Monday, February 24, 2020

Here is something else to consider about Dorothy Kilgallen: 

We can be absolutely certain that Ruby told her the following: that he had no plan to shoot Oswald; no intention of shooting Oswald; that no one put him up to shooting Oswald, and that he didn't realize that that he shot Oswald until Dallas Police told him on the 5th floor that he had done that. 

As for the idea that he was involved in killing Kennedy, we can be absolutely sure he expressed his pain and grief over Kennedy's death. I doubt that he volunteered that he didn't kill Kennedy, and if she asked him whether he was involved, I'm sure he responded with aghast and revulsion, as in, "Are you nuts?" 

We can be absolutely sure of all that because there is no reason to think that he told her anything different than he said in other contexts.  

So, the question is: did Dorothy Kilgallen believe him, or did she think that he was lying? Well, let's remember that she was the world's leading expert on detecting lying. On What's My Line, there would be three contestants, and two of them would be lying- claiming that they were the third contestant.  Her job was to determine which two were lying, and which one was telling the truth. And Dorothy was the best- the smartest and most cunning of the questioners.

And Jack Ruby was not the least bit cunning. He didn't have a Machiavellian bone in his body. And why would he talk to her at all, let alone twice, if he intended to lie to her? Why would he insist on having a polygraph test if he intended to lie? He wouldn't. 

We can be sure that Jack Ruby told her the truth, and we can be sure that Dorothy Kilgallen got a read on him and she assessed that he was telling her the truth. And the people who killed her surmised all that, and that is why they killed her. 

Don't listen to the people who tell you that Jack Ruby was involved in killing Kennedy. He loved the man. He wasn't putting on airs. He wasn't an actor. Their alternate story of the assassination does nothing but serve the interests of those who actually did kill Kennedy and Oswald.     


Sunday, February 23, 2020

Why do people have so much difficulty accepting Jack Ruby's innocence? And innocence of everything, of him not having killed Oswald, and not having anything to do with killing JFK. Those who think that Ruby was involved in the killing of Kennedy must think that he was one hell of an actor because, repeatedly, he broke down, emotionally, in talking about President Kennedy, about how much he admired him and  really loved him. And I don't say that he used the word "love," but he implied that he felt like he lost someone he loved. That came through. So, how could he emote like that if he was actually involved in killing the man? If Ruby was involved in killing him, then he deserves an Academy Award for Best Actor.  

But, I am going to provide an explanation as to why people have so much difficulty, and it really comes down to distance: the distance from what they have always believed to what I am asking them to believe. It's just too great a distance for them to go. 

There is an analogy I can make to piano playing. A lot of piano players, and I mean amateur hacks like me, are comfortable playing in the middle of the keyboard, but if they have to hit a note or a chord that's way high up in the octaves, or way down low in the octaves, that they're not comfortable doing it. It's too far to go, and they lose their bearing. 

Well,  there is so much distance in going from Ruby having done it, and supposedly with photographic and film evidence, and also supposedly with his admission, that the idea of his innocence is just too far to go. They shut down. They just close their minds.  They just apply the lunacy banner to it, and then they become like the monkeys who speak no evil, see no evil, and hear no evil. 



But, let's look at those assumptions upon which the rejection is based. Are there films and photos of Ruby shooting Oswald? There are films and photos of a short, stocky guy, whose face we can hardly see, and whose hat is also obscuring his face, shooting Oswald, but the amount of visual data on him is limited. We never see his face straight on in the garage. It's always obscured to us. And when you take that limited data of his distinguishing features, and you compare them to Jack Ruby, you realize that they are NOT a match. 

For now, let's just use one example. We can see the Shooter's hair in back below his hat. It's one of the most distinguishing things we see about him. So, we can take that visual information and compare it to the visual information we have on Jack Ruby on the same day.



So, that is the Shooter on the left, with his long hair in back that is curling up at the bottom, the very straight horizontal hairline, and below it a clean neck. But, in Ruby's mug shot on the right, we see that his hair in back was shorter, but he had a lot of scruffy hair growth that went all the way down to his collar. So, they certainly had different hair in back. And you know something? That alone settles it. Different hair means different men. So, without going any further, without comparing anything else, we have already established that Ruby was not the shooter. But note that there is more. The Shooter was too short to be Ruby. He was too fat to be Ruby. And more. 

And what about the idea that Ruby admitted shooting Oswald? That's false too. Ruby ACCEPTED that he shot Oswald because he was told that he did. But, he had no memory of doing it, no intention of doing it, and there is nothing about his actions beforehand that support the idea that he had any such intention. Who brings his dog along to a killing? 

The bottom line is that the idea of Jack Ruby innocence seems, at first, to be extreme. But, it is not extreme; it is well supported; well grounded. But, if you are going to close your mind to it and shut down examining it before you even start, because you think it's so preposterous, then you'll never budge. You'll remain mired in delusion- forever.  And that is a pity.  


Back to Afghanistan, the 7 day "reduction in violence" is underway, and Trump says that if it holds, he'll sign the peace treaty with the Taliban on February 29. But, President Ghani has ordered that he be sworn in for his next term two days before that, on February 27.

https://ariananews.af/ghani-to-take-oath-of-office-as-president-thursday/

Now, the Taliban have agreed to hold "intra-Afghan talks" but they keep believing that Afghanistan is a believing nation that wants an Islamic government. And regardless, they hate Ghani; they don't recognize him as President, and the future Afghanistan that they foresee does not include him as President. 

So, the first thing they are going to say at the intra-Afghan talks is that Ghani has to go. And then Ghani will say that he's not going. And that is going ignite conflict on a major scale. 

Now, is it possible that Trump, Pompeo, and Esper are too stupid to realize that that is going to happen? Even they have to realize that it's looming. So, what are they thinking? What we don't know is how much money they have promised the Taliban to rebuild the country. In 1973, at the Paris Peace Accords, Henry Kissinger promised the Vietcong billions of dollars -and that was 1973 billions, not 2020 billions, which are a lot less billious. So, you know that there must a huge green poultice involved this time as well. So maybe they think they can coax the Taliban to accept Ghani on some basis by offering them even more money? If so, I'll be very surprised if it works. The Taliban have said all along: ALL OCCUPIERS AND THEIR PUPPETS MUST GO. 

So, what I'm saying is that for peace to have a chance, Ghani has to step down. I think they can probably get a commitment from the Taliban not to kill him. But, he can't be President in a government that the Taliban is going to accept. 

The best to hope for is to form a new government, and it will have religious leanings, but hope that at the same time it shows some tolerance, and that the Taliban is willing to make some concessions  for the sake of inclusiveness. That's all there is to hope for. Hoping that the Taliban is going to accept Ghani is a pipe dream. There is no chance of that. 

So, when the time comes, will we inform Ghani that he needs to step down for the sake of peace? We might. It's very possible that we will. But, it's also very possible that he'll tell us to go fuck ourselves. And I think we know that too. But then, if war resumes between the Afghan government and the Taliban, we can say, "it's between them now; it's not our fight." Yet, NATO has said that they are going to continue to support Ghani even if the U.S. doesn't. And that's OK with us too. This is about Donald Trump delivering a campaign promise to get us out of there. If he does it, then whatever happens afterwards is a different narrative, as far as he's concerned. 

So, how are the chances looking for peace? Not too good. I certainly wouldn't bet on it. It's going to take a miracle. 

Dorothy Kilgallen was murdered. I presume you know that. The question is why.  It was not because of anything she figured out about the JFK assassination. What could she have figured out? That it was a conspiracy? That the Mafia was involved? They had no need to kill over that. That became Official Government Story #2. Just a few years later, the HSCA arrived at that conclusion. 

And even if Dorothy believed that, say, LBJ was involved, that was already taken. Right away in 1964, J. Evetts Haley came out with his book, A Texan Looks at Lyndon in which he accused LBJ of killing Kennedy. So, it was too late for Dorothy to get a scoop on that either. 

And what about the idea that Jack Ruby was involved in killing Kennedy? That's just plain false. Do you think she thought that? Well, they definitely weren't going to kill her over that idea. That alternative idea came directly from government and establishment sources, and they have been nursing it for over half a century. Just last year,  2019, the whole mainstream media broadcast that Ruby went to watch the fireworks in Dealey Plaza with somebody. They all spewed it, even though there isn't a snowball's chance in Hell that it's true. 

You need to understand something: the same people who killed Kennedy killed Oswald. And they had to. They fabricated all this phony evidence against him which he and his lawyer would have destroyed in court. The trial of Oswald would have turned into the trial of the FBI. They could not only not let Oswald go to trial, they couldn't even let him speak to a lawyer. They had to kill him before that happened. That's how desperately they needed him dead. 

So, they were behind the whole operation to kill Oswald. But, they knew before they did it that some people were not going to accept the story they were going to tell of Ruby doing it to save Jackie a trip to Dallas. They knew that the same people who were going to doubt Oswald's lone nuttery were going to doubt Ruby's lone nuttery. And so, they fabricated an alternate story for Ruby, where he was a gangster, a Mafioso, a hustler, a con man, with a long history of violence and unlawfulness.  And, they didn't mind a bit if people wanted to think that he was involved in killing Kennedy, and that he killed Oswald to silence him. This was all safe ground for them. It was safe because it was polar-opposite to the truth, which is that Ruby didn't kill anybody, that he was mentally ill and strung out on drugs and tricked into believing that he shot Oswald. 

But, let's talk about what Dorothy Kilgallen found out from her two interviews of Ruby. And make no mistake: it was those two interviews that got her killed. They killed her precisely because of those two interviews. But, they didn't know what was said. Nobody did, and nobody does, to this day.  Anything that anyone says about it is pure speculation- and that includes me. But, I'm still going to speculate. 

First, it's very significant that there were two interviews. It means that she established rapport with Ruby at the first interview.  He apparently did not feel threatened by her. She did not make him feel uncomfortable and uneasy. He probably enjoyed talking to her. 

So, what transpired between them? What was said? Well, Dorothy asked the questions, right? So, what did she ask him? I presume she asked him why he shot Oswald. so, what did he say? Ruby said, in essence, that he didn't know; that he went to the garage; that he was jumped on by the police; that he was dragged up to the 5th floor, where they told him that he shot Oswald. He told her that he had no intention of shooting Oswald; that he had no motive to shoot Oswald; that he had no desire to do it. He brought his dog along; he had his day planned; and he certainly did not go there expecting to destroy his life and abolish his freedom. 

And you can be absolutely certain that he told Dorothy that no one in the Mafia put him up to it, that no one threatened him, that there was no conspiracy whatsoever.  Now, how do I know that? I know it because he said it over and over again to others. He even made a joke about it, saying "no one knew a thing about it, not even me."

So, Dorothy heard all that, but what else did she discern about him? Well first, she had to realize that he didn't fit the mold of cold-blooded killer, or hit man, that Ruby was made out to be. Instead, he was docile, submissive, not arrogant, and not the least bit hostile. She must have picked up that he was very respectful, including respectful of authority and very patronizing to the Dallas Police and Henry Wade, even though they were prosecuting him and painting him as a horrible person and trying to get him the death penalty. Even with all that, he didn't have it in him to be combative towards them. 

So, Dorothy must have figured out that the real personality of this man was polar-opposite to the image that was being painted- in and out of court. Jack Ruby was a devout Jew, a patriotic American, who was not aggressive- physically, verbally, or otherwise, and he had a soft, rather childlike way about him, that he was NOT cunning; he was not discreet; and he wasn't even smart. I think she must have realized all that and realized that no one would have trusted this man with a role in the JFK assassination. No one would have wanted to rely on him for anything, and certainly not to keep his mouth shut, that he was a scatterbrain and a numbskull.  

Now, I am not going to suggest that Dorthy figured out that Ruby was not the Garage Shooter. Unlike me, she didn't have a computer with which to enlarge, brighten, and enhance images. All she had to go by were the images of the Shooter in the newspapers, which consisted mainly of the Beers and Jackson photos. And actually, that was enough to determine that the Shooter wasn't Ruby. But still, I don't assume she arrived at that.  But, I think she did arrive at this: 

1) Jack Ruby was a different person than the one being depicted in court and in the media, and he did not seem like a killer.

2) Jack Ruby was not right in his head. There was a childlike innocence about him, or I could call it a puppy dog innocence. I think she read him as being honest and not deceitful. And:

3) I think she believed him when he told her that he had no thought whatsoever to kill Oswald. And again, there is no reason for any rational person to doubt him because if he was thinking of killing Oswald, he would not have brought his dog along, and, he would have gotten there at the time the transfer was scheduled to take place, which was 10 AM.  If you are plotting to kill someone, you need to be meticulous about it, don't you?  

4) So, I think that Dorothy figured out that this simple man with a childlike simplicity and childlike innocence must have been manipulated to go there, that he hadn't conspired with anyone, but that others conspired against him. He was somehow manipulated . That's what she figured out. 

It must have been very baffling to her because, like everyone else, she probably accepted that it was Ruby in the photos and films- for the reason that her mind had nowhere else to go. Remember that James Bookhout did not attend the Ruby trial- not one day of it. She may not even have known his name. But, she probably had the eerie feeling that Ruby came across more like a victim than a perpetrator. And she was probably determined to resolve the descrepancies and contradictions about him that she was faced with. 

But now, we have to look at it from the standpoint of those who gave the order to kill her. They may have feared that Ruby told her flat-out that he didn't do it, that he didn't remember doing it and  couldn't imagine himself doing it. And that is essentially what he told her except without the arrogance that you or I would have had in saying it. But, they must have feared that a light was going to go on in her head in which she said to herself, "Wait! Maybe he really didn't do it! Maybe his description of what happened is exactly what transpired." If they thought there was even a 10% chance that she was going to arrive at that, then they had to kill her. And I really think she was gravitating in that direction. I suspect that she felt great sympathy for Ruby. And I think she was driven to pursue the angle of Ruby as framed victim- in some way.   

Again, there was NOTHING she could have found out about the JFK assassination that would have warranted killing her. And the fact was that she had already published some columns alleging a Mafia connection- so, it was too late. I think she liked Jack Ruby. I think she had rapport with him. I think she was a good judge of character- and I think she was confident that Ruby was being truthful with her and would be if she spoke to him again. And who is to say she wouldn't have? In fact, the rapport and mutual respect and understanding between them would have just grown and grown. And that's why they had to kill her. 

Jack Ruby was innocent. Dorothy Kilgallen didn't figure that out, but she did figure out that the portrait painted of him by the media was completely false, and that was going to lead her through the Looking Glass, and they couldn't risk that. That is why they killed her. 

Jack Ruby had NOTHING to do with the JFK assassination. Absolutely nothing. And he had nothing to do with the Oswald assassination either except that he was manipulated to go down the ramp and fall into the waiting trap.  



      
Here's the link to the slugout between Anderson Cooper and Rod Blagojevich. I don't know how good you are at calling fights, but I call this one a win for Blago by knockout. Blago had a comeback for everything Cooper threw at him, and he was quite eloquent. It's no wonder that Cooper started cursing. It's what losers do. 


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=gLM5zb3iVV8&feature=emb_logo

The big question is: why did they even go after Blago? They went after him BEFORE they happened upon that comment he made that he ought to get something for appointing whomever Obama wanted to replace him in the Senate. If the law states that the governor gets to decide, why should he have to abide by what the incoming President wants? If that's the case, they should just make it that the incoming President decides. So, there was actually a basis for why he would be resentful since he was being usurped. But regardless, he only made an offhand remark to his brother that he ought to get something in exchange for letting Obama tell him who to appoint, and to construe that into a crime and prosecute him for it, when he never demanded anything, is the real crime. 

But, as I said, they were already determined to get him before that, and they just lucked into that and made hay out of it. Do you know that he imported prescription drugs from Canada for the Illinois health care system? The case against him started under Bush, not Obama. And the Bush administration was vehemently opposed to people doing that-getting drugs from Canada- let alone governors doing it. Here's a short video by an Illinoian, In Defense of Rod Blagojevich. You should give it a listen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74blS3Wb0ao

Mark, you are a lawyer. So tell me: why wouldn't Ruby's lawyers put him on the stand? He would have said the following:

Ruby: I do not remember shooting Oswald. I remember walking down there, being jumped by the police, being dragged up to the 5th floor, and then told that I shot him. That's how I found out. And I was shocked." 

Belli: Jack, did you go to that garage with the intention of shooting Oswald?

Ruby: Absolutely not. I had my dog with me. I had my day planned. I decided to walk down there out of curiosity, but I had no thought to shoot him and no awareness of shooting him. 

Mark, are you aware that in his testimony, Ruby spoke of sending the money wire at 10:15?  Instantly, an SS man corrected him, and told him it was 11:15, and Jack didn't dispute it. But, if you look at the timetable: Ruby said that he got up early that Sunday morning. And all he did was get dressed and eat some breakfast and then he left. It was a 3 minute drive to get there from his apartment. They said he lost time going to see the wreaths in Dealey Plaza, but he did that on Saturday. Would he have done it again on Sunday? He brought his dog along because he intended to drop her off at the Carousel Club where someone was going to look after her. Then, he intended to go to the new apartment building that he was moving into, which was swanky and nice compared to the dump he was living in. If he planned to shoot Oswald in a crowd of police, he would have known that his life, as he knew it, was over, and he wasn't going anywhere. 

This is an image of the face of the Garage Shooter, huddled with detectives on the 3rd floor of the PD about 2 minutes after the shooting.  


That round face is not the face of Jack Ruby. They were there in the dark. The lights were out. The flash from the NBC camera was the only source of light. Notice how distressed the detectives looked. They weren't distressed over him. They were distressed over the photographer who was taking the picture.   

The image is altered. The Shooter has got back stripes for eyes. Look at the eyes of Detectives Boyd and Hall. Their eyes were captured, so there is no photographic reason why the Shooter's eyes should be stripes. 

Detective Boyd said in an interview that he found out about the Oswald shooting when he was eating brunch with his wife and in-laws at the home of his in-laws and saw it on television. So, he excused himself and went downtown to see if he could help. But, as you can see with your own eyes, that was a lie because he was already down there. This was taken very soon after the shooting, long before he could have gotten down there if he was away. 

Jack Ruby was innocent, and it is the biggest and most damaging secret there is about the JFK assassination. Ralph  

Saturday, February 22, 2020

Even though I disapprove of President Trump's killing of Suleimani and 9 Iraqis in an act that I regard as murder and terrorism, that's as strong a statement I can make about it without violating Facebook's Community Standards. But, I am pleased that Trump freed Rod Blagojevich. 

Blago was convicted of trying to sell Obama's Senate seat which he did NOT try to do. What he did was have a thought about it, which he expressed to his brother, who was his campaign manager and confidante, on the phone. He actually got sent to prison for saying this in a private phone call: 

"I've got this thing and it's (expletive) golden. "I'm not just giving it up for (expletive) nothing."

He had that thought, and he expressed it to his brother, but that was it. He never acted on it. He never followed through on it. He never demanded anything. He just had the thought, and for having the thought, he was convicted of a crime; a thought crime. 

He never "tried" to sell the seat. He only thought about it.  And it was a very fleeting thought. He, apparently, never had it again. They had no evidence he ever brought it up again. It may have just been a single spontaneous utterance that flashed across his mind and slipped out and then vanished like a fart in a high wind. 

Since when do we prosecute people in this country for their thoughts? Someone may consider doing a bad thing, but then they get a hold of themselves; they get a grip; and they don't do it. If he took the first step towards actually doing it, I could see charging him. But, lip-flapping is not a step. And it sounds like it was nothing more than a frustrated utterance, a letting off of steam.  

But, look at this. It is from a media outlet called The Independent. They actually state that he did it, that he actually sold the Senate seat.

  
Wow. That is incredible. That is so bad, I think Blago has got  a case for libel here. Anyone know how I can reach him?