Monday, April 23, 2018

Somebody actually claimed that the shooter can't be Bookhout because their chins don't match. But, the chin on the bottom right looks so irregular, you know it's got to be distorted. No one has a chin like that. It's a highly distorted image, and I have no doubt that it was deliberately distorted. 

So, you have to look past that. Those two bottom images match strikingly well. Look at how the whole head carriage and head balance is exactly the same. 

And, as a chiropractor, I can tell you that that is a very relaxed head balance. He's not tensing up there. But, if you look at Young Ruby above, he's got his head back and his chin up; it's a very stiff posture and very different from the relaxed posture of Bookhout. You see the same distance between the eyes and eye-brows between Bookhout and the Shooter. You get the same sense about the size and the shape of their eyes, and also the depth of their eyes. There is a big difference among people in how deep their eyes are, and Bookhout's eyes, in both images, are deeper than Ruby's. And look at the hair! Look how similar it is between them in every respect. This is Ruby at his trial which was in 1964, so just a few months after the assassination. 

Do you get it about how bald he was? And this picture just fell through the cracks. They mostly showed phony ones like this:

So, real:



Look at the hair of the two on the bottom:
It's the same guy. Stop fighting it. 
Did Jack Ruby work for Ricahrd Nixon?

No. And keep in mind that if he had, Ruby would have admitted it. Why not? He was taking the blame for shooting Oswald, so why lie about working for Nixon? Plus, Ruby was a blowhard. He loved to talk. He loved to brandish his connections. He would surely have admitted it. But, in the autobiography that he wrote with the help of that television scriptwriter, he said nothing about working for Nixon. 

This is from Jefferson Morley of JFK Facts:

Jean Davison noted that a “letter from Nixon mentioning a ‘Jack Rubenstein’” has been around for a long time. The document in question is not exactly a letter, nor is it “from Nixon.” Rather, it is sworn statement, dated Nov. 24, 1947, from a staffer (identified only as ‘LS”) who asserts that “Jack Rubenstein of Chicago” was “performing information functions” for Nixon’s staff and should not be called to testify in open hearings by the House Un-American Activities Committee.
Long ago, when Hoch was more conspiratorially minded than he is now, he wrote that he thought the letter was a forgery.
In 2006 Gary Buell posted a detailed commentary on questions about the document’s authenticity. One key point of dispute is the letterhead on the document that includes a five-digit Zip Code — a system not adopted until 1963.
“Even if it’s real,” Davison says, “the Jack Rubenstein mentioned is almost certainly a different person, a prominent member of the Young Communist League in the 1920s whose death was reported in the New York Times, July 8, 1989, p. 29. (“Jack Rubenstein, 81, Labor-union Official.”) This Jack Rubenstein helped organize a textile workers’ strike in New Jersey in 1926, when “our” Jack Ruby would’ve been 15. He later broke with the CP — which would explain why the Nixon letter says he was “a potential witness” for the HUAC.”
This letter is fake. They didn't even have 5 digit zip codes in 1947, which this letter has. 

I know it's illegible, but what could that say? To me, it looks like 80686. But, DC zip codes are all 200XX.

And, they didn't even have zip codes in 1947. 

So, do you know what this tells me? It tells me that the whole "Ruby worked for Nixon" claim is just a baiting, battering, and buttering up of the buffs thing. It's just more of the false and phony lure about Jack Ruby, the invented biography, that he was gangster, a pimp, a guy who threw people down the stairs, a gun runner, and an operative for Richard Nixon. In reality, he was just a nightclub operator in Dallas who got a thrill out of being friends with the Dallas Police. Most of what you hear about Jack Ruby is patently false, including that he shot Oswald. 

As I look at this, here's how I think they did it. Most of the people were really there, including Gorilla Lovelady, the Danny Arce surrogate, and the Bonnie Ray Williams surrogate. It was long after the assassination. But, they decided afterwards to put the woman in curlers and the woman in the scarf in there. My basis for saying that is that they don't move. Not a bit. Not in the slightest. Not so much as a twitch. And who could they be? Who goes to watch the President of the United States with her hair up in curlers?  How often do you see a woman with her hair up in curlers on the street anyway? 

What could that be except curlers? A freaky hair style? But, why should we accept that any more than curlers? 

But, look at the clip again and notice that the two ladies, one in curlers, the other in a scarf, do not move.

So, I think they made the clip, and then they decided in post-production to add those two ladies. Notice that Lovelady's head turns left right through the woman in curlers as though she isn't there. So, why did they add them? It's anyone's guess. But, look again at the close-up.

What is that blackness beneath the white question mark? And don't tell me it's shadow. Is it perhaps a pot belly, which that guy had but Lovelady didn't? Or, did they think that her being there would provide an excuse for the open shirt sprawl not showing, which they forgot entirely about? 
So, why then did they put the other lady in? Well, if they didn't put her in, then Gorilla Man and the woman in curlers would seem to be standing inordinately close for a non-couple. So, she justifies the other woman being so close to Gorilla Man. 

Here we have two very comparable angular views. On both, we are seeing them from the side; we're seeing the left side of their chest, and just a little bit of the right. 

Despite the angle, we still see the open sprawl of Trump's jacket. So, how could the other man be this man?
Do you understand what they're claiming? That these two are the same man 15 minutes apart, with nothing being done to alter the clothing?

So, when this first surfaced in 1966, which was three years after the assassination, why didn't researchers scream bloody murder at the time? And I mean immediately. The proper response should have been, "Fuck you, mutha fucka! That is not the same man!"

So, why didn't Harold Weisberg say that when they first showcased it?  They say he had quite a mouth on him. Then, during the HSCA, it morphed into this:

You have to understand something: that there is NOTHING that they wouldn't do. To keep the lie going, they'd go to the moon again. Well, they'd go to the moon for the first time. That is: if they could go to the moon, which they can't. But, the point is that that they would do anything, and there is a lot that they can do. They'd kill again- in a heartbeat. And look how many they've killed to suppress JFK truth. It's something I think about every day of my life. It's a good thing that when you buy life insurance, they don't ask you, "Do you know if anyone is trying to kill you?" 

Here we have Trump inspecting the hurricane damage in Puerto Rico. I chose this because he's wearing a jacket over his shirt that is sprawled open. Geometrically and visually, the arrangement is comparable to what we see on Doorman. It's from two different angles, one largely straight ahead, and the other from the side. 

How does it look? It looks exactly as we would expect it to look. We are seeing the same open sprawl from different angles- vastly different angles- and yet, we get the exact same impression, the exact same magnitude and manifestation of the sprawl. Study it, and then compare it to this:

So, there is this:

And this:
And this:
Anyone who claims that these are the same man wearing the same clothes on the same day is EVIL. They are Lucifer in the flesh. They are bloodied. They are wicked. And it is grossly apparent. It is such an outrageous lie- so obviously false- that only an evil punk could say it. 

Sunday, April 22, 2018

The Oswald story in the JFK assassination is pretty scary in itself; the idea that the Vice President of the United States could be directly involved in killing the President; and that the former director of the CIA, who plotted and planned the attack, could become the de facto head of the investigation to condemn and vilify the patsy.

But, when you add the Jack Ruby story to the JFK assassination, that Ruby also was a patsy; framed, innocent, but also mentally deranged so that he could be taken advantage of in a way that they could not take advantage of Oswald. Oswald had his wits about him, and he resisted. He pushed back pretty damn hard. But, Jack Ruby didn't push back at all, and it's because he was doped on drugs and mentally deranged. 

Not enough people talk about Jack Ruby's mental incapacity. Not enough people talk about his extreme and pathological devotion to the Dallas Police. You've heard of people being groupies to rock stars and professional athletes. But, to the police? But yes, that is what Jack Ruby was: an adoring devotee to the Dallas Police.

Ruby had no memory of shooting Oswald. He didn't know that he did it until the Dallas Police told him that he did- on the 5th floor. He had no motive to shoot Oswald. The whole idea that he was aching to the point of insanity over Kennedy is a gross exaggeration. What he did that weekend after the Kennedy shooting is spend time with his sister Eva and tend to his business. He closed his clubs, out of respect, but he was already planning their reopening. The idea that he conjured up thoughts of hurting Oswald are a fabrication. On the Friday night, when he went to the PD to deliver sandwiches either to the detectives or to the radio crew, he ran into a guy he knew on the elevator, and he made a joke, "Hey Hanson, they arrest you yet?" What does that tell you?

But, getting back to his mental incapacity, why would the killers of President Kennedy want to include in the plot a guy who was mentally deranged? What did they need Jack Ruby to do that someone else couldn't do? Why would they involve him? Why would they tell him about it? Whose idea was it to bring Ruby into it? How could they possibly trust Jack Ruby? This idea is just as stupid as the one that they would have chosen Oswald, a guy who couldn't hit a rabbit with a shotgun, to be their assassin. 

But, the Jack Ruby story, that he was framed and innocent, takes the whole JFK assassination story up to an even more frightening level. That's because the Dallas Police didn't just frame Ruby. Oswald really did wind up dead. So, the Dallas Police must have killed him. So now, we have, as killers, the Vice President of the United States, the former longtime director of the CIA and others in the CIA, the Dallas Police Department, and the FBI, going all the way up to J. Edgar Hoover. And actually, I should say that going down from Hoover because he gave the orders. All these people were involved, at the level of murder: multiple murders; a killing spree over 3 days time. 

We are talking about the citadel of power in this country, both federally and locally, doing it: doing it to Kennedy; doing it to Oswald: doing it to Tippit; doing it to Ruby; and doing it to every one of the American people and destroying everything the American republic has stood for nearly 200 years- in one bloodied weekend. 

And that's why I say to you that when you add the truth about Jack Ruby, when you pierce through the web of lies, you get to the frightening truth that what happened the third weekend of November in 1963 was equivalent to the Bolsheviks slaughtering the Romanov family on July 16, 1918 to consolidate their power, with the Soviets lying about it for 75 years. But, their lies did not endure did they? The truth came out, didn't it? And the truth will come out here. It can't be stopped because the facts, and the evidence of the facts, cannot be destroyed. They are not going away. The official story of the JFK assassination and the Oswald assassination is hopeless. It is hemorrhaging.

Unless you learn the truth about Jack Ruby, that he was innocent, you are stumbling around blind, and you will accomplish no good whatsoever. It's time to get over the inertia and the group-think. Oswald and Ruby were both framed and innocent. And for what they did to Jack Ruby, they might as well have killed him on November 24, 1963.    

Ted Rubinstein Are you buying into the Ralph Cinque story?
LikeShow more reactions
Ralph Cinque The Ralph Cinque story? The Ralph Cinque story is that Jack Ruby was innocent. I have pointed out that the Garage Shooter (whose face is barely visible in the garage, and not by accident) doesn't match Ruby. The GS is too short; too chubby; his hair isn't right, and even his clothes aren't right. Ruby wore black socks, and in the Jackson photo, you can see light socks on the shooter. But, we do have one, and only one, image of the shooter's face. It's not from the garage but from the 3rd floor by the elevator shortly afterwards. And that image matches VERY WELL to young James Bookhout, and it does not match to Jack Ruby. For one thing, the shooter has too much hair. Are you aware of how little hair Ruby had? Are you aware that a diabolical plot followed in which they misrepresented and falsified his hair, and to comic proportions? The hair alone proves that the Garage Shooter could not be Jack Ruby. In the collage below, the image on the left is Jack Ruby on 11/24. I believe his hair was enhanced in it. I don't believe his strands were as thick and long as we see there. But, the bottom image is from his trial several months later. The image on the right is the one and only frontal image of the Garage Shooter's face. His hair alone tells you that he is not Jack Ruby.Manage