Wednesday, April 26, 2017

The Wizard found this, and it's weird, as in chilling. It's from the testimony of Detective Beaty, who was one of the detectives against the wall. He refers to two other men there as being from "Special Services." Special Services? What does that remind you of? It reminds me of "Special Ops" from the military. 

One of the "Special Services" guys he refers to is Billy Combest, who is standing next to him in the picture.



Here is what Beaty said about Combest and another guy named Hutchinson. 


Mr GRIFFIN. Let me read them for the record. B. H. Combest. J. H.
Hutchinscn.
Mr BEATY. Those two boys, they are supposed to both be Special Service officers, too, and I don’t know how in the world they could have received word unless they called and told them to come down, because they were the only ones from the Special Service bureau down there with me at the time. I can’t remember them getting off the elevator at the time, but Captain Martin-
(Griffin interrupts to read the list of names)
Mr. GRIFFIN. Let me read them. W. J. Harrison...

So, why did they need men from the Special Services bureau to be there if they really expected it to be just putting Oswald in a car and driving him away? 

So, what were they doing there? Let me guess: To protect Oswald? OH, I see. And Jack Ruby, who was mentally deranged and high on drugs, just happened to get the better of them.

I'll tell you, flat-out, that anyone who can't see that this was a planned spectacle, in which these Dallas cops knew exactly what was going to happen is mentally deranged. It was a dog and pony show for the masses. It was an extravaganza, a pageant, a production. And it makes no sense. If they were so worried about Oswald that they thought they needed Special Services guys there to protect him, why do it in public? Why not transfer him unannounced in the dead of night and then announce it afterwards?

And remember how Ruby got in there: he walked by two police officers at the Main Street ramp entrance. How hard is it to guard a narrow entrance and keep people out? I could get an 80 year old Walmart greeter to do it, and he'd have no trouble. 

Those cops, Roy Vaughn and Sam Pierce, let Ruby in, and the whole Dallas PD was in on it. This was their operation. And they didn't get lucky that Ruby showed up. And he wasn't in cahoots with them. How could he be in cahoots with them if they immediately arrested him and charged him? Jack Ruby was mentally defective and deranged, and they KNEW that he was mentally defective and deranged. And they knew that he could be bamboozled into thinking that he had done something. 

Ruby was subject to blackouts and memory lapses. He was used to being told that he did things which he didn't remember doing.  

Those addicted to speed and alcohol face a rollercoaster ride brought on by the two substances. Speed, or amphetamine, is a psychostimulant drug that dramatically increases wakefulness and focus. The drug also reduces hunger and sensations of physical fatigue. Alcohol works as a central nervous system depressant, causing drowsiness and slowing reaction times. The combination of the two drugs can cause confusion in the mind and body and amplify the effects of each.

Ruby went to that garage, but it was prior to the televised spectacle, perhaps an hour before. They had their scuffle with him in which Ruby was confused. He didn't understand. That's why he kept saying, "I'm Jack Ruby. You know me." As in, "What the hell are you doing? What are you pouncing on me for?" And they told him that he shot Oswald. And he believed them. Jack Ruby was conned, just the way Sirhan Sirhan was conned, and Mark David Chapman, was conned, and probably John Hinckley was conned. You have no business believing any of these official stories. Jack Ruby was innocent.     

Tuesday, April 25, 2017

Interesting find tonight by the Wizard. I have been saying for a long time that Jack Ruby, in his testimony to the Warren Commissioners, spoke of leaving Western Union at 10:15, and then he was gently but promptly corrected by a Secret Service agent. And Ruby didn't dispute the correction. 

And then in his death bed statement, there is definitely an omission in the audio file. Something was cut out, and I think it's possible that he made the same "mistake" about the time. 

So, I have a well-rooted conviction that it was approximately an hour before, at 10:20. that the untelevised spectacle with the real Jack Ruby took place in the garage. Now, the Wizard has found this, from the testimony of Detective Buford Lee Beaty.  Yellow highlights by the Wizard. 



Mr. GRIFFIN. Did you later receive some instructions to standby to help
in the Oswald move?
Mr. BEATY. As Capt. 0. A. Jones got off the elevator, and as he walked by,
he said, “Come here, I want to talk to you.”
Mr. GRIFFIN. Did this take place in the basement?
Mr. BEATY. Right by the elevator door to the basement. He said there will
be some officers come down from the third floor, and told me to wait for them
right here, and he indicated close by the entrance to the jail office.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Now Detective Beaty, what is your best estimate of how long
this encounter with Jones was before Oswald actually came downstairs?
Mr. BEATY. What time did he get shot? It was about probably 30 minutes
before he actually came down and Ruby shot him.
Mr. GRIFFIN. That is the important thing. I would rather have you fix
it in terms of that time rather than some specific time.
Mr. BEATY. Around 30 minutes or something like this.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Because I noticed in the interview which you gave to the FBI,
you indicated that this was about 10 o’clock that you saw Jones. Did you
have any idea at the time when you gave this interview to Agents Dallman
and Quigley-that was on December 3-did you have anything specific in
mind when you told them that it was 10 o’clock.
Mr. BEATY. I just was trying to remember when Captain Jones told me
to remain there. So; I was just trying to remember about the lapse of time,
it seemed to me like.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Let me ask you to look over this with me. Let me point out,
you indicated here that you thought Oswald came down about 11:30?
Mr. BEATY. I do.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Now, they have reported that you told them that it was 10 o’clock.
Now it may be that that was that time it could be a mistake on their part writing
it down?
Mr. BEATY. Well, I don’t know.
Mr. BEATY. Boy, it is hard to remember, but it seems to me like he breezed
through in just probably about 30 minutes-could possibly be longer-after Mr.
Jones told me this. I waited around for probably another 4 or 5 minutes and
the elevator doors opened up, and here all the officers from the third floor,
and we moved from there out into the middle hallway. And they describe it
here as a, whatever, I don’t know, right outside the jail office door, the little
hall where they brought him out of the jail office door thereand we remained
there for about 30 minutes. And if the shooting actually occurred around 11:30,
I have made an error about the original time Captain Jones said that.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Would you want to take my pen and on this statement would
you want to put a circle around the 10 o’clock and make some note out on the
side that what you meant was 30 minutes before the shooting, or whatever you
think was the accurate time?
Mr. BEATY. Gosh, I don’t remember. I just can’t remember to save my life
what time it was.
Mr. GRIFFIN. How is your memory as to the fact that it was about 30 minutes
before the shooting?
Mr. BEATY. Thirty minutes, maybe an hour. That times passes so fast along
in there.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Do you think it could have been longer than an hour?
Mr. BEATY. I don’t think so ; no, sir.
Mr. GRIFFIK. Would it be fair to say, and I want you to be very frank about
this, because I don’t want to change this in any way that isn’t fair, would it be
fair to change this time 10 a.m., to read-
Mr. BEATY. That it was 10 or 10:30, would that be all right, because I don’t
remember?
Jlr. GRIFFIN. To read a half hour or-to an hour before Oswald was shot?
Mr. BEATY. Well, I don’t carry a watch so I never know what time it is unless
I ask somebody and it would be a matter of kind of remembering, and if you
want to say 10 or 10:30, that would be about the same time, wouldn’t it?
Mr. GRIFFIN. Would it be just fair to say. “I am not certain about the exact
time?”
Mr. BEATY. That would be fine.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I wish you would do this in your own handwriting and write in
there, “I am not certain about the time.”
Mr. BEATY. [Makes statement and initials.]
Mr. GRIFFIN. Put a date after your initials.
hlr. BEATY. R-2664. I don’t even remember what month.
Mr. GRIFFIN. All right

(and from the prior FBI report on Beaty)

About 10:00AM, Captain O. A. JONES passed by and requested
that he wait by ail elevator and meet the contingent of detectives from the third floor who were coming down to aid in the transfer
of OSWALD and have them remain at the elevator for assignments. At
approximately 10:10 AM, Captain JONES instructed the detectives to
form a double line along the walls of the anteway and into the far
side of the garage . Captain JONES also asked the press not to ask
questions of OSWALD.
To his recollection, a Patrolman NELSON and one reserve
policeman were in the basement on the other side of the double doors
from the garage checking everyone who entered. After the double line
was formed, only one TV cameraman was allowed through the double
doors from the basement interior.
Around 11:30 AM, OSWALD was brought down in the elevator
and passed through the line of officers, preceded by Lieut . R . E .
SWAIN and Captain WILL FRITZ. Detectives J . R . LEAVELLE and L . C .
GRAVES were on either side of OSWALD and Detective L . D . MONTGOMERY
immediately behind OSWALD....

Monday, April 24, 2017

The shooting of Oswald in the garage may have been the first faked, staged, televised spectacle. The shooting of Kennedy wasn't faked. It was lied about. They said Oswald did it, which he certainly didn't. But, Kennedy really was shot in the street there on Elm Street, and that is not in doubt. But, I don't know of any staged, faked, fabricated spectacles made for television prior to the one on November 23, 1963 which involved Oswald being shot. 

How far in advance was it planned? Not very. I assume that they really expected Oswald to be shot and killed in the theater. And, he almost was. They had multiple guns trained on him. Just a little more twitch in somebody's trigger finger, and he would have been a goner. And, I think it really belies the whole claim that Oswald drew his gun. How could he? He reportedly threw a punch at Officer Nick McDonald when he started messing with him in the groin area.  Although, apparently, Oswald didn't mind it when Detective Jim Leavelle stuck his hand in his pants and was walking along with him that way- if you believe that load of crap. 

But, no one ever suggested that Oswald had a gun in his hand when he struck Nick McDonald. And after that, McDonald hit him back and pushed him down into the theater seat. But, according to McDonald, Oswald, somehow, in the midst of that scuffle, got his hand on his gun, got his finger in the trigger, and aimed it at McDonald and pulled the trigger, but McDonald jammed the web of his hand between the hammer and the firing pin. But, what do you think about the credibility of that? And by the way, that was not his original story. His original story was that Oswald got the shot off but the gun, miraculously, misfired. But, when an FBI firearms expert determined that the gun did NOT misfire, McDonald had to change his story.

But, getting back to the spectacle in the garage, there is NO image of Jack Ruby there. There are images purported to be of Jack Ruby, but they aren't him. Not only that, but the bogus images of Jack Ruby in the garage don't even match each other. For instance, take a look at this one.


Let's just consider the one issue of height. That is supposed to be Jack Ruby on the right, and notice that he's not short. He's as tall as reporter Tom Pettit, who wasn't short, and he's about as tall or taller than the others. He certainly does not appear to be some short guy. But, look at him a few seconds later:



Can you, or can you not see that the second man is shorter than the first man? A lot shorter. The first man was as tall as Tom Pettit, who was taller than Oswald. But, this second man (directly above) was shorter than Oswald. So, they were definitely different men; they had to be; even though they are both supposed to be Jack Ruby. In reality, neither was Jack Ruby. Jack Ruby was NOT in the garage at the time of the televised spectacle. He had already been whisked away. And, I can tell you where Jack Ruby was during the televised spectacle: he was already up on the 5th floor being processed. 

But, why was Ruby taken up to the 5th floor right away? Oswald wasn't taken up to the 5th floor right away at the time of his arrest. He was taken to the 3rd floor. So, why wasn't Ruby taken to the 3rd floor? It was because he would have been seen there. What they needed was to get the real Ruby out of the way; out of sight. Then they conducted their spectacle in the garage, with James Bookhout playing the role of Jack Ruby. Then afterwards, they brought Ruby back down and paraded him around just to weave him into the story.



This was the first sighting of the real Jack Ruby after the spectacle. It could not possibly be when he was first brought into the jail office. And that's because according to three detectives, Ruby was pushed down to the ground in the jail office and handcuffed- with his jacket on. Why he wasn't pushed down to the ground in the garage and handcuffed there, they never explained, and no one asked them. Some of them are still alive, so I am asking them now: WHY DIDN'T YOU PUSH RUBY DOWN TO THE GROUND IN THE GARAGE AND HANDCUFF HIM THERE? But, if we take them at their word that they did that in the jail office, then how could Ruby be handcuffed in just a shirt a moment later? Once you are handcuffed wearing a jacket, you can't take the jacket off until the cuffs are removed. So, are we to believe that they handcuffed him in his jacket, and then removed the handcuffs, and then removed his jacket, and then handcuffed him again in just a shirt, all in the space of 1 to 2 minutes?  No, that didn't happen. They just didn't think. They just didn't think about the fact that Ruby needed to be in his jacket in order to fit into this scene and make it credible. It is not credible. 

The first phony, bogus, contrived, staged conjuring of a news event was the shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald in the basement of the Dallas PD. Before there were ridiculous, phony beheadings, there was this. And, it is just as ridiculous as the ridiculous, phony beheadings. 

Sunday, April 23, 2017

It's Sunday, so let's have a song. This is another one by Duke Ellington, and it's from 1941. It's called Solitude, although I also see it called In My Solitude, which is how the song begins. All the great vocalists from that era, male and female, sang it and recorded it. And, it's still very popular today among jazz musicians, both vocalists and instrumentalists. Often, it's sung very slow and sad, but I like it better more lively. So, here it is; my rendition of Solitude by the great Duke Ellington. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01vNcf3h1Zo&feature=youtu.be


Linda Simpson Absolutely. Ralph none of this is real. Let me find the post that proves it. They are even staging things in the Middle East with crisis actors that they are training over there. You know the CIA, this is totally them. Just like they staged the Oswald shooting in the basement of the Dallas PD. Same guys!!http://www.globalresearch.ca/isis-beheadings-of.../5399345
Ralph Cinque OH, LInda. I just have to say that I love you for saying that because the fact that the Oswald shooting was a staged spectacle, just like this other bull shit, is near and dear to my heart. I mean it.
What happened to the beheadings? Why did they stop? Did ISIS get tired of the practice? Did they run out of journalists?


And why would anyone just kneel there knowing he was about to be beheaded? Presumably, James Foley has got his hands tied behind his back, but is he restrained in any other way? He doesn't appear to be. So, why does he just kneel there? Why doesn't he get up? Why doesn't he struggle to see if he can free his hands? Why doesn't he run? Why doesn't he make it hard for them? Why would he cooperate with their spectacle? Why would he give a speech in support of them right before they behead him?  Listen to what he said:

"I call upon my friends, family, and loved ones to rise up against my real killers: the US government. Because what will happen to me is only the result of their complacency and criminality. My message to my beloved parents: Save me some dignity. Don't accept any meager compensation for my death from the same people who effectively hit the last nail in my coffin. I call upon my brother John, who is a member of the US Air Force. Think about what you are doing. Think about the lives you have destroyed, including those of your own family. I call upon you, John. Think about who made the decision to bomb Iraq recently and kill those people. Think, John. Who did they really kill? Did they think about me, you, or our family when they made that decision? I died that day, John.  When they dropped that bomb on those people, they signed my death certificate. I wish I had more time. I wish I could have the hope of freedom and seeing my family once again. But, that ship has sailed.  I guess, all in all, I wish I wasn't American."

Here, you can hear him say it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbkR0ZKD-Z8 


But, my question is: WHO is stupid enough to believe that he could actually say those things before being beheaded, and then just cooperate like he was a patient in a dental office? Is Joseph Backes stupid enough to believe it? Is bpete stupid enough? I have to be honest and say that, as stupid as those guys are, and they're pretty damn stupid, I can't imagine anyone being THAT stupid. 

What about this pretty woman on CNN who reported it? Is she stupid enough to believe it?



She said that "Foley read a message presumably scripted in detail by his captors." But why? Why would he? If they were going to behead him anyway, what else could they possibly threaten him with to make him do it? So, why would he read their statement? WHO BELIEVES THIS SHIT????? What is wrong with people? Seriously, I want to know what is wrong with Americans that their bull shit meter is so terribly defective and lacking. Is it the American educational system? The fact that we're all products of government schools? How did it come to this?   


Saturday, April 22, 2017

Mary Moorman's photo was reproduced on 11/22/63. They NEVER in a million years would have allowed her to go home with the original if they hadn't copied it.

One fool suggested that cops sitting around eating their Dunkin' Donuts and drinking coffee could have damaged the photo. Well, if that could happen among cops, then it could have happened to Mary at home. And they knew that. So, they never were going to let her leave with that photo if they didn't have it securely duplicated. 

Therefore, why was it necessary for them to repossess her photo again? When you reproduce a photo, it's usually just as good as the original. In fact, it's conceivable that it could be better. So why, since they already had it as copies, did they have to retrieve hers again? 

And let's say that those cops were sitting around eating Dunkin' Donuts and drinking coffee, and one of them with wet, soiled hands pressed his thumb into the photo and left a mark. It didn't damage all the copies, did it? So, since they ruined Mary's but they had already made duplicates of it, why didn't they just return her one of the duplicates? Why did the damaged photo become the standard? 

Stop believing the lie! And those of you who do believe the lie, you might as well believe that Oswald was up on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy. Obviously and patently, they were up to no-good with that Moorman photo. They kept taking it back from Mary because they had an idea to alter it. But, they couldn't just alter the copies; they had to alter the original as well. And that's why they kept needing hers. That's why they kept taking it back. "We need it one more time, Mary. Thank you for your cooperation."

My question is: What the hell did Mary's photo, the one she really took, show? It must have shown something absolutely devastating to the official story of the JFK assassination. It must have been so devastating that eventually, they gave up on it completely and felt compelled to replace it with something else. Does it even still exist? Probably not. They probably destroyed every single copy. Don't you realize how devastating this is and how much it marks the Moorman photo as tainted?