Saturday, October 21, 2017

The whole idea that the Dallas Police invented the bus and cab rides is ludicrous and stupid. How could they invent something before talking to Oswald and finding out what he really did? They didn't start talking to him about that until 3:15. So how could they come up with a false story by 4:00, including physical evidence for the false story?

And how could anyone invent the story that came out? That Oswald walked 6 blocks, then took a bus for 2 blocks going back from whence he came; then got off; then walked 6 blocks more to the depot; then got a cab; then offered to give it up to an old woman; then rode the cab and had the cabbie drive 6 blocks past his house and then walk back? Who could invent a story like that?  What, were they screenwriters in their spare time? And who wrote the story? Fritz? I dare say he didn't look like the writing kind. 

Look: it's just stupid; the stupid spewing of stupid people; incredibly stupid people. 
Backass, I never said you originated the claim of a Dr. Pepper machine or that you claimed to discover the machine in this image. What I claim is that it is ludicrous to show this image to someone and expect them to recognize a Dr. Pepper machine.

How can you claim that that is entirely consistent with this?

Answer: Because you're an idiot; that's why.

Backes ain't sure. 

"That this might have been prearranged prior to the assassination, or the story was created very shortly afterwards by the DPD.."

Prearranged? By whom? Name names, mudderfrucker. Created very shortly afterwards by the DPD? Again, by whom? Fritz? Curry? Who? 

And if it was prearranged, doesn't that mean that it happened? 

Then, the blithering idiot writes this, saying absolutely nothing; it's just gibberish:

"So, if no matter what you're going to believe the Baker-Truly-Oswald encounter then you have to lie. You have to alter the story.  This has been going on since day one.  They tell the story. Upon investigation the story is a lie. Oh, well, if you change the story to this and this, bobbing and weaving around the evidence that demonstrates the story is a lie, pretending you're taking into account it's inherent flaws and contradictions, pretending you're addressing the criticisms, then repackage the original story with these new improvements then everything's fine, and the great original Warren Commission conclusions stand.  it's withstood the test of time, they claim.  Nothing has come along to refute...."

Spew much?

Then, he criticizes the quality of the images I posted of the 2nd floor lunch room, not knowing that they came directly from his friend, Bart Kamp.

Then, Backes, unbelievably, thinks he has to tell anyone this, 54 years later, as if we never realized that the lunch room encounter was used to link Oswald to the 6th floor. 

"Plus there's information that destroys the whole issue.  Why would Oswald be in the second floor lunchroom at all?  Well, it helps with the time line of Oswald coming down from the 6th floor, if he stopped to get a coke on the second floor in the second floor lunchroom, and it helps to make the Dallas cops look less stupid if a cop did see Oswald there."

Someone is looking stupid, Backes, and you'll find him in the mirror. 

Then, Backes puts up this picture of a Dr. Pepper machine on the 1st floor, to suggest that if Oswald wanted a Coke, he could have settled for a Dr. Pepper.

But, Backes, you just got done saying that the purpose of Oswald being in the 2nd floor lunch room was to link him to the 6th floor. And since he personally had no reason to be linked to the 6th floor, it means that someone else must have spurred him to the lunch room. But, let's look closer at the Dr. Pepper machine.

To me that looks like a refrigerator on the right, and then to the left of it? A Dr. Pepper machine? Really? 

I found some images of vintage Dr. Pepper machines from the 1960s.

 Why should anyone think that this is a Dr. Pepper machine?

My point is that we all have an expectation of what a Dr. Pepper machine looks like. So how can someone post this image and presume that everyone is going to recognize in it a Dr. Pepper machine?

"Oh, a Dr. Pepper machine. Of course."

It's ironic that what Backes is doing here is parroting the argument made by Vincent Bugliosi in his book, that if Oswald wanted a soft drink, then why didn't he get a Dr. Pepper instead of a Coke? And that is ridiculous on the face of it because maybe he had a hankering for a Coke at that particular moment. People do drink both, you know.  

But really, the whole issue is a red herring. There is a very important thing that people need to realize, that for Oswald to beat Baker to the lunch room, even though Baker was running and Oswald was just walking (not the least bit out of breath, etc.) he must have left the doorway early. And that means that Oswald must have left the doorway right after the Altgens photo was taken. And I really do mean right away, within 2 seconds. Now, why would he do that for any kind of soft drink? Forget about the difference between Coke and Dr. Pepper. Why would he leave for either one when JFK was still in Dealey Plaza, and there was a commotion going on that involved gunfire? People in that doorway did hear the shots, and some of them recognized them as shots and thought "gunshots" immediately. But, even if you thought it was firecrackers, why would you leave at that moment? It makes no sense to think that Oswald actually left the doorway and went back inside for the sake of getting a Coke or a Dr. Pepper. He wound up getting a Coke, but it doesn't mean that he left to get one. 

I maintain that Oswald must have been told to go to the lunch room. And I'll point out that the vast majority of Oswald defenders agree that he was told to go to the Texas Theater. They don't think that he just had a hankering for a war movie right after the President got shot. Well, he didn't just have a hankering for a Coke right after the President got shot either. Like the theater, Oswald must have been instructed to go to the lunch room. His actually getting a Coke was incidental to that. 

Hey! I'll remind you that he got popcorn at the theater. It doesn't mean that he went there to get popcorn. It just happened. Same thing in the lunch room with the Coke. 

Backes, you're dumb as dirt.

Bart Kamp. What an idiot. Is he Joseph Backes' long lost brother? This is how he tries to equate Prayer Man with Oswald, pointing to buttons. 

You're supposed to be able discern a button there, but in the words of the vernacular, it's a stretch. But, it's also moot, since Oswald didn't have any buttons there. His shirt had only the two lowest buttons. Furthermore, Oswald's shirt was sprawled open. It was parted like the Red Sea, except it was more like the White Sea, the white of his t-shirt.

So, how HOW HOW can anyone possibly equate these two?

And keep in mind that many are now saying that Prayer Man was actually Prayer Woman. 

ROKC: Really Obtuse Kennedy Clowns. 
The utter stupidity of Backes and Kamp and the others who say that Oswald did not ride the bus and cab is revealed by the bus transfer ticket found on Oswald.

Now, if you want to say that they didn't find it on him (even though he admitted it was his; that's part of the record) that they just lied, then you're just being stupid. You're being more stupid than they were, and I don't consider them bright. And that's because of the risk involved with planting the ticket. 

You've heard the expression:

"The best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry."

That's from a poem by Robert Burns, but John Steinbeck took a phrase from it, "Of Mice and Men" and wrote one of the most famous novellas of all time.

But, the point is that they would never concoct a story that Oswald rode the bus and cab AND ALSO plant bogus physical evidence on him. They weren't that stupid. ROKC people are that stupid, but the plotters who killed Kennedy and framed Oswald weren't that stupid. They knew that something might happen that made it crystal that Oswald didn't ride the bus. And then that bus transfer ticket would have been an albatross around their necks; something that they couldn't take back.

So, what could have happened? First, Oswald could have lived. He could have survived. Not every assassination attempt is successful. How many plots and assassination attempts did they have to kill Castro? It may have been hundreds! And he lived to 2016. 

So, Oswald could have survived, and if he did, he'd have told his lawyer, "You know, I didn't ride the bus and cab, and they're saying that I did." And what his lawyer have done? He would have torn the Dallas Police to shreds. Do you remember in the OJ trial how the Dream Team turned it into a trial of Mark Fuhrman, where they even had him taking the 5th on the witness stand? Well, it would have been worse than that at Oswald's trial.

But, there is plenty else that could have gone wrong because if Oswald didn't take the bus and cab, it means he did something else and went somewhere else, and evidence of that could easily have surfaced. Somebody could have seen him when he was doing what he actually did. Oswald may have seen something when he did what he actually did which his knowledge of would have proven that he did it. And there is plenty more that could have gone wrong. The witnesses that they came up with to support their story could have failed, either deliberately or just from being lousy liars and lousy actors. 

There was so very much that could go wrong. But, as long as they didn't come up with phony physical evidence, they could always plead dumb. "So, he didn't ride the bus and cab. I guess we were wrong. No harm, no foul." But, if they planted a bus ticket on him, there was no taking that back. There was no talking point for it. It was like a smoking gun; their smoking gun. 

The whole idea that the Dallas Police had nothing better to do that afternoon but concoct a bus and cab ride for Oswald is ridiculous on the face of it, but when you throw in the bus transfer ticket, you realize that it's not just ridiculous; it's impossible. The bus transfer was entered into evidence at 4:00, right at the time of Oswald's first lineup. Oswald wasn't arrested until 1:45. He didn't get to the PD until 2:00. He didn't start talking to Fritz until 3:15. So, how could they come up with a phony bus transfer for Oswald at 4? How could they possibly come up with it so fast?

I've said many times, and I'll say it again that some people should not be doing this. They are not smart enough to do it. They don't mental aptitude. And that certainly applies to these ROKC people. A dumber lot has never poured over the JFK assassination. 

Friday, October 20, 2017

Here is the 2nd floor lunch room, and you can see everything.

So, the distant door is the door with the window through which Baker was looking from the stairwell. There was one like it on the other side, out of view to us. And the door to the lunch room proper is front and center and sprung open, just as it was that day. Oswald came from the office side through the swinging door and went directly to the center doorway and to enter the lunch room. Baker saw him right when he was in that passageway room. 

And when Baker got into the passageway room facing the lunch room, he saw Oswald walking, apparently at a normal pace, through the room. The angle of the above view does not show the Coke machine. This does:

There it is on the left. And I have to think that Baker saw Oswald before he got to it because he would have been practically out of the room, plus, it would not have taken Baker that long to get Oswald in view again. 

Baker specified the distance: 20 feet. Of course, it was just an approximation. 

So, where was Oswald going. What exactly was he going to do if Baker hadn't called him back?

Well, judging by the look of it, one could argue that he was going to get a Coke. Again, I don't think he passed the Coke machine yet. And after Truly and Baker left, he did get a Coke. 

Beyond the Coke machine there was another door which led to what looks like another passageway to the Conference room. But, it would be arbitrary to say that he was going there. What he, in fact, did was turn around and approach Baker without saying anything, which I find VERY STRANGE. I should think that if a cop was pointing a gun at you that you would say something, maybe even, DON'T SHOOT. I HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING. And I should think that one might instinctively put one's hands up to show that you're unarmed and not a threat. But, Oswald didn't do anything. He just walked up to him, saying nothing. It's strange.

And then, when Truly and Baker left, Oswald got his Coke and then reversed his steps and took the same route he took to get there, encountering Mrs. Reid in the office area. 

They didn't need Baker. If someone else saw Oswald in the lunch room shortly after the shooting, it would have been just as good. Of course,  it couldn't be TOO soon after the shooting because obviously it had to look like he had sufficient time to get down there from the 6th floor. 

So, there was some delicacy involved, but the witness did not have to be a cop. Most of the time, witnesses aren't cops. Right? And when you consider that Oswald admitted to Fritz seeing an officer in the lunch room, then why wouldn't he admit seeing someone else there- if he did?  Of course, he would have. He was innocent. He had no reason to lie about seeing someone in the lunch room. 

So, they didn't need Baker. Not at all. 

In all probability, Baker just came along. Nobody tapped him on the shoulder that morning and said, "Hey, you've got an important role to play today, and I don't mean being a motorcycle escort." Nobody said squat to him.

I can't say whether Truly made any effort to steer Baker to Oswald. It doesn't appear so. 

No, Backes, it's not that, you dumb pluck. It's Photoshopping- or the equivalent. 

And, you can use Photoshop to edit and enhance video.

"Color correct video with the tools you know in Photoshop."

Look at the size of the target they used in the CBS reenactment.

Here's the view from the Sniper's Nest.

So, this guy just had to get it in the pink, and it was considered a hit.

And if you watch the video, you'll see that for the multiple marksman, it was very easy and smooth and rapid for them to recycle the bolt.  But, we know those Carcanos are notorious for being rough and sticky.

It was NEVER that smooth and easy for Jesse Ventura. He had trouble getting it in. He was told to "slam it." And when he did, his comment was, "What a piece of shit."

Now, we know that Caracanos were typically hard to operate. Here is an article by the editor of GunsAmerica Paul Helsinki in which he reported his own experience that "the bolt was very hard to close."

Tony Heller also tested a standard, typical Carcano:

I bought a 1938 Italian Carcano 6.5 x 52 rifle last year, the same one Lee Harvey Oswald is said to have killed JFK with – and  finally had a chance to test it out today.
Screen Shot 2016-04-26 at 11.44.46 PM
At 150 feet, standing, using gun sights it made about an 18 inch spread. By contrast, my 1936 Mosin 7.62 x 54R made about a two to three inch spread – fired the same way. If all Carcano’s are like that, they are completely useless as a sniper rifle. It is the most inconsistent rifle I have ever fired.
RC: The WC admitted upgrading Oswald's rifle for its snipers, but what about CBS? Don't you think they made sure that they're marksmen had an easy to operate, fast-cycling rifle? We know damn well they did because we can see how easily and without any hangups they worked the bolt. Watch it:
Remember what I've been saying for a very long time: the U.S. government killed Kennedy. And therefore, no test conducted by the U.S. government can be trusted. And CBS News? They're just like Pravda was to the Soviet Union.  
I would certainly trust Jesse Ventura over either of them.
I'll tell you what's needed: a test conducted by NO ONE with ANY connections WHATSOEVER to the U.S. government or any of its agencies, and also with no connections whatsoever to the mainstream media. The rifle would have to be certified by a committee of independent firearm experts who have no connection to the US Military and no prior association with each other, and they would have to establish, in a public demonstration, that the rifle was in the same defective condition as Oswald's alleged rifle was on 11/22/63. Then the test could be conducted, ideally, in Dealey Plaza from the 6th floor window, where manikins sit in a remote-controlled limo, and of course all other traffic would be stopped and the area cleared. The marksmen would have to be of comparable in training and experience to Oswald, that is, having done the minimal amount of shooting required by the Marines for a non-combat Marine, which Oswald was. 
That's how it has to be done. The rest is noise. 
The most valid test, so far, was done by Jesse Ventura. 

Backes, you stupid scum, I have to spell out everything for you, don't I, and it's because you're so damn stupid.

If Baker and Truly didn't know each other, then how could either propose to the other that they lie? Why, if you don't know the person, would you think he would be amenable to lying? We are talking about committing a crime, making a false statement to investigators, for which, some people, including some famous people, have gone to prison for doing, for instance, Martha Stewart, Rod Blagojevich, and Jeffrey Skilling.

And not only would neither know whether the other was amenable to lying, but they also would have no reason to doubt that if the other wasn't amenable to lying, that he would report it to authorities that the other asked him to lie. 

Say, for instance, that Baker was an honest cop, and Truly asked him to lie. Why wouldn't Baker inform his superiors? In fact, if Baker was an honest cop, WHY WOULDN'T HE ARREST TRULY ON THE SPOT FOR ASKING HIM TO LIE?

It's a crime, Backes. You are so stupid, one wonders how you can cross the street.  

It is ironic that some people, when shown the photographic evidence for Oswald in the doorway

will respond by saying, "Well, two government investigations looked at it and determined it was Lovelady."

But, that is the same government that is charging Oswald with murder. And, it is also the same government that is responsible for killing Kennedy and framing Oswald. So, how could any investigation that they do be considered honest and objective?

Of course, those who say Oswald is guilty don't share that view of the government, but what about those who say he was innocent? Don't they admit that the government was the bad guy in the story? So, how can you trust the bad guy to investigate this or anything else?

The government investigations were corrupt, through and through.
The government investigations started with a pre-determined conclusion, that Oswald was guilty.
The government investigations could never, in a million years, give any traction whatsoever to Oswald in the doorway because it would have instantly torpedoed the entire case against him. 
They could let people say they thought the shots came from the Grassy Knoll, but they could not let even one person say he or she saw Oswald in the doorway. Carolyn Arnold tried, and look what happened to her. And the WC wouldn't even hear from her. 

Do you understand that you weren't allowed to say that that you saw Oswald in the doorway? And that if you did, all Hell rained down upon you?

Of course, Oswald was in that doorway, and the fact of it is spreading faster today than ever before in history. And the people involved have never been more determined and have never been more immune to intimidation- including the threat of death. 
This is the property invoice of Jack Ruby's belongings, the things that were taken from him.

And it includes:

They weren't just making note that he was wearing a set of underwear. They were noting the things they took from him. 

And if you are going to argue that they didn't take the underwear, then it means that he was wearing his own underwear, including his own socks:

And those sock are obviously not these socks:

Robin Unger put up this gif of the Towner film, which he admits came from the Lost Bullet, the 2011 television program of Max Holland.

Max Holland is the one who alleges that Oswald's first shot hit the mast arm of the traffic light and was deflected down the length of Dealey Plaza, losing its jacket along the way. No one, that I know of, has endorsed his theory. 

But, think about the technology that was available in 2011 to dress up this clip. What reason is there to think that this is what the Towner film actually looked like?

What do you think would happen if we viewed the original Towner film and compared it to this? Do you really think it looks like this?

I would be willing to bet that if we viewed the original Towner film, not a digital version of it, but the actual original unaltered physical film rolling through the original film camera, that it would look nothing like this. 
Why do I call it technobabble? Because when you just babble off things like "type of camera, film, lens, setting, distance" etc. to account for disparities among images of the same thing, you're just playing it like a trump card. None of those things can change who is there. I expect to see the same people; not different people. 

But, I'm hardly surprised that the Idiot Backes also denies that the lunch room encounter ever took place, although one wonders why he didn't say so before now. I've been writing about it for years, so why didn't he declare before now that it never happened?   

Look: he declared that the bus ride and cab ride never took place. He's said that over and over, hasn't he? So, why didn't he add that the lunch room encounter was also made up? 

But, of course, it's just as stupid, and that's why I say I'm not surprised he says it since he can be counted on to be stupid. He's just a stupid man. 

And note that Backes has never laid out where Oswald was and what he was doing in lieu of trekking to the lunch room after the shooting. Nor has he ever laid out where Oswald was and what he was doing during the shooting. 

Backes just makes things up, for instance, that the Loveladys gave the Wedding photo to the HSCA. Another doozey of his is that a driver pulled up in front of the TSBD and yelled, "Get in the fuckin' car, Oswald!" And it wasn't a reference to the famous Nash Rambler of Roger Craig. It was just something that Backes made up. 

Backes: my mother is still alive. And when my father died, his money, being combined with hers, stayed with her. Nothing changed. You are, once again, spewing falsehoods, which is all you have ever done, from the beginning and all along. 

And I never said that Fritz lied in his notes. I said he lied to the Warren Commission when he said said that Oswald said he was eating lunch with other employees during the assassination, employees who were actually up on the 5th floor at the time, and we have a picture of them there. 

Backes: "Well, if Fritz is lying at one point in his own notes, then why is it impossible for Fritz to be lying in another section, or why not think the whole thing is a lie, that the Fritz notes were created after the fact to help Fritz tell the official story?"

Cinque: I never said Fritz lied in his own notes, and how can "Out with Bill Shelley in front" be construed as telling the official story? Again, you are stupid, Backes. You are truly an ignoramus.

And when I said "what difference does it make" about the Coke, I meant: what difference does it make to Kamp, since he denies that the encounter ever took place. I didn't mean that it makes no difference to me. 

Again: there is no evidence that Baker and Truly knew each other prior to 11/22/63, and there is no reason to think they had ever met before. All the indications are that they were complete strangers, and without providing evidence of them having met before, no one has the right to assume otherwise. 

So, since they both maintained they had this encounter with Oswald, it would mean that they, two strangers, conspired, on the spot, to lie about it. 

And that means that one of them had to propose the idea to the other, right? We can't we assume that they both got the idea, spontaneously, at the same time, can we?

It's easy enough to suspect that Truly would have lied for the following reasons: he worked in a high position at the TSBD, ma CIA front company; he was directly involved in hiring Oswald (who was obviously placed there to be framed for shooting Kennedy); he was directly above and worked closely with Bill Shelley, another suspicious character who, in his suit and tie, was foreman of the motley floor-laying crew on the 6th floor that day; Truly was known to be an ultra-right winger and Kennedy hater, etc. etc. But, Baker? What are the talking points for Baker being involved in the plot? 

And it's not just a matter of how Baker could be convinced to lie, but why he would have any inclination or willingness whatsoever to lie. And since statements of what happened were made almost immediately, how was there even time to engage Baker into lying? Again: he had no reasons of his own to lie. So how, in that circumstance, in that milieu, in that time frame, could he be induced to lie?   

Aren't these questions that a person who is accusing him of lying must answer?

And regarding the discrepancy between Baker and Mrs. Reid about Oswald's clothes, I stated that I don't have an explanation for it, but neither does anyone else. Does Backes? Is the explanation that one of them lied? But, Bart Kamp maintains that both of them lied. 

And again, it was obvious that Oswald was emphatically denying the charges. He said it emphatically: "I emphatically deny these charges." We can see and hear him say it. 

So, how was he going to react when he found out that Truly and a policeman were claiming that they encountered him in the second floor lunch room shortly after the shooting? Wasn't he going to emphatically deny that as well? Wasn't he going to tell his lawyer that? Wasn't his lawyer going to act on it? 

So, knowing that Oswald had a mouth and could use it, why would Baker lie? And if you think Baker knew that Oswald was going to be killed, how? How did he know? Did somebody tell him? Who? What is the basis for claiming it?

And even if you are going to make that ridiculous claim- that Baker knew Oswald was going to be killed- there was no guarantee. Look how many times the CIA tried to kill Castro. But, he wound up living long and dying recently of old age.

But, it is certainly true what I said, that if you are going to accuse Baker of lying, of conspiring with Truly to lie, then you have to place Marrion Baker smack dab into the plot to kill John F. Kennedy. There is no getting around that. 

And that's because: why else would Marrion Baker lie? Why else would Marrion Baker concoct such a story? Why, Backes? Why, WHY WHY?

Some people are just too stupid to be doing this, and Joseph Backes is certainly one of them. And he demonstrates that over and over and over again. 


The only thing I could do to try to create parity between these images is try to make the heads the same size. So, that is what I did.

How can they be the same man when the noses are so different? On both, we can see the right nostril very clearly and completely, and the different in the size and shape of it is startling. On the right, it is cavernous, and on the left it is pinched. 
This is my epilogue to my Bart Kamp critique. After reading what he wrote and writing of it I have to wonder Why WHY WHY anyone would think that these two are the same man, just because Bart Kamp came up with it. 

When you consider how different the heights are, how different the body shapes are, how different the hair is (the hair on the right being very unusual the way it's cut and groomed, especially for an FBI agent), why fall in line to endorse a claim made by Bart Kamp, especially when he provided nothing, not one word, about the origin, history, and providence of the image he supposedly found? 

And since then, I have sent both images to Deputy Jim Bookhout, the son of James Bookhout, giving him the opportunity to endorse Kamp's claim of that being his father, and the other image as well of course, and he declined.  And if they think it's because he's anathema to me, then why didn't they write to him themselves? Why didn't Bart Kamp write to Deputy Bookhout and try to get a confirmation from him before claiming that that's his father? Why didn't Denis Morrissette do it before putting the images up all over the web?

Thursday, October 19, 2017

Off-topic. Time for a Civil War history lesson. So, a school in Mississippi is going to drop "Davis" from its name, in honor of Jefferson Davis, and replace it with Obama. I've said before that I was a Civil War buff before I became a JFK buff. And Jefferson Davis tried very hard to get the Confederacy to abolish slavery. But, the problem was that the Confederate Constitution made the President very weak. He couldn't order it by decree. He had to get the Confederate Congress to approve it, and they wouldn't. And, he took a lot of hell for trying. Then, after the war, Jefferson Davis was tortured. Read this by Clyde Wilson, a true historian, as opposed to a court historian:

But, they never did try Jefferson Davis. In fact, they granted him amnesty in 1869. 

Why did you think they didn't try him? It's because of things that would have come out during his trial. 

The United States was founded on a slave culture: Washington, Jefferson,  Adams, Madison, all bigtime slave owners; talking about freedom and liberty, while owning black people. And how was it justified? By racism (the belief that blacks are "inferior" to whites) and religion (the belief God wanted whites to own blacks, that it was part of his grand plan). 

"To have dominion over the animals and the blacks, the Lord says. The Indians? Well, they don't take to slavery, so let them rot on the reservations, and if they refuse or make trouble, kill 'em."   

Without a doubt, Abraham Lincoln was a racist. Read what esteemed black historian Walter Williams wrote about Lincoln:


Breaking through the mythology.

Steven Spielberg's "Lincoln" has been a box-office hit and nominated for 12 Academy Awards, including best picture, best director and best actor for Daniel Day-Lewis, who portrayed our 16th president. I haven't seen the movie; therefore, this column is not about the movie but about a man deified by many. My colleague Thomas DiLorenzo, economics professor at Loyola University Maryland, exposed some of the Lincoln myth in his 2006 book, "Lincoln Unmasked." Now comes Joseph Fallon, cultural intelligence analyst and former U.S. Army Intelligence Center instructor, with his new e-book, "Lincoln Uncensored." Fallon's book examines 10 volumes of collected writings and speeches of Lincoln's, which include passages on slavery, secession, equality of blacks and emancipation. We don't have to rely upon anyone's interpretation. Just read his words to see what you make of them.
In an 1858 letter, Lincoln said, "I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion neither the General Government, nor any other power outside of the slave states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists." In a Springfield, Ill., speech, he explained, "My declarations upon this subject of negro slavery may be misrepresented, but can not be misunderstood. I have said that I do not understand the Declaration (of Independence) to mean that all men were created equal in all respects." Debating with Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln said, "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of ... making voters or jurors of Negroes nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."
You say, "His Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves! That proves he was against slavery." Lincoln's words: "I view the matter (Emancipation Proclamation) as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion." He also wrote: "I will also concede that emancipation would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition." At the time Lincoln wrote the proclamation, war was going badly for the Union.
London and Paris were considering recognizing the Confederacy and considering assisting it in its war effort.
The Emancipation Proclamation was not a universal declaration. It detailed where slaves were freed, only in those states "in rebellion against the United States." Slaves remained slaves in states not in rebellion — such as Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware. The hypocrisy of the Emancipation Proclamation came in for heavy criticism. Lincoln's own secretary of state, William Seward, said, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."
Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been welcomed in 1776: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. ... Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit." But that was Lincoln's 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives regarding the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.
Why didn't Lincoln feel the same about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What "responsible" politician would let that much revenue go?

Now, to all you hypocrites out there, it's time to take down the Washington Monument, don't you think? Blow it to smithereens! Change the name of the U.S. capitol! Change the name of the state of Washington. Do all of that before you abolish another Confederate remembrance.  
David Caban This pretty much put the nail on the casket of Ruby’s innocence. He had no prior knowledge to anything regarding JFK assassination let alone Oswald demise. Good insight on this particular subject Ralph.
Reply13 hrs
Robert Jordan Good find Ralph Cinque this proves Ruby's innocence ,and that he was drugged out of his mind and kept in the dark and manipulated just like Oswald was
11 hrs
Ralph Cinque Thank you both. Note that the letter was written close to the end since Ruby mentioned 3 years having passed. And he was already convicted and sentenced to death by then. Plus, he wasn't even disputing that he did it. And my point is that there is no basis to think that he was lying. Hooke's claim that Ruby killed Oswald on behest of the Mafia is blown completely out of the water by this. And we're left with the incontestable fact that Ruby had no mental image of having shot Oswald. No memory of doing it and no memory of ever having a thought process to do it. So, what it comes down to is that either he did it in some altered mental state akin to sleep walking or he just didn't do it. And I say it was the latter.