Friday, March 24, 2017

It is amazing to me that people who dispute Oswald being in the doorway- and I am not referring to those who say he was on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy but to those who admit he wasn't there- do so without stipulating where he was instead. They never say he wasn't in the doorway at 12:30 because he was at x instead. They just deny he was in the doorway.

Well, Oswald was a material being, not an idea. He had mass. He had to be somewhere. And we're not talking about the whole Earth. We're talking about a very finite place: that building. So, if he wasn't in the doorway, then where was he at 12:30? 

They don't say, and some even say that the question is unimportant, that it doesn't matter where he was.

But, that's not true. It does matter.  I guarantee you that in a court of law it would matter. The core of any defendant's defense is his alibi. And the core of any prosecution is to destroy the defendant's alibi.

The problem is that these people don't view Oswald as a person on trial. He's more of an ethereal idea to them, and hence, like the proverbial ether which pervades everywhere and nowhere. 

The difference between the OIC and others who dispute the official story is that we do it with a spirited, vigorous defense of Oswald. There are others who want to challenge the Warren Commission and establish conspiracy, but they don't give a damn about Oswald. They don't care about him. That is, they don't care the least bit about defending him. And, they irritate me far more than the lonenutters do. That's because denying Oswald in the doorway is an obligatory move for the LNs, like an obligatory move in Chess. If your King is in check, and there is only one move that will get him out of check, then you have to make that move. It's either that or concede. And it's the same for the lonenutters. That's all they are doing. So, they are just automations. It's like listening to a robot.

Then, there are the spurious arguments that they make, and again, I am more irritated by the people who are supposed to be defending Oswald. And they think they are so clever. For instance, if Oswald was in the doorway, then others there would surely have seen him and said so. So obviously, he wasn't there. 

That is a spurious argument. The fact is that the FBI came down on the TSBD employees like the Gestapo. They asked them what they saw, and it's not like they were indifferent. Look what happened to Carolyn Arnold. On November 26, just 4 days after the assassination, she tried to tell an FBI agent that she saw Oswald at the doorway (just inside the door, and remember: it was all glass) shortly before the motorcade arrived. But, Hell rained down on her after that. By March, when they officially took a statement from her again, she said that she didn't see Lee Harvey Oswald at all. And the Warren Commission never wanted to talk to her. Also, I want to point out that the Warren Commission also didn't talk to Mary Moorman. And I can understand why from listening to her 2013 interview, where she talked about all the times that law enforcement kept taking her photo back- over and over and over again. And finally, the last time, it came back with that big white thumbprint. Now, why would they want to put that into the record? 

Keep in mind that I don't presume that everyone in the doorway and near the doorway became aware of Oswald standing there, and for several reasons. First, he may have been the last to come out, and once people were outside, they were looking forward, not backward. Second, he was the first to leave. He had to leave early because how else could he have beaten Baker to the lunch room, and he did get there a second or two before Baker even though Baker was running. And, at that time, people were still looking forward. However, I don't think for one second that nobody saw Oswald. Shelley definitely saw Oswald, and I believe that Shelley interacted with Oswald in the doorway. It was Shelley, I suspect, who sent Oswald to the lunch room. I also think it's likely that Lovelady was directly aware of Oswald being there. That's because Lovelady was standing on the same level, and when Oswald came out, Lovelady would have caught a glimpse of him as a moving object in his peripheral vision, and he would have turned to look at him, to see who he was. People do that spontaneously. It's almost an instinct. Of course, Lovelady didn't admit it. In fact, he said that he didn't see Oswald again after they broke for lunch. He said that in 1964 and in 1976. Both times, he had the opportunity to bring up his supposedly seeing Oswald in the Squad room of the DPD, which was a very momentous thing, don't you think? That is, if it happened. But, the point is that in both 1964 and 1976 and all times in-between, he knew that nobody wanted to hear anything about Oswald being in the doorway during the motorcade. It was a matter of self-preservation to deny it. And, I would say the same thing about Frazier; it was a matter of self-preservation for him to deny that the man is Oswald.  

If you realize that the Warren Commission was more of a Stalinist show trial, with a predetermined conclusion (of Oswald being guilty) and that they worked backward from, then there was no room in the inquiry for Oswald being seen in the doorway. So, you can be sure that they made sure that that didn't get into the report. All, as in every single one, of the WC witnesses first testified to the FBI. you might say that the FBI was the screening device for the WC. If someone said that they recalled seeing Oswald in the doorway OR that the figure in the Altgens photo looked like Oswald, you can be sure the FBI corrected that person and warned them not to say it again. Of the 75 TSBD employees, just a handful were allowed to testify directly to the Doorman question. They were all pre-screened, and it's likely that more were pres-screened than we know about. They picked the best among them. Although, in Lovelady's case, apparently, Joseph Ball didn't have confidence in him to give the right answer, so he played that arrow-drawing game just as a precaution. But, with Frazier and Arce, he did have confidence in them, again from the pre-screening. And so, he was bold enough with them to point to Doorman directly and ask, "Who is this?" But, if during the interviews the FBI did, if anyone tried to say it was Oswald in the doorway, that person was not only corrected and chastised, and warned with extreme prejudice not to say it again, but they were crossed off the list of WC witnesses.  There was NO CHANCE that they were going to let someone avow to Oswald being in the doorway and for that to be entered into the official record. So, it means absolutely nothing that no such witness exists. It wasn't an honest investigation. 

You can't, on the one hand, admit that the Warren Commission was crooked to the core, and then put stock in their handling of the Doorman question. They were never going to allow any contradictory testimony to surface on this. Not about this. Sure, they let people testify that they thought that the shots came from the Grass Knoll. Even Billy Lovelady said that. That was a tolerable contradiction.  But, seeing Oswald in the doorway during the shooting? No way. They were never going to allow that to be voiced. So, it means absolutely nothing that it isn't there.

Just imagine if the Warren Report were exactly as it is except that in addition there was a witness who testified that he saw Oswald in the doorway. It would have eviscerated the whole thing. Recall what the mandate of the Warren Commission was: to establish Oswald's guilt- his sole guilt- beyond a shadow of a doubt. LBJ put it that way directly to Earl Warren, that he needed to come up with that or else it was going to be World War III, and at least 100,000 people would die. 

So, that objection to Oswald in the doorway is totally spurious, vacuous, and dimwitted. Again: I expect it from lonenutters, but I expect Oswald defenders to know better.

What else? Sometimes they point to Oswald's statement in the hall to the reporter. 

"Were you in the building at the time?"  
"Naturally, if I work in that building,"

It's important to remember that Oswald was not aware that his picture was taken in the doorway during the shooting. Naturally, if he knew, then making the distinction between being in the building and being on the landing outside the door but still within the confines of the building- would have been an important distinction. But, he didn't know, and the phrasing came from the reporter, not Oswald. Why would the reporter put it that way, anyway? Why didn't he ask, "Were you outside with the others at the time? The street was packed with people, including employees of your company, so were you outside with them?" How would Oswald have responded to that? I think he would have said that he was in the doorway. And we know of course that he did tell Fritz that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front."

That is another spurious argument, especially when the photographic evidence is so strong that it's Oswald in the doorway. And that evidence includes confirmation of the man being Oswald, and confirmation of the man's clothing being Oswald's clothing.










 When it comes to being conclusive, this is conclusive in spades. And in light of this powerful photographic evidence, it is childish to harp on things like the parsing of Oswald's words or the fact that the Warren Commission didn't bring out anyone vouching for Oswald in the doorway. That's nothing compared to this. This is what puts the lie to that.

We are at the point now that there is just no denying that Oswald was in the doorway during the shots. And anyone who doesn't admit it is either working for the other side or they may as well be. I have no respect for any CT who does not recognize Oswald in the doorway. To me, such CTs are really just LN pigs with a bit of lipstick on. 
   

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

The story of the Jackson photo is that "Ruby" shot Oswald from almost directly in front of him. But, we know that's not true.


Oswald was shot in the side, where he was facing straight ahead, and the shooter came at him from the side.



That's quite a difference. Yet, people have always described the Jackson photo as the arrangement that existed at the time of the shot. The "experts" tell us that it was taken just .3 second after the blast, but can the positional arrangement change that much in just .3 second? I don't think so. 

And because of the misleading information of the Jackson photo, many people, even today, think that Ruby shot Oswald from out in front of him. 

But, I think most people would try to get in front of the guy and shoot at him from front to back. You know the expression, the "broad side of a barn." Well, there is a broad side of a person too, and shooting someone in the side is much more risky, especially in a skinny person like Oswald. 

But, in terms of doing harm, the shot through the side, if it lands, is much more devastating. 

A shot to the front, where you are just shot in the belly, you stand a good chance of surviving.  Over 80%. That assumes, of course, timely delivery to a trauma hospital. Furthermore, there is a darn good chance that you won't lose consciousness. 

In Oswald's case, they had to make sure that the shot, the one shot, was fatal, where the best surgeons in the world would NOT be able to save him. And, I'm sure it was also very important to them that Oswald lose consciousness and not be able to communicate to anyone about what happened. So, they had to cut those blood vessels to deprive him of blood. I'm telling you: it was a precision shot. They knew exactly what they were doing. 

It is extremely unlikely that a sudden impulse shot by Ruby would have been lucky enough to accomplish all that. And if you think Ruby did it, it had to be a sudden impulse, right? Because: he brought his dog along and left her in the car. He wouldn't have done that if he knew he wasn't coming back. Right?

But, if the Jackson photo was taken just .3 second after the shot to the side, then why does it show such a different arrangement, with "Ruby" in front of Oswald?  The answer is that they had to do it that way because the goal was to show as little as possible of "Ruby" since he wasn't really Jack Ruby. Notice that you can't tell from looking that it's Jack Ruby. You don't have enough visual data there. With that little visual data, there is any number of men that that guy could be. Probably thousands. Maybe tens of thousands. 


They had to make sure that we didn't see enough of him to figure out the truth; that he wasn't Ruby. After all, what are you really seeing there? You're seeing a short, pudgy guy in a Fedora hat. The world is full of short, pudgy guys, and the world is also full of Fedora hats. You can't ID that guy as Ruby from looking at that figure. You hear me? You can't see his face. Well, if you can't see his face, how can you be sure he is Jack Ruby? People only think he's Jack Ruby because they've been told he's Jack Ruby. That's it. Well, I'm telling you that he is NOT Jack Ruby. And the reason you can't see his face is because they wouldn't let you see his face, and again, that's because he is not Jack Ruby.

Look at the thickness of his legs compared to Oswald's skinny legs. Were Ruby's legs that thick? Let's see. No, they weren't. Look closely, and you'll see that those jail pants were pretty baggy. Ruby's legs weren't as skinny as Oswald's, but they weren't as hefty as Bookhout's. 







Now, on the comic relief side, this is from NEWSWEEK, a magazine that has published nothing but lies about the JFK assassination for 53 years.

But here, they are attacking Russia, which has risen to Public Enemy #1. Well, maybe #2 after North Korea. 

They're saying that the Russian economy is so bad under Putin that the poor Russians can only afford to buy 2.5 pairs of shoes per capita per year, in contrast to the thriving Americans who bought 7.8 pairs of shoes per capita in 2015.



Are they kidding? That's nearly 8 pairs of shoes in a year. If I was Bill Gates and Warren Buffet combined I wouldn't buy 8 pairs of shoes in a year. How many shoes can I possibly wear? In the last year, I have bought exactly one pair of shoes- a pair of sandals. So, if I only bought one pair, what does that mean? That someone else had to buy 15 pairs to make up for it? 

What do you think? Do you think the average American really bought nearly 8 pairs of shoes for himself in 2015? How many did you buy? Ask your relatives. Ask your friends. Take a poll. I think you'll find that that number is way too high. 

And the article goes on to bash Russia. I'll give you the link to it.

http://www.newsweek.com/putin-economy-so-bad-russians-cant-afford-shoes-571673

So, Russia is poor and struggling while America is rich and thriving. Is that so? Well, one thing they didn't mention in the article is the debt load of each country. Don't debts factor into the wealth calculation? 

We'll start with Russia. Their national debt (in U.S. dollars) is about $154 billion. 




In contrast, the national debt of the U.S. is officially close to $20 trillion



So, roughly speaking, Russia has about 1/120 of the debt of the United States. And keep in mind that in the U.S. a lot of the debt is "off-budget." If you included all the obligations that the U.S government has, for instance, things like federal and military pensions, veterans benefits and expenses, and other things that are off-budget, the total unfunded indebtedness and liabilities comes to a staggering and astronomical figure, with some estimates north of $100 trillion. 

So, which country is likely to go bankrupt first? You do the Math.

And these are the same pluckers who accuse others of issuing "fake news." 




Dear Pete and Bernard,

I am informing you both that I received an auto-generated response from Dealey Plaza UK thanking me for contacting them and saying that they will respond shortly. Except that I never sent them anything. See the attachment.

So, I suspect that one of my longtime enemies, such as Pink O'Blazney, sent it out using the Czech remailer, which they love so much. And it made it look like it came from me. They have done this repeatedly. They have even had me threatening people with physical violence, and one guy Jerry Dealey got awfully close to calling the police. Fortunately, once I informed him that I didn't send it and had nothing to do with it, he believed me. 

It would help me if they sent me the correspondence because it's likely that I'll recognize the style, and that may give me a clear idea of who sent it.

So, wherever that went in the organization, please let them know that I didn't send it. I can't reply to the notice I received because it's a no-reply notice. I thank you both.

 Ralph   


Tuesday, March 21, 2017

I wonder if Jack Ruby ever watched the footage of himself shooting Oswald, supposedly. I would think that when he was sober that he had the ability to recognize himself. 

And did he ever see the Jackson photo?

I should think that he would have noticed that that is not him in it. It's not how his hair was in back nor on his neck.

 As you can see, he had considerable scruffiness which the Garage Shooter didn't have. And his hair in back wasn't as long and full as we see on the Garage Shooter. 
They're obviously very different. But, this goes beyond that. I should think that, INTUITIVELY, Ruby would have recognized instantly that this wasn't him. Haven't you always been able to recognize yourself in a photo? 

And the other thing is that seeing this would probably have jogged Ruby's memory that he had no memory of this. As it was, Ruby had no memory of the actual shooting. When repeatedly asked, he just said that he went to the garage and Oswald was brought out and then the police pushed him to the ground. Never once did Ruby ever say, "I took out my gun, rushed him, pointed it at his ribcage, and pulled the trigger." 

So, would seeing it, say, in the KRLD footage, have jogged his memory? I doubt it. In fact, I guarantee it. For one thing, the Jackson photo doesn't show the actual shooting. Oswald was shot in the side from the side. In the Jackson photo, "Ruby" is in front of Oswald shooting directly at his abdomen. So, how could Ruby have a memory of doing something that wasn't even done? 

Here's a clip of it. Watch it again, even though I know you've seen it before. I want you to notice how muted the whole response is. How unusual was it? It was shockingly unusual. It was so unusual that most people go their whole lives without ever experiencing such a thing. And that's true of probably over 99% of people, that they go their whole lives, from cradle to grave, without ever experiencing such a thing. So, how come nobody acted shocked? 


Nobody acted shocked. There wasn't a single gasp or scream or shout or startle of any kind by anybody. There was no look of shock on anyone's face. Nobody jumped. Nobody darted. You had the Penguins doing there thing, covering up "Ruby," and then dancing him into the building, but that's it. 

Just imagine if say, you were at the mall, and somebody went up and shot somebody. Imagine the reaction there would be among the crowd. Imagine what you would hear. And even if you want to say that this involved a lot of cops (tough guys) there were also a lot of reporters and cameramen. They're not so tough. Are they? But, nobody acted out. Nobody acted or sounded appropriately shocked and startled. 

I tell you, I'm just not buying it. I think it was all planned. I think it was all staged. Jack Ruby wasn't even there. The guy playing Jack Ruby was James Bookhout. And he shot a blank. This whole thing was theater. Oswald was shot afterwards, and I suspect it was inside that jail office. 


Robert Jordan You make a lot of sense Ralph Cinque. The shot that hit Oswald was too perfect for a strung out person to make
LikeReply1 hr
Ralph Cinque What a nice, concise statement. I couldn't have said it better, Robert. Thank you.
LikeReplyJust now

Monday, March 20, 2017

If you read through this timeline of Jack Ruby's activities for the three days preceding the 24th, you realize that he was on the go constantly. It was frenetic. Day and night. There are a couple of references to him sleeping, but the amount of time he spent sleeping is incredibly little. Lots of people can tolerate an occasional sleepless night, but how many can tolerate several such nights in a row? 

  http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Jack_Ruby/Timeline_of_Ruby.html

Jack Ruby was wired. He was sky-high on amphetamines. And that's why he could apparently get by on so little sleep. 

But, the question is: were the plotters aware that he was taking huge doses of amphetamines? Was anyone urging him to take such huge doses? Were they helping him in any way, perhaps by supplying them? We know that Ruby saw a doctor at 6 PM on November 20.  What was that about? We know he was being goaded to shoot Oswald, such as Officer Olsen telling him that somebody ought to cut Oswald inch by inch into ribbons and referring to Ruby as "the greatest guy in the world."  Now, I'm not even going to assume that he thought such a ridiculous thing, but why would he say such a ridiculous thing, except to butter Ruby up?

Ruby's roommate George Senator is a VERY suspicious guy. He reportedly said that at 10:15 on Sunday morning, Ruby told him that he was going to kill Oswald. What? Then why didn't he call the police? And don't tell me that it's because he didn't think Ruby would actually do it. He knew Ruby was strung out on uppers. Even if you thought the chance was only 1 in 100, wouldn't you call the police?  

But, let's assume, for the time being, that Ruby's drug-induced psychosis was a factor that the the plotters were aware of and were seeking to exploit. Well, how would they exploit it? By having Ruby shoot Oswald? 

But, why would anyone choose to have a psychotic person bear a loaded gun and start shooting someone? Is it necessary for me to point out that things can go wrong at shootings- even when you don't have psychotic shooters? 

The shooting of JFK went terribly wrong. Didn't it? And they, presumably, had the best snipers they could get. We can be certain that money was not a restraining factor in getting the best shooters. 

And don't you think it was their expectation that the first shot would be lethal? Of course, that is the shot that missed. It was taken from a low elevation in the Dal-Tex building, and it went right over Kennedy's head. It may not have missed him by much. And then it went practically the whole length of Dealey Plaza before being brought to the ground by gravity. But really, the shooting of JFK was a fiasco. They accidentally shot Connally. Twice. And they didn't deliver a fatal shot to JFK until he was practically at the steps at the bottom of Dealey Plaza. Hey! It did not go well.  

If the Dal-Tex shooter had hit Kennedy in the back of the head, it would not only have been fatal, but instantly fatal, and all the other shooters would have been called off. The spotters would have held them back. And surely, it would have been much better for the official story if there were never any shots taken from the front. 

So, when it comes to shootings, things don't always go as planned- even with the best shooters. But, Ruby wasn't an expert shooter at all, and the idea that he could be trusted to shoot Oswald is ridiculous. 

Do you understand that the shot that hit Oswald was a precision shot? They needed a shot, one shot, that would be fatal. If Oswald had survived the shot, it would have been an unmitigated disaster. They would have had no chance to do it again. Who would believe that a prisoner, under the tightest police security, could twice be shot, on two separate occasions, by an intruder? Nobody could believe that. Even Walter Cronkite would have balked at that. The one time stretches credulity a lot as it is, but twice? Again: nobody would believe it.

I mentioned the other evening that Ruby got by two police guards at the Main Street ramp. One of them was in a police car pulling out, but even so, he had eyes. He could see. And he knew Jack Ruby. And the other guy was on foot. The official story has it that he, Officer Vaughn, stepped into the street to hold up traffic so that Officer Pierce could get out, but was that really necessary. What if Vaughn wasn't there? Would have Pierce have been stuck?  Unable to exit? Did he really need help doing a common, everyday, driving maneuver? And considering the lengths that the Dallas PD was going to to secure that garage, why would Vaughn de-prioritize that for even a moment? 

How difficult was it to keep Ruby from entering that ramp? An 80 year old Walmart greeter could have done it with ease.  

No, I'm afraid that when you really look, objectively, at the story of how Jack Ruby got through police security into the garage, you are forced to conclude one thing: that the Dallas Police let him in, that they wanted him to come in. 

And if they wanted him to come in, then surely they wanted him to shoot Oswald. 

But, would the Dallas Police actually let Ruby do the shooting? Pull the trigger? They knew he was strung out on drugs. They knew he was unstable. Stop thinking that this was easy, that anyone could do it. It was not just a matter of hitting Oswald. He had to be hit exactly the right way, to deliver a sure-fatal wound, and not hit anyone else. 

And stop thinking that the Mafia put Ruby up to doing it. The Mafia was not involved. Ruby was not involved with any Mafia in Dallas. He was involved with Mafia in Florida and in Louisiana. So, unless they called in their threat and their order for him to kill Oswald, the Mafia wasn't involved. The Dallas Police were involved. The Mafia didn't let Ruby into that garage. Dallas policemen let Ruby into that garage.

But, here's the point: the official "lone-nut" Ruby story is just as ridiculous as the official "lone-nut" Oswald story. Both of them were set up.  

And, just as I have been saying that they never actually would have armed Oswald and had him do any shooting (remember: he couldn't hit a rabbit with a shotgun in Russia) then likewise, if there was anyone involved in facilitating Ruby's presence in the garage, that they too would never have wanted him to actually do any shooting. Both Oswald and Ruby were just patsies. 

Nobody would trust a psychotic, drug-strung maniac, like Ruby, with a precision shot. 

And, Ruby did not take that shot. I'm telling you: James Bookhout did.