One of the most fake photos of all time: The LBJ Swearing In Ceremony, Part 2

Since I have quite a bit to offer to complement Daddieuhoh’s work yesterday, I thought I would do it as a separate post. There is quite a bit going on in the photos he brought to us. I will offer the ones I will be working with as a montage:

Label them 1-5 starting upper left and going clockwise. The first thing to notice is that in photos 1,2 and 3, LBJ is in exactly the same pose. Yet Dad noticed a slight shift in everything around him. This would indicate that LBJ had been inserted into the photo as a paste-up, or, more likely, that we have photos taken in rapid succession with objects in the foreground less affected by a shift of the camera than than those behind. Here are some overlays, this one of  2 over 1.


Everyone has shifted a little, but LBJ has maintain a stationary posture – a slight movement of his right hand, and his left hand on the bible also moving. Everyone behind him has shifted a little except those directly behind, to me indicating this there has been slight camera movement of two shots close together.


Here again, with 3 overlaying 1, we see LBJ slightly moving, and everyone else shifting except those directly behind.


And with that same photo I have put Jackie in focus, as her facial image overlays the original perfectly. Her clothing has shifted a little bit. All of the images except one directly over her head have shifted. This is, again, camera angle, as far as I can tell.

From this I gather that we are dealing with photos in rapid succession, with everyone aware that they are participating in a fake photo session, possibly done days, weeks or months in advance of the faked assassination. The reason I say that is that they used a stand-in for Jackie, wearing the clothing she was assigned that day and a wig that covers almost all of her face. They were then able to come back in the darkroom and insert Jackie’s face under the wig. They used two Jackie expressions:

Note that the dark collar makes it easier to do darkroom work, and by the way, not to be ghoulish, but where is the blood?

The reason I think this is a stand-in wearing a Jackie wig is because in both photos everything moves a little, including facial features, but the hair matches perfectly.


In other words, to grant Johnson legitimacy as president, they needed a transition of power, meaning that they needed Jackie in the photographs. But just as with the morgue shots of JFK, the real people, for whatever reason, were unwilling or were not asked to participate. So they used stand-ins, and finished the job in the darkroom.

Here’s is photos 4 and five again:

We see Lyndon and Lady Bird expressing sympathy to Jackie, and then looking away. Jackie is like a statue. It is because they used the same paste-up for both images. Both LBJ and Lady Bird were expressing fake sympathy to the stand-in, who was asked to stand still, as they knew they were going to be giving her a new face.

That is my take, but I am only one set of eyes. Others please, weigh in.

39 thoughts on “One of the most fake photos of all time: The LBJ Swearing In Ceremony, Part 2

  1. There are a few darker spots on the jacket sleeve that could be blood, most of it would be on her right side? This has to be the most investigated murder case of all time and to this day still unsolved. Maybe your photo analysis can help bring some closure.


    1. I’ve had closure for 18 months…first reading Miles Mathis “Hidden Kings” and then Tyrone McCloskey’s JFKTV. Here is a link to MM’s paper (updated 9/16)

      Click to access barindex2.pdf

      I have the JFKTV in PDF format, but no link to add to the comment. If you are interested, I am sure Mark could email the PDF to you.


        1. Thanks daddieuhoh, I saw the “here, here and here” links but failed to click on them and did not realize they were links to 1) Miles Mathes- Hidden Kings, 2) Tyrone’s JFKTV and 3) The POM article about the Fake JFK Morgue Photos. So, for everyone’s convenience, the additional information is available in part one of the LBJ Swearing in Ceremony.


  2. Mark and Dad, these posts, along with JFKTV from Tyrone, really provide additional evidence that the whole charade was a psyop. It all makes me beyond angry…but I am so happy it is being examined and brought to light.


    1. I kind of rushed this, as I was short of time, but now think that Jackie’s entire head was pasted on to the body of an actress – that would explain a lot, including the dark-collared coat, a nice border to use in dark room work.


  3. I would assume everyone was in on it even if they were not able to participate in a photo shoot- What, pray tell, would Jackie’s response be if she saw these photo paste-ups in the papers and was not in on it?
    I would bet the Jackie face/head in these photos will be found in original photos from other meet and greet photo-ops, possibly from her trip to Greece a few weeks before Dallas- If anyone wants to search for the source head, that’s one place to start-
    If even Jackie is in a need to know mode, then she may be, possibly, a composite character as well- Maybe just a long term actress, with a double or two, and a large image bank for the spooks to draw on to create a public narrative, to sell the story that she went here and then went there, but all of it was once again just a rolling movie set with stunt doubles (certainly in the limo) and stand-ins as required of any film project-


    1. That in mind, the Jackie as actress idea, would her pregnancy and then the death of Patrick in August of 1963 be additional psychodrama? Would there even be a “Patrick”? I remember somewhere you suggest that Patrick became one of RFK’s brood of bastards … are we sure he even existed?


  4. Mark, nice work. I appreciate it. But I disagree with your conclusions. But first off, a question: what was the anchor for your overlay? Especially the first one. In other words, how did you line them up?

    I don’t think what you found is consistent with the notion that everybody is moving between two shots taken in rapid succession. That also does not explain the lights off/lights on. I think it is more consistent with people being pasted into each picture, but with all of them pasted into slightly different positions. The thing is: I don’t see why LBJ and Jackie would appear in nearly the same exact position while everyone else is shifting considerably. You suggest this is because objects in the foreground would shift less than objects in the background. But if that’s true, then the judge should have shifted least of all, because she is even closer to the camera than LBJ. But she is shifted A LOT. I think if you were to put some objects on a table separated by a couple of feet at most, you would find that they do not behave like what we see in this fauxto.

    Another question I have is: is everybody shifting in a consistent direction between those two shots? Like, is everything shifted to the left in the second picture, or are some things shifting to the left and some to the right? It’s hard for me to tell with the overlay. It almost looks like Al Thomas shifts one direction while Ladybird shifts the other. But in any case, I don’t see how you could such large shifts with everyone except for LBJ and Jackie. I understand parallax, but the distances here just don’t seem big enough. And again the judge is even closer in the foreground. Assuming you picked LBJ as your anchor, then it’s no wonder he’s not shifted. But if you picked, say, Al Thomas as your anchor (or Jackie), then I expect you would see a lot more shifting of LBJ, which would I think lend support to the paste-up hypothesis.

    What I actually had in mind is that you would do overlays from the first two pictures of each of the main characters: LBJ and Jackie for sure, and even Al Thomas and Ladybird. And maybe even that guy in front of Thomas and the judge. Just crop them out and see how exactly you can get them to line up with an overlay.

    The idea being this: they look exactly the same except slightly shifted. So if you tried to align each of them in pic 1 and pic 2 from my post, what are the chances that they would each (separately) align perfectly? In contrast, most of the characters in the back seem like they would not align with themselves even if you tried to line them up. To me this indicates either a complete paste-up of everybody, except that they used identical pictures for the principals. Or it indicates that they took multiple pictures for the background with the identical pictures of the principals pasted in up front.

    Also, with the pictures of Jackie — interesting about the hair! But you overlayed a picture of her from during the swearing in with the picture of her from the winking photo. What I was wondering, though, is this: what would you find if you overlayed a picture of her from the winking photo (the last one in my post) with a picture of her from the pic where the obviously pasted-in LBJ is leaning in to her (the second-to-last pic in my post). Her expression in both of those pictures looks exactly the same. But her body/head is at a slightly different angle. If you corrected for the angle by rotating one of the pictures slightly (and you might also have to play with the size), I think her face and probably her entire head would match up perfectly.

    Finally, about her dress: if you look on line, her dress only appears to have blood stains only on the front of her skirt, which is out of frame here. Of course it’s ridiculous because by all accounts she rested his head on her lap, so she should be covered in his blood. Also the seat where she was sitting was also covered in blood, so she should also have blood stains on the back of her skirt. It’s yet another strong indication of a hoax.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I will do more work on this, as it is an important find on your part. I did not have much time, so I decided first of all, thinking it was a big paste up, that I would play with contrast to see who was pasted in. But what I found is that all were lit consistently, none stood out, and no tell-tale lines, no inconsistent shadowing.

      So I took the five photos that had all the main players, and just played with them, using first Lyndon’s face as the anchor, as his expression does not change. Overlying the next two photos, I saw that the other people appeared to move, but three possibilities – that they were paste-ups, as you said, but which I had discounted; that they had moved between photos, or that the camera had moved ever so slightly between rapid-succession shots. I decided the latter, but Jackie’s expression caught my eyes, as the more I looked the more I realized she was alike a mannequin. Of course they will say she was in shock, and if events were real, she would be, but the other possibility was that SHE, and not Lyndon, was the central reason for the photograph, as we all know by this time that there was no need to swear him in. Succession was automatic, and his oath as VP covered him. It was redundant.

      So looking at her face in all the shots, I saw only two expressions on her face. And it dawned on me that she alone had been pasted in. And the hair was a good means by-which to do this, as we saw with the Jane Fonda Hanoi photos. So I overlaid the hair, and found that even though her face was not turned in exactly the same way in the two expressions on her face, that her hair was nonetheless identical.

      And that is where I stopped. Later I thought that they would work awfully hard to superimpose her face under the hair when they had the black collar on her outfit which would be a perfect disguise for paste-up line.

      And that is where I left it. I’ll get back to it in a few hours .


      1. Great. I suspect your are right that Jackie is the main reason for this paste up. That would also explain the terrible chop job they did on the pic where he is supposed to be leaning in to her.

        I think the lights on then off then on again go against the rapid succession hypothesis. Look forward to seeing what you find. No rush.


      2. I was able to take photos one and two [I just noticed I did not use Photo One – dammit – the lights are not on in either photo I used], which were still in PS and already sized, and change the anchor. Here is Al Thomas as the focal points:

        Here is Rep. Brooke as focal point:

        And here is Judge Hughes:

        As you can see, the whole room is like a fishbowl,, so that changing the focal point changes all perspective on everyone. And again, I think a shifting camera would cause that. Photos taken in close sequence are going to capture common expression and slight movement, and there was slight movement by LBJ – is right hand moved, as did his left, as did Sarah Hughes’s hands move.

        I did the overlay of Jackie in the winking photo with Jackie in the LBJ offering sympathy photo, as you requested, and they are virtually identical, as perhaps you can see in this gif – note how in the back of Jackie’s head there is a tuft of hair that is somewhat detached form her otherwise perfect coiffure. It is the same on both – see what you think:


        You have to look close to see those strands of hair, if that is what they are – if so, remarkable darkroom work, or it was a wig with face superimposed beneath it, my first thought.

        As to lights on, lights off, the quality of photo is much better without the fluorescent lamps, so they might have had someone by the light switch to try it with and without lights on and off. I agree, that is a fly in the ointment.


        1. Great, thank you Mark! You’re getting really good with photoshop. I think Jackie matching up exactly in those two pictures is proof positive that she is pasted in to at least one of those pictures (so probably both). I suppose it’s possible as you suggest that they used a stand-in for her, which would explain whey her face matches exactly in pics 1 and 2 but not her body. At least we both agree there is some fakery going on here.

          I don’t think the little bright spot above Thomas in the winking pic can be explained by the contrast of light meeting dark. It seems you turned up the contrast in your last pic, which washes out that little bright mark above his head. But if it was just the light meeting dark, I don’t see why you’d have that extra bright spot. In fact with my regular editing software, I was not able to change the contrast enough to wash out that spot. But it might have a simple and non-fakery related explanation.

          As for the shifting across pics, you might be right that it is just a sign of the pictures being taken in quick succession. I’ll need to think about it. It’s still not clear to me if everyone is shifting in the same direction or not. do the arrows indicate the direction of shifting? Could you please humor me and do one last overlay with pic 1 and 2 where the door frame or the sign over the door act as your anchoring points? Thanks!!


        2. shift

          Here you go … I anchored to the door frame at the back. Most of the shifting going on is consistent with camera movement, downs and to the left, indicting the camera moved slightly up and to the right. Exceptions to this are LBJ’s arm and hand, which I think actually moved, and Jackie’s clothing, which I cannot explain. She appears to have moved inward form both left and right, presenting a narrower frame.


          1. All right, thanks. This helps to clarify matters. Here is my thinking on this, let me know what you think:

            The shifting between shots could be due to three things, either separately or in combination:

            1. The photographer moved, shifting everyone and everything in the picture. Objects further in the back should appear to shift less due to parallax. Parallax should be pretty small here though due to the small distances.
            2. The people moved around.

            3. They were pasted into slightly different positions vis-a-vis the background, giving the appearance of the shift.

            Now, when you centered the picture on a person, say LBJ, with everyone shifted around him, we couldn’t say for sure whether 1 or 2 was correct, because LBJ might be moving OR the camera might be moving. But now that you’ve centered it on the door frame and/or the sign above the door frame, we can rule out the explanation that what we’re seeing is due to the cameraman moving (except for small differences near vs. far due to parallax. Why?

            Well, if the cameraman moved, then the location of the door/sign would have moved as well. But by aligning them, you’ve basically corrected for the movement of the cameraman and re-aligned the two pictures. So let’s ignore parallax for a moment and suppose that the cameraman had taken a step to the right and raised the camera a bit. Then everything in the picture should be pushed down and to the left including the door frame and sign. So by pushing the frame and sign into alignment, everybody and everything else should also have been pushed into alignment. But they’re not. On top of this, we have LBJ and Jackie moving (or not) in ways that are inconsistent with everything else. This tells me that what we’re seeing is not consistent with option the camera moving.

            So what about option 2 — the people are moving. Do they look like they’re moving? Or more to the point, does the movement between frames seem like a natural movement? Like, did Al Thomas suddenly crouch down and step to his right, along with the guy next to him who was already bending down? And are we to believe that everybody (except LBJ and Jackie) moved in almost the same exact direction? And that they moved but retained the exact same expression, direction of gaze, etc. (Lady Bird, LBJ, Jackie, Al Thomas, and the guy crouching in front of Al Thomas)? I don’t think so.

            That leaves us with option 3.

            But before we draw that conclusion, there is the problem of parallax. If the camera moved, then the objects and people closer to the camera should move more than objects in the back. And indeed we see that the people in the back behind LBJ can barely be seen to move between shots. But I still don’t think we should conclude it was camera movement. To begin with, look at the Al Thomas and then at Rep. Brooke (standing to the right of Jackie). They are about at the same distance. But notice that while Al Thomas moves down and to the left, Brooke only moves to the left. (And even a bit up, if anything). On top of that we have the movements of LBJ and Jackie, which are not consistent with everybody else. So to explain this, we would have to believe that LBJ, Jackie and Brooke all moved during that split second between shots, but that nobody else moved.

            So no, I think all signs are pointing us to option 3, that it was a paste-up with people put into slightly different positions. Or maybe there’s something I’m missing. One way to separate out the parallax issue I guess would be to do another overlay, this time anchored at the flowers in the front. What do you say? (-;


      3. Here is one more – your first (and last) photo in which you wondered about the line next to Jackie and the point of light above Thomas –


        As you can see, the line near Jackie extends out towards the edge of the photo, and almost looks like a bend or break in the negative. But since you can see Brooke’s arm above and below it, it is not a paste-up border. Jackie looks so out of place, as if she is about to cry while LBJ, Thomas and Lady Bird seem quite OK.

        And the bright spot above Thomas is where shadow and light meet on the wall, or so it appears.


    2. I agree, there was not enough blood on her. If his heart was still beating on the way to the hospital, her clothing would be drenched in blood.


  5. Just for grins n’ grits, here’s the bloody dress- Maybe spilling a bloody mary would look like this-


  6. Here are two more overlays:

    This one focuses on flowers in foreground.


    This one focuses on light frame on upper right:

    [I had to edit this comment to replace the one I originally put in, as it was a duplicate.]

    If, as you suggest, we are dealing with paste-ups, they are very, very good. I cannot spot any tell-tales lines.

    We are agreed, however, that the essential element in the photo, the reason for its existence, is Jackie, and that she is pasted in. That, to me, is evidence of a public hoax, not just placing Jackie in teh photo, but added to all the other evidence, that the entire weekend’s events were fake.


    1. Thank, Mark! I still don’t understand why, after lining up the objects, everyone would be shifted around. Shouldn’t this line up the people as well, and not just the potted plant. You’ll notice between these last two pictures that the shifting is different. For example, in the top pic Al Thomas moves pretty much up and down, whereas in the bottom pic he is shifting much more at a diagonal. I don’t understand why that would be unless it was a paste-up. on the other hand, I would have expected them to paste on top of an empty or nearly empty picture of the room or space on Air Force One where this allegedly took place. In that case I wouldn’t expect the components of the room to shift around once you line one part of the room up. But we see that across the pictures fixed by flower, door and light panel. So I admit there may be something going on with the geometry of the photography that I don’t grasp. Be that as it may, we agree there is still plenty of evidence of fakery here (most likely that Jackie was pasted in, perhaps in toto or perhaps just her face). And there I will let it rest.


      1. I have a little more time … I will take a few photos today of a picture on the wall or a lamp just raising and lowering and refocusing the camera without deliberately shifting perspective … I think that the black collar on Jackie was thought out in advance knowing they would be using it in the dark room for pasting exercises.


        1. Sweet. If possible it will be useful to have objects closer and further away and also more to the center and off to the side.


  7. Here’s another idea, another working premise: In doing the photo shoot they used a headless mannequin for Jackie, wearing the outfit planned well in advance for that day. Then it was a relatively simple matter to superimpose her head in the dark room.


    1. What makes you think they didn’t just paste her in completely? Seems like it would have been simpler and easier.


      1. The body doesn’t look pasted in, and also, it would give the people there a prop to play off of … LBJ extends sympathy to the headless mannequin, and then turns to Thomas as they share the private joke.

        But of course I accept all is possible.


    2. The picture of him and ladybird leaning over to jackie is the most obvious paste-up of the bunch. That thick white line at the edge of his head. Plus his head is too big. Plus the perspective is messed up there. They really botched that one


  8. DSCN0249


    The two images above were taken a few minutes ago. I stood in place, did not raise or lower my arms, did not squat or stand on tiptoes. I merely lowered the camera and lifted it again, focusing on the wooden bear on the right as my main image.

    I then overlaid the two:

    In this one, I focused on the wooden bear.
    Home Exp overlay

    In this one I focused on the stuffed bear.
    Home Exp overlay 4

    In this one I focused on the wreath on the wall off to the right.
    Home Exp overlay 3

    On this one I focused on the basket down and to the right.
    Home Exp overlay 2

    The only difference between the pictures is that I moved the camera slightly, and not intentionally. This is what I think causes all of the misalignment with the LBJ swearing in shots.


    1. Well this settles it in my mind — I agree with your conclusion. Great work. Well, I learned something today (in addition to the fact that you have a nice house).


      1. Thanks – we do love this place. The picture of the kitchen … it was a similar picture that convinced us to look at it in the first place. It pretty much sold us on the place.

        I did not know what the outcome would be there, by the way.


      2. Here’s a cropped image that shows heavy evidence of airbrushing- The Judge’s hair in front, L Bird’s arm and right side of her hair- Everyone looks pasted in like the Sgt. Pepper cover- I have no idea which generation it is of this image but if it is close to the “original” than quite a bit of work was done on it for subsequent copies-
        BTW, what is the leading theory right now? Paste up; partial paste up- Body double for Jackie? I’ve kind of lost track-
        Mark, nice digs, btw- I’ll take wood over steel and glass any day-
        PS- The pink suit/pill box made it’s debut in London, March 1962, so the dark collar was very much a known quantity-


        1. Thanks on the house – we live in the mountains, have far more house than we need, peace and quiet – if any of you are ever in Denver, you’re welcome to share our digs – private entrance, basement and bathroom.

          No doubt airbrushing was used, as this was a Smithsonian league photo. My take is that everyone was real in the room except Jackie. I thought they either used a stand-in with a Jackie wig on, later putting her face on in the dark room, or maybe even a headless mannequin, coming back later to add the head in the darkroom. (That made sense in that LBJ would then have expressed his sympathy to the headless mannequin, and then turned to Thomas laughing, producing the famous wink by Thomas.) That the dark collar was a known quantity did not diminish its usefulness in the cut and paste world of that time.

          But of course I am not the final word … usually when I play with contrast you can see telltale signs of monkey business, and there is none in this, so if there is cut and paste in this photo, it is very high quality and I’ve been fooled … again.

          Other questions: When was it taken? Surely not that day, as they would be leaving this very important photo to chance. They needed the legitimacy it bestowed on LBJ. It could have been taken weeks before or even after – I don’t know when it first appeared. Where was it taken? The rounded walls do suggest aboard an aircraft, and it could indeed be AF1 docked in DC. But I was a little curious about the large bank of fluorescent lights overhead, if that is what they are – I’ve never seen anything of that nature on an aircraft.


  9. Stop for a moment and apply Occam’s razor unto the question you are asking yourselves here. If everyone is ‘in on it’ in some way and merely ‘actor’ types, then why would so much supposed work go into something that could have just been called upon for a re shoot so to speak? An extra day on the so called set wouldn’t have been much trouble for the most powerful people or their puppets to have put forth. You seem to be creating your own imagined hysteria merely for your own staged performance here on your blog playground whether you wish to be aware or not. This is my initial observation anyways. I try to always keep an open mind though to anything which insists with any form of credibility unto what I consider rationale. I have been wrong more times than I would like to count honestly. Though I am willing to count them and admit them openly which I believe to be admirable towards ones own progression of mind and conscience. Your mode of thinking here is interesting I will admit but at the very end it leads to social denial entirely in the form of solipsism. The mind is powerful enough to make millions of realities. All of them for the choosing really. As long as you are enjoying yourselves I suppose. Take care. I wish you well enough.


    1. That’s a bit condescending for my taste, even as you include a dose of false modesty in the comment. Speaking for myself, I enjoy investigating fake events, as real ones are a bit boring. My conclusion from all that I have discovered is that daily living is rather humdrum, not much going on, no assassinations or mass shootings or serial killers. That is all staged for the purpose of keeping us in a state of mild terror, which keeps us of one mind and thereby governable.

      Occam’s razor is well misunderstood in most quarters to simply default to the simplest explanation for an event. But we must not make things simpler than they are. Jackie was not around, was not in Dallas, that day, or at least in the aftermath of the fake event, and further, there was no need for a swearing in, as had JFK really died, transition of power is automatic. So why would Jackie even bother to attend? So they lined everyone up in Air Force One and staged a photo using a mannequin, and later inserted Jackie’s head. Ergo, the wink. Yes, they are all in on it. This is the ruling class who live above our illusory democracy. They can keep a secret or two. Further, these photos are iconic and one-of-a-kind, and are carefully planned in advance for maximum psychological impact. There can be no room for screw-up. How much easier it is to do them in a darkroom.

      As I like to say, the first photograph was taken in 1826 by Joseph Nicéphore Niépce. His second photo was probably faked up in a dark room. History is littered with them. If you read further on our blog, you will see that the morgue photos of JFK were also fake. I worked for hours on that, ready to step back and admit the assassination really happened, as it really is his face. But then I saw how they did it.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I believe that you believe what you are saying is true friend. As the days go by and I grow more bored as well I also find myself wanting to believe in the complex apparatus that is THEM. It really is much more scary to me if we are just bumbling along path with the other skippers. I will be sure to look around herein. At the very least you were right in your assessment of me based on the one post. Hehe. Good job. ☻


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s