Friday, October 28, 2016

Unfortunately, Judyth Baker has made a very misguided attempt to refute the Bookhout thesis, but she fared no better than James Norwood, which is to say that she fell flat and is wrong on every point. 

I'll go through them one by one, and the net effect will be to demonstrate how strong the thesis is. 

First, she attacked the idea that Oswald wasn't really shot in the garage, but that is not central to the Bookhout thesis. It is perfectly true that I question whether Oswald was really shot in the garage. But, whether it was a real shooting or a ruse in which Oswald was shot later (he was definitely shot) doesn't matter. Either way, James Bookhout is still the shooter in the garage. 

And frankly, even when you shoot someone with a blank, from that close a range, and it was essentially a contact shot, you are shooting them. There is "stuff" that comes out of the barrel, and there is heat and blaze and gases, etc. But, so we don't really have to belabor the point to establish Bookhout as the shooter. But, for the sake of thoroughness and also brevity, I will simply say that the existence of this obviously fraudulent photo, the Jackson photo, raises serious doubt as to whether Oswald was actually shot with a live round in the garage. 

It's not just that we don't see any blood; it's that we don't see any damage to him or his clothing. We don't see any evidence of a shot having been fired. There is no trauma evident.  Furthermore, the picture is fraudulent. His supposed left arm going across his chest is actually two arms and two hands clasped together, which was first observed by Craig Roberts. It is a monstrosity! Compare it to Oswald's actual hand. Look how small his thumb is on the left.

On the right, it is ridiculous. He didn't have any big whopping thumb like that. And, it's a right thumb; there are two hands there clasped together, as in prayer. So, the Jackson photo is fraudulent, and the very fact that it is fraudulent puts the whole shooting of Oswald at that instant in doubt. 

But, that is all I am going to say about that because it isn't crucial to the Bookhout thesis. Whether the garage shooter shot a real bullet or a blank, he was Bookhout. That's what I'm saying.

Then, Judyth proceeds to deny some rather elemental things, such as that the shooter had a round face and head.

On the right, the shooter's head is pretty darn round. It's about as round as heads get. You want that I compare it to a beach ball? And Ruby's head is not at all round. 

Look: anybody can say anything, and anybody can type anything. You can hit any keys you want on the keyboard. So, people can just deny obvious facts. And that is what Judyth is doing.

She also denies the disparity concerning Ruby's scruffy hair growth on his neck and the clean neck of the shooter. 

I am not even the first one to point this out. The first was Maxsim Irkutsk, who is from Russia. You can see his wonderful video here:

And keep in mind that he doesn't go into Bookhout at all. He just shows that the shooter wasn't Ruby. He does not try to identify the shooter. However, I am in contact with Maxsim, and he knows now about the Bookhout find, and he concurs.

Note that Maxsim Irkutsk is not his real name, and I do not know his real name. He is staying under cover because he is afraid for his safety-in Russia. And, it's not because he thinks Putin is going to bother him about this.  It's because he thinks that factions within Russia who are aligned with the CIA will go after him.

As I am typing this, I can't actually see Judyth's photos because they are not manifesting in the article. So, I can only go by her descriptions. She seems to be mistaking Dallas Detective Charles Dhority for Bookhout. That has been a common mistake, which was started by Linda Zambanini and passed on to the Prayermanites, and for a little while, I ran with it too. But, most people realize now that it is definitely Dhority who is holding Oswald's hand.

Note that that photo was taken at Parkland Hospital. Judyth mistakenly said that it was taken as he was being loaded into the ambulance. She was wrong. Above, he is being wheeled into the hospital, and Bookhout didn't even go to Parkland Hospital. The man behind Jim Leavelle who is holding Oswald's hand is definitely Detective Charles Dhority and not James Bookhout.

Then, she posted this collage of Bookhout (and at least she does admit that he was Bookhout) next to Ruby's hat. For some reason, she flipped the image of Bookhout.

First, I don't know what she did to make that hat so tall on the left. It looks like the top hat that Fred Astaire wore in the musical Top Hat with Ginger Rogers. 

In the frame below, his hat doesn't look as tall, at least not to me. 

But, making an issue of the hat is ridiculous. First, men who wore Fedora hats regularly typically had more than one. They didn't wear the same hat every day because it gets sweaty, and you want to let it air out. But, in this case, who knows, they may have gotten Jack Ruby's hat for Bookhout to wear. So, you can't make unreasonable demands, and that's what this is. A hat is a hat; there are lots of them; and they're easy to come by.

Then, she shows a slew of other images, supposedly of Bookhout, and apparently including this one, even though the original person who claimed it as Bookhout has retracted it.

On the left, that is definitely not James Bookhout. It was taken at the Midnight Press Conference which Bookhout did not attend. The Midnight Press Conference was a Dallas Police Department affair. There were some FBI agents there, Nat Pinkston being one, but they kept a low profile. They just observed it, took it in; they weren't in the spotlight. The tall guy above was in the spotlight. He obviously had a prominent role. No FBI agent had a prominent role. Furthermore, James Bookhout was almost 50 years old at the time, and that man is obviously much younger than that. I hardly think he looks old enough to be Oswald's father. The person who started designating him as James Bookhout was Linda Zambanini, but she did it with a question mark, asking if he was James Bookhout. And then after reading my analysis, she realized it was not a reasonable proposition, and she removed the idea and the image from her website. I don't know who that man is, but he is definitely not James Bookhout. 

This response to Judyth Baker's critique continues in Part 2.  

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.