fetzer  March 22, 2013 at 7:42 am

      Both Marrion Baker and Roy Truly reported that, when Officer Baker confronted him in the lunchroom, he was neither perspiring nor out of breath. He was acting normally, except, Truly added, a bit startled that he was being held in a police officer’s sights with his revolved pointed right at him. He was also drinking a coke. Their handwritten statements, which can be found in the 888-page WARREN REPORT (1964), are proof that he had not in fact assassinated the president some 90 seconds earlier, rushed across the warehouse floor and stashed his trusty Mannlicher-Carcano, then dashed down four flights of stairs to get a coke! If he had actually been a shooter, the adrenaline would have been pumping so hard he could not have managed to get a nickle into the machine and press the lever to obtain a bottle of coke. So we know from their testimony that Oswald cannot have been a shooter.

      We also know–from the meticulous studies that have appeared here on Veterans Today–beginning with “JFK Special: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!”, but also including “JFK believe it or not: Oswald wasn’t even a shooter!”, “The JFK Altgens6: Bill Shelley’s Shrunken Head”, “Newseum displays ‘Oswald’s shirt': Proof that he was Doorman!”, and “Why Buell Wesley Frazier was erased from Altgens6″–that Oswald was indeed Doorman based upon 27 or more features that identify the shirt on Doorman as the same shirt that Oswald was wearing when he was arrested, that Billy Lovelady was instead wearing a red-and-white vertically striped short-sleeved shirt, and that Checkered Shirt Man not only looks nothing like Billy but his shirt is buttoned up, while Doorman’s is splayed open.

      My inference is that you are unfamiliar with the evidence in this case, because (1) that Marrion Baker confronted him in the lunchroom about 90 seconds after the shooting and (2) that he had been standing in the doorway watching the motorcade pass by are BOTH substantiated by ample evidence to conclude that they are TRUE. That means at time t1 (during the shooting) Oswald was standing in the doorway and at time t2 (90 seconds later) he was confronted in the lunchroom. INFERENCE: He made his way to the lunchroom following the shooting, where he obtained a coke and was confronted by Officer Baker. That is precisely what has to have happened. There is no alternative, given that we KNOW both (1) and (2) were the case. But that is hardly the only reason to question your suggestion.

      If Oswald had been a conspirator, much less a shooter, why would he not have simply walked away from the building after the shooting, never to be seen again? And if he had been firing from the 6th floor, why would he have gone to the lunchroom after assassinating the most powerful man in the world? Surely that is not something that you or I would have done. Had Oswald been involved in anything other than being assigned the role of THE PATSY, he would have fled the scene immediately following the shooting the President. There is no way that he would have hung around the crime scene. So Dennis and I are both a bit perplexed that you are presenting such an indefensible argument. My guess is that you have not studied the evidence and know no better. But Dennis is less charitable.

  6. lawrencedickerson  March 21, 2013 at 3:38 pm

    The photo referenced in stefanaugust’s comment above is indeed a very clear picture in comparison to those that has previously been shown as evidence.

    The left jaw on Oswald has been compromised on this photo but one abnormality I did see was the fact that every other person in that photo was squinting and/or shading their eyes from the glare.Oswald shows no expression whatsoever that would indicate that he was actually looking in the same direction at the same objects.

  7. stephanaugust  March 21, 2013 at 7:55 am

    Yes, excellent work.

    P.S. Dennis and Jim, did you ever wonder about the little white person next to/in front of Oswald? I dont’t know about the following picture I found — but it would make sense because the proportion of the person looks much better. (As you must be aware of all theories and pictures available, you maybe are aware of this one too.)


    I found it here, but it is supressed on my Android system, while it shows up on my Mac:


  8. mpennery  March 20, 2013 at 6:37 pm

    Excellent work Dennis and Jim. Thank you. Because of you, history will get it right.


  9. Chandler  March 20, 2013 at 4:50 pm

    Each time you publish another segment of this assassination I become even more amazed at the amount work it took to cover up this crime so LBJ could stay out of prison. LBJ ordered the limo cleaned until it was spotless. He ordered the new windshield to be installed, and all the evidence removed. This in and of itself was a crime. But, LBJ was right. Those Kennedy’s never would humiliate him again. I can only imagine what it would’ve been like for these shooters to be unable to discuss what they had done not only afterwards but now 50 years later. Without independent investigators continually poking and prying into the evidence like this author in particular, we commoners would not know much more than we did after reading the Warren Report. When I first saw this chip in the windshield many years ago, I know right then right there the WC report was a complete work of fiction. Mr. Fetzer, I do not know you, or never have met you, but I appreciate the work you have done, your books, seminars, and speeches. I respect your efforts to unravel this hideous crime and cover up. I am surprised they have not targeted you. 50 years later, I still remember my president and how I felt when they blew his brains out. I never would ever be the same person I was at 15, growing up with a man I could admire as president. Something I have never gotten over. There has never been another one like JFK. Thank you…apologies to Lee Harvey Oswald, his mother, his wife, and his daughters. To each conspirator of any capacity, may God have mercy on your soul. Look at how our government runs things today, and it is a direct result of what you cowards did.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login