Friday, June 23, 2017

This shows the plane lines of the two motorcycles.

Now, let's say you were going to challenge that by drawing one line:

So, if I try to go from Hargis' toolbox to the front wheel, I get that weird diagonal line, which cannot possibly be his line. But furthermore, we know we can draw a line from his toolbox to him, and once you have that straight line, no matter how short, you are stuck with it. You can't get from Hargis to the front wheel of that motorcycle. And that's because it's not his motorcycle. It's Martin's. What they did here with that thumbprint was take Martin out of the picture. Then they took the front of Martin's book and gave it to Hargis. That photo originally looked like this:

And notice how similar it is to this Muchmore frame:

Now, will anyone deny that the front wheel we see there is Martin's? And notice that he is slightly leftward of Hargis, which corresponds to him being forward. I know he wasn't, but that is how it looks to Muchmore. Likewise with BL, and that's who took the Moorman photo.  
For anyone to claim that those two are the same guy is outrageous. To do so is totally a JFK thing, meaning that it is something that happens in the JFK world and nowhere else. And, Brian Pete admitted it when he said that, in showing him the pictures, I didn't tell the dentist the context, that it concerned the JFK assassination. But, why should I have to tell him that? Why should I have to tell him anything when I am asking him to determine VISUALLY if it's the same man?  It would only bias him to tell him anything. 

It is obvious as hell that the nose on the left is more lumpen and Roman, with a practically vertical descent. His face has vertical creases which Ruby didn't have. His ear looks mangled like he fought too many times with Floyd Mayweather. The distance between his ear and his sideburn is unlike Ruby and unlike any other human being; it is non-anatomical and impossible. Of course, the condition of the hair in back is another dead getaway; they are two different men. And that black disc around his eye they are calling shadow? Shadow? We have all been taking photographs our whole lives and when have we ever seen anything like that in a photo? Lesser degrees of shadow occur, but to use them to legitimize this is a dis-information tactic. It's a matter of degree, and the degree here is way off the chart.  That is obviously not Jack Ruby on the left, and those who can't admit it are either working for the other side, or they have a bias that is impairing their judgement. It isn't even close. 

Thursday, June 22, 2017

Melvin Belli defended Jack Ruby by claiming that he had "psychomotor epilepsy" and that his actions in shooting Oswald were involuntary. He also used the word "blackout." He said that Ruby blacked out meaning that he had no mental awareness of what he was doing when he shot Oswald, that he might as well have been sleepwalking. 

The only reason why Belli would go that route is because Ruby must have told him, "I have no memory of shooting Oswald. I remember going down the ramp, getting to the bottom, and then, before I knew it, policemen were swarming all over me."

We need to take what Belli said seriously and also literally. He claimed that Ruby had no mental consciousness of shooting Oswald, that he was not awake and aware at the time. 

Of course, his diagnosis of psychomotor epilepsy is absurd. It is laughable. In psychomotor epilepsy, the movements are random and purposeless and repetitive. It never resembles the action involved here. 

So, I have no respect for Belli, and I have disdain for him for not being smart enough to figure out what really happened. But, I am keenly interested in the reasons why he chose to defend Ruby that way. And it must be because Ruby kept telling him, "I don't remember shooting Oswald. I have no memory of it." 

Where Belli went wrong is in not considering that the reason Ruby was saying it is because he really didn't shoot Oswald. But, that of would have meant going through the Looking Glass, where up is down, black is white, and in is out.  It would have meant that the world was upside down, where the police- the good guys who are here to protect us- were really the bad guys. Belli had no capacity to go there mentally. He lacked the mental scope, the mental vision. And it's beyond most people's. Most people respect authority, and that's their problem.  

Belli did not doubt that Ruby really had no memory of shooting Oswald. He didn't think Ruby was lying to him. But, it was a terrible mistake for him to claim psychomotor epilepsy. And what a far cry it was from what Ruby's first lawyer said, which was that Ruby shot Oswald to spare Jackie a trip to Dallas to testify. Obviously, that was polar-opposite, and both could not be true. In fact, neither was true. But, the "I did it for Jackie" story became and still is part of the lore in the case. I see it cited often. 
I just added an unnecessary e, Backes. Lit is a legitimate word. 

Now, moving on. another thing about that Davis film is that somehow provokes the idea of greater distance than was involved. Doesn't it seem like Davidson is way back and far away from Oswald?

 It's actually a very small space.

Where was Davidson? He was presumably inside the double doors when he shot them getting off the elevator and walking through the office to get to the side door. But note that we don't see him in the KRLD footage, even though the doors are open and it's lit up. But then presumably, he went through the double doors and was standing a little in front of them. So, the distance involved was very small. So, how could he be there filming when Leavelle and Combest picked up Oswald and carried him inside without capturing any of it? Answer: THEY weren't going to let us see Oswald being carried inside. That was not allowed. It was prohibited. It wasn't the frenzy and pandemonium that caused it. And the frenzy and pandemonium were all fake anyway. That's what those cops were there for, to make sure there was no visibility of the principals during the evacuation of the garage. 
It's interesting that we don't see Bill Lord or Jim Davidson in any of the other films. 

You can watch it for a while, and you never see them. And Oswald is about to walk his Green Mile. Notice also that it isn't that dark. It's pretty well lit-up. Right?  So, why is Davidson's film so dark?
At times, it turns practically black. How come? The inside was lit-up. The garage was well lit. Why so dark?

And it was the same way when they returned to the garage for Oswald's departure.

Why was it so dark? I'll tell you why. It was because of the evil. The evil, the evil, the evil, the evil, the evil.

We know now that Detective Charles Dhority lied. He told the Warren Commission that he backed the car up, when, in fact, he pulled it up. 

Mr. BALL. Fritz gave you instructions to do what?
Mr. DHORITY. He gave me the keys to his car and told me to go down and get his car and back it up front of the jail door to put Oswald in.
Mr. BALL. Is that what you did?
Mr. DHORITY. I went downstairs and got his car, unlocked his car, and was in the process of backing it up there in fact--I was just about ready to stop, when Captain Fritz came out and Leavelle and Oswald and Graves and Johnson and Montgomery came out the jail door.
Captain Fritz reached over to the door of the car and I was turned around to see backing it up--still had the car moving it along and I saw someone run across the end of the car real rapid like. At first, I thought it was somebody going to take a picture and then I saw a hand come out and I heard the shot.

Those headlights are indeed very illuminating. First, it completely and totally resolves the question of what direction he was going to drive out. The story had to be that he was going to follow the Brinks trunk. He obviously wasn't going to do it, but neither was he going to go anywhere. They knew that Oswald would not be getting into that car. Even Backes will tell you that because he admits that the Dallas Police were complicit in the murder, and that Fritz got out of the way for "Ruby".  But, why didn't Dhority back it up just for show? Just to give the whole ruse an air of authenticity. I don't know. Maybe, knowing what was about to happen, he wanted to get a good view.   

You have no evidence whatsoever that Pierce drove out of the garage prior 
to 11:20. None. Fritz car was already in the garage, and was being backed 
into place. It was facing the Commerce exit, and was to follow the armored 
vehicle out onto that street. Don't believe me? Watch the film, and read 
the testimony of Detective Dhority. 

Ralph Cinque:

Uh oh, Sparta. You just ate the royal pegoda. Dhority didn't back that car up. He pulled it up. Watch the KRLD film. You see the headlights of his car moving forward.

Is anyone going to claim that those aren't headlights? They're not taillights. Tail lights are red.

Alright, so you are wrong about that. Now, do you want to admit it, or do you want to make like Joseph Backes and keep arguing and defending after you have been shown to be wrong?

But, you are right about something, Sparta: Dhority did testify to the Warren Commission that he backed the car up.

Detective Dhority: Captain Fritz reached over to the door of the car and I was turned around to see backing it up--still had the car moving it along and I saw someone run across the end of the car real rapid like. 

So, Dhority lied. Hmmm. This is quite big. I shall have to write it up. And don't worry, Sparta: you'll get credit for finding it. I'm going to make you famous.