Friday, September 13, 2019


I agree with your blog comment: it looks like a staged photo to make it look as if they were processing a torrent of incoming leads. I wonder if those phones were even plugged in. 

I saw that you responded to a YouTube video which suggested yet another bespectacled "Bookhout candidate". Unfortunately for their theory, the person does not resemble any of Bookhout's relatives, in contrast to the elevator impostor, who, despite a bit of smudging, resembles Bookhout's son and at least two other relatives - George Bookhout and Pastor James Bookhout, if I remember correctly. 

This image, from the Wizard, is the very best rendering of "Elevator Ruby" that we have, and it's easy to see that he is not Jack Ruby. This man had a very narrow nose, a round face, prominent orbital ridges, and a short forehead. Jack Ruby had a longer neck, rounder eyes, less prominent orbital ridges, a much longer forehead, etc. The likeness of their hairlines was surely the result of doctoring both images. Remember: in 1960, Ruby was combing his hair on camera, and he didn't even run his comb across the top, he had so little hair there. I used to wonder why his hair is so short in front in this 1960 image, but now I know. It's because he never combs it. He's got a comb in his right hand there that he is using, but he never uses it on top, and that had to be rationalized. Nobody could have hair like this. 
So, here is the Wizard's good image of "Elevator Ruby" who was James Bookhout with Jack Ruby below him. Anyone who tries to say they are the same man is being flagrantly dishonest with himself and the world. 

What do you make of this picture? They're sitting at a phone bank. What are they doing? That's Jim Leavelle in the center. 
I recognize the guy with the cigar. He was in the garage during the spectacle, and he was one of the ones cordoning the area. 

He seems to be wearing the same clothes. There's the same pin on his jacket. Of course, Leavelle is wearing his Easter suit. So, I figure that picture had to be taken on Sunday morning. 
The guy on the right I think is Detective Hall who was part of the trio of Boyd, Sims, and Hall who were Oswald's escorts, and then they became Ruby's escorts, but first they were Bookhout's escorts. 

Notice that Boyd and Hall have clear, open eyes. But "Ruby" (who was really Bookhout) has black slits for eyes. Now, why should that be? It should not be. They just did that to obscure the fact that he was James Bookhout and not Jack Ruby. And then, they blurred Sims behind him just for good measure, just to make it look like there was a photographic reason for it. But really that ghost-like quality of Sims in back makes no sense. But notice that Hall is wearing the exact same clothes as in the other picture. 

So, all three are wearing the exact same clothes they wore on Sunday, and therefore I assume it was Sunday. 

But, what are those three doing there manning the phones? The only thing I can think of is that we were told that there was a slew of threatening phone calls threatening to kill Oswald. And it's very strange because I can't imagine why anyone who was serious about that would alert the police. Why? For what purpose? It seems like a very stupid thing to do. Now, everything about this image looks staged, does it not? I have to believe that they set those phones up on the table for the purpose of capturing this picture. And there is nothing realistic about it. Anyone who calls the police department, apart from emergency 911 calls, is probably going to get an operator at a switchboard. It's not going to be a detective picking up the phone. They've got them sitting there posing, and I suspect that that's the idea, that they were handling threatening phone calls. What else could it be? And you can't tell me that that was a permanent setup. It's just something that they rigged up. But, I don't even believe the story about the torrent of threatening phone calls. And even if you believe it happened, you can't tell me that they anticipated it and set up a phone bank. It's not like a fundraiser on Public Television.  I think it was just bad scriptwriting, which is something they really should leave to professionals, like me. 

So, I think it's just a staged photo. Pure propaganda. And I think it was done on Sunday morning.   

Thursday, September 12, 2019

Last night, I watched Twelve Angry Men which starred and was produced by Henry Fonda. He must have made a ton of money on that movie because practically the whole film takes place in one room, the jury room of a trial. After having made My Stretch of Texas Ground in which we had numerous and diverse sets on locations that were indoors and outdoors, day and night, foreign and domestic, it's dreamy to imagine being able to shoot a whole movie in one room. 

And here's another piece of irony: about halfway through, they decided to add a rollicking rainstorm which created a noisy racket. So, you had to listen to the dialogue through that constant background noise. I call it ironic because we tried very hard to do the opposite: to eliminate background noise from our movie, and it was no easy task.  

And, as simple as it was to make, Twelve Angry Men is highly rated. AFI judges it to be the second best courtroom drama of all time, right behind To Kill A Mockingbird. However,  my favorite courtroom drama of all time is the Australian film Breaker Morant which is based on the true story of Australian soldiers during the Boar War who were scapegoated by the British government. And what happens in it is that, since the outcome was predetermined - they wanted them found guilty and put to death- they assigned this Australian lawyer to defend them who had never tried a case before. He was an administrative lawyer not a courtroom lawyer. But, he turned out to be one hell of a litigator, and he put up quite a fight. I won't tell you the outcome. You really should see it if you haven't. 

But, in Twelve Angry Men (and I am going to talk plainly about it from this point on, so if you think you're going to watch it, you should do so before reading any more of this) the way it goes down is that one of the jurors, who is played by Henry Fonda, is the only one who votes not-guilty on the first tally. The other 11 jurors, who are all middle-aged to older white men, all vote guilty, and they are angry at Fonda because they want to get out of there. 

The case concerned an 18 year old boy accused of killing his father with a switchblade knife. Two witnesses supposedly saw him do it. One was a neighbor, an old man, who heard a fierce argument, and by the time he got to the window, he claimed to see the boy running away. And the other was a woman from across the street who was in bed, trying to go to sleep, but she was still awake, and the way her bed was situated, she could look right out the window, and she saw the whole thing go down and claimed it was the young man.

But, the whole quest revolved around "reasonable doubt." Someone noticed the deep impressions on the nose of a juror, played by E.G. Marshall, who wore heavy glasses, and he recalled seeing such impressions on the nose of the woman. So, it meant that the woman wore glasses, even though she wasn't wearing them in court. And surely she didn't wear them to bed. So, how well could she see the perpetrator to identify him? 

Another juror, played by Lee J Cobb pointed out that she could be farsighted, in which case the glasses didn't matter. That's true, but the point remained that there was a doubt about the reliability of her claim. But regardless of that, I will tell you honestly that I would put very little stock in eye witness testimonies. Look at the Innocence Project. They have gotten dozens of men off Death Row by using DNA evidence to prove that they were not guilty. Some of these men had been wrongly imprisoned for decades- right here in the USA. And all of these wrongly convicted men were convicted on the basis of eye witness testimonies- that were wrong.  

So, if the ONLY evidence against someone is somebody claiming that they saw him do it; if that's all there is, and nothing else, then I would say that reasonable doubt definitely exists. Because: that person could be wrong, regardless of how sure he or she thinks otherwise.   

But, I think it was a clever piece of writing to put that in about the impressions from the glasses. And then regarding the other witness, the old man, he was in question because he claimed to hear the son say "I'm going to kill you!" but there was a loud train passing at the time, so how well would he have heard it over the noise? Maybe that's why they added the rainstorm. Plus, he was a decrepit old man, and he would have had to cover quite a distance in his apartment in 15 seconds or less to get to the window in time. Could he do it? More reasonable doubt.  

Then, there was the switchblade knife which the prosecutor said was "rare" but it turned out that Henry Fonda just happened to have one on him that was identical to it. 

And, no blood or prints were found on the knife, which the prosecutor claimed was wiped off. But, the attacker plunged the knife downward into the victim, and the boy was considerably shorter than the father. But, they reenacted it and determined that he could still have brought his arm up and plunged it downward. But, someone else pointed out that people don't use switch blades that way. You open it, and the way you're holding it after you open it, precludes you from doing that. So, with a switchblade, you attack upward, not downward.

So, one by one, the jurors come around to admitting that there was some doubt, and it was reasonable. So, they go from practically unanimous guilty to unanimous not guilty. 

But, what if the case they were deliberating had been Lee Harvey Oswald?  Well, the so-called eye witnesses against him were even weaker than the ones in the movie. Then, there was the FBI claim of finding a partial fingerprint on the trigger guard of the rifle and also a partial on some boxes. But, he worked there and handled boxes all day. Plus, look how easy it would have been for someone to watch him move a box and then, wearing gloves, move that box to the Sniper's Nest to frame him. And then there was the fact that the Dallas Police reported finding no usable prints at all. There was the fact that he passed the paraffin test, which meant that he hadn't fired a weapon. They ultimately claimed to lift a palm print from his dead body but remember that that would not have happened if he had lived. So, that was not going to be part of the trial. And none of the things that Marina went on to tell the Warren Commission would have happened. She was his wife, hence, spousal privilege. Plus, they never would have gotten to brainwash her. On the day of the murder, she said that Oswald only owned a rifle in Russia, which he sold.  

The claim that he ordered a rifle from Chicago would have been contested strongly. Oswald denied doing that, and his lawyers would have easily falsified the paper trail. For instance, his letter supposedly got delivered from Dallas to Chicago overnight. Even today, with all the computerization and robotic automations of mail delivery, they can't deliver a stamped envelope overnight. Overnight delivery did not exist at all in 1963, not at any price. 

And John Armstrong points out that his alleged postal money order didn't have stamps on the back, that it never went through the banking system. He also points out that the name A. Hidell  wasn't even on the P.O.Box as an owner. And since you can't stuff a rifle into a small P.O. box, he would have had to go to the counter to get it, so why would they hand over a rifle addressed to A. Hidell to Lee Harvey Oswald? 

And please be aware that I dispute that Oswald even had a P.O. Box, because there are a lot of red flags connected to it. They claim that the only thing he got in that box were Socialist and Russian newspapers, but if that's true, why was there no pile of newspapers in his room? And what are the chances that Oswald, who earned $1.11/ hr at the TSBD, and who was constantly struggling financially and having to depend on the largess of others, spend money to have Russian newspapers mailed to him? From Russia? Imagine the cost. What did he need them for? He wasn't living in Russia any more. And why wouldn't he let newspapers be delivered to his house? Why have to make trips to the Post Office to get them? That post office was neither close to where he worked nor where he lived.  And since they have post offices scattered everywhere, why wouldn't he pick one that was more convenient? 

But, here's the biggest reason why I doubt that he had a P.O. Box: because they tried too hard to sell it. In the emergency letter that he supposedly wrote in Russian to Marina telling her what to do in the event that he was either killed or incarcerated for shooting at General Walker (which he never did) the very first thing on the list was telling her about the P.O.Box, where the key was, etc. that she needed to check it right away, etc. Why was that important? If all it contained was Russian and Socialist newspapers, why would it matter in the least to Marina? It wouldn't. It couldn't. It didn't. They just made that #1 in the phony letter to sell the idea that he had a P.O. Box. And in so doing, they told me that he didn't have one- the stupid dumb plucks.

We have a photograph of Oswald standing in the doorway during the shooting, and that no doubt, would have been center stage at his defense trial, and that is why they could not let him speak to a lawyer even once.  They had to get him dead ASAP, and they did. 

But, the point is that even if we didn't have the Altgens photo, that there is so much weakness, suspicion, and outright corruptness to the remaining evidence against Oswald that there is no way he could have been found guilty. If "reasonable doubt" is more than a catchphrase, then there is no way he could have been convicted. 

So, if you want to see a great courtroom drama (although it's really a jury room drama) then watch Twelve Angry Men. And, if you want to watch a modern thriller about a terrorist attack that falls on the shoulders of a small town Texas sheriff, then watch My Stretch of Texas Ground.    

To anyone who thinks that Oswald knew anything about the JFK assassination, I offer proof that he didn't: the very fact that they let him speak at the Midnight Press Conference. 

That was live. It wasn't even on 5 second delay. Anything he blurted out went to the world. There was no taking it back. If they thought that he knew who did it or who was behind it, they never would have given him a world microphone. 

What he said was that he didn't know anything. 

"I don't know what this situation is about. Nobody has told me anything. I only know that I am accused of killing a police officer. I know nothing  more than that. And I ask that someone come forward to give me legal assistance."

The Midnight Press Conference was a DPD affair, but the audience was crawling with FBI agents. The FBI was really in charge. And that's true of the Oswald interrogations as well. Consider the first one, which involved Fritz, Bookhout and Hosty. It was an hour long, from 3:15 to 4:15. That's a pretty long time, don't you think? Oswald had been arrested for killing Tippit. But, there isn't a word in the Fritz Notes about the Tippit murder. They didn't solicit Oswald's alibi for it. They asked him if he owned a rifle, and he said he didn't. But, there isn't a word about the pistol, whether it was his, where he bought it, etc. There is nothing about whether he was at 10th and Patton. There is nothing about whether he knew Tippit. I presume he didn't know him because he referred to him as "a police officer." I should think that if he knew Tippit, he would have referred to him as Officer Tippit. 

Instead, they wanted to know about him living in Russia and the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. How did that come up? You know Oswald didn't bring up the FPCC. Why would he? So, it must have come from them. And at that point, there is no reason to think that Fritz knew about it. And that means that Bookhout/Hosty must have brought it up. Do you see what I mean now that they are the ones who really ran the interrogation? 

But, what did this have to do with the Tippit murder? Nothing. So, why didn't they want to ask him about it? Because they knew he had nothing to do with it. I am speaking of the FBI agents. If they asked him for his alibi, he would have given it to them, and it may have been something iron-clad, something that could definitely establish that he was not at 10th and Patton. They didn't want to hear that. 

But, how did they explain it to Fritz? Doesn't it seem like he would instinctively conduct the interrogation properly? So, did they say something to him ahead of time? We don't have any record of them ever asking Oswald about the Tippit murder, the particulars of it. There were statements made that he denied everything, but by the time of the Midnight Press Conference, they had yet to inform him that he was accused of killing the President. And we know that because Oswald told reporters, "No one has said that to me yet. The first thing I heard of it was when a reporter in the hall asked me that question." (whether he killed the President)

So, it's obvious that they did not want to solicit alibis from Oswald. 

And the fact is that the formal reports about the interrogations didn't start until after Oswald was dead. Do you realize what it means? It means that at that point, they could fabricate anything and get away with it. And look what got fabricated: Postal Inspector Harry Holmes claimed that on Sunday morning Oswald waxed on and on about his trip to Mexico City, reversing his previous denial of having gone there. No one else claimed this; just Holmes. There is absolutely NO CHANCE that Oswald went to Mexico City, and of course, he would not have said that he did. He said that the only place in Mexico he ever went was Tijuana. Marina, when first asked, denied that he went to Mexico City, although by the time of her WC testimony, it came back to her. But, Mark Lane figured out by December 7, 1963, in other words, 2 weeks after the assassination, that Oswald never went there. 

But, it's even worse than that. The truth is that there was hardly any interrogation Sunday morning. And Bookhout even admitted that "nothing important was said." The official story has it that Oswald was checked out of the 5th floor jail at 9:30, meaning that he wasn't going back there, that he was brought to Fritz office for a long interrogation that went all the way to 11:15, and then he was brought downstairs for the jail transfer, where he was fatally shot. It's bull. We have a video footage of Oswald AFTER the Sunday morning interrogation, leaving Fritz' office. He's not even dressed yet for the jail transfer. And instead of taking him downstairs, they took him into the private elevator room- there was a public elevator on the 3rd floor that only went as high as the 3rd floor, and there was a private elevator that went to the higher floors that were closed to the public. So, after that interrogation, they took him into the private elevator room, and you can hear a reporter say that they are taking him back up to the 5th floor. And it had to be much earlier than 11:15 because by 11:15 all the action was downstairs.  So, not only did Oswald not wax about going to Mexico City, he didn't wax about anything because that meeting was very short, and I mean extremely short. 

This is Oswald on Sunday morning from the video. He's wearing his stretched, sunken t-shirt which looks like a vee-neck in the TSBD doorway of the Altgens photo.

He spoke to someone, at length. But, they muted it.

He is not talking to the guy on the left that we see. He is talking to someone we don't see. But, we saw him earlier. 

 That's the guy that Oswald is going to talk to. Notice that he's short; like Bookhout. And then, the image of him distorts. 

I say they distorted that image- because he was Bookhout. 

The image of him comes back after that. 

Again: short guy.

Then, the short guy disappears in front of the bald guy closest to us. He moves in to interact with Oswald. 

So, we don't see him at all any more. He is directly in front of that other guy, and he's short. 

So then, Oswald reaches him, and they interact. 

And then they pull Oswald through the door. But, Oswald spoke at some length, and they muted it. We hear other voices but not his. 

You can watch it yourself. Here's the link. It's towards the end. Start at 5:27.

Wednesday, September 11, 2019

Today is the anniversary of 9/11, the sole justification for us having crossed an ocean and two seas to attack and invade Afghanistan. 

Now, 18 years later, the war is still raging, the horrific death toll is still mounting, and there is no end in sight. The great hoopla that existed over the peace talks was never realistic; it was always just spin.  

I'm sure George Bush never dreamed that the war could go as badly as it has. To let Osama bin laden be tried in another country, as the Taliban offered, looks awfully attractive now, looking back at it. Wouldn't it have been better than this God-awful war we got? 

But, Bush couldn't accept that offer because the whole case against bin laden was a canard.  They could no more try Osama bin laden than they could try Lee Harvey Oswald. I don't know the extent to which Bush realized that, but, the people who were playing him like an instrument- they realized it- and they couldn't allow bin laden to be tried- anywhere.  

So, the tragedy of this war was baked in the cake. From the moment, George Bush was given the disputed 2000 election, 9/11 and the disastrous wars that followed were a fait accompli.  

I just heard Trump on tv say that talks with the Taliban are dead, and he said it bitterly. Then he said that we've hit the Taliban harder in recent days than in 10 years. Doesn't he know that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction? Does he really think he can break their resolve by hitting them hard? And as far as killing them goes, they're content to kill themselves in suicide attacks. They have a whole "martyr division." They celebrate dying for Jihad.  

We are sinking further into the abyss. Escalation can only make things worse. Independent of the Taliban, Trump wanted to reduce troop levels there. He should go through with it, if only to reduce the number of American targets. He should just systematically withdraw; get out of there. And the same goes for the other countries who have soldiers there who are in danger. Leave Afghanistan to the Afghans. Having occupation forces there only makes it worse- for everybody.  



There once was a man named Lee
Who stood in the doorway- to see
His image was taken
Then Billy's was faken
To say Lee had done killed Ken-ne-DY