Sunday, May 21, 2017

This 1964 Bossa Nova song by Brazilian composer Marcos Valle is perhaps the second most widely recognized Bossa Nova tune after The Girl from Ipanema. Paul Popa did such an excellent job here accompanying me on guitar, the way he blended and harmonized. I tell you, he's a pro, and I'm just a hack. But, here it is: our version of an absolutely great song that makes you want to sing or dance or sway or do something. You gotta move.  It is, indeed, So Nice.   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8m5M0yJfTX4&feature=youtu.be




The stupid bpunkster. Of all the arrests that police have made, he finds it necessary to refer to another political assassination in order to come up with one in which the suspect was not handcuffed, that of Arthur Bremer, the alleged shooter of George Wallace. 

First, note that there is widespread discussion about Bremer being another Manchurian candidate, MK-ULTRA assassin, like Sirhan Sirhan and Mark David Chapman. So again, we're not talking about something that falls within the normal course of police work, are we. Here's a page from American USSR which discusses Bremer from that perspective.

http://www.americanussr.com/american-ussr-george-wallace.htm

You know, people get subdued by police every day. On a yearly basis, who knows how many tens of thousands it is. So, why does the Punk need to resort to another political assassination? What does that prove? It's the opposite of what this jerk thinks it does. 

But, let's go ahead and make a comparison between the arrest of Arthur Bremer and that of "Jack Ruby". I'm all for it. We'll start with this image.



  First, note that the quality of the footage is EXTREMELY bad, even by 1972 standards. But look above and you'll see something you never see in the Dallas Police Garage: a frontal view of the shooter's face. In Dallas, they were very careful not to show that. The Garage Shooter very conveniently wore a hat, and he wore it low. Then we got back views and side views but absolutely no front views and not even any partially front views. Even though there were cameras shooting from every possible angle, nobody caught his face. So, that's the first thing. Then, notice how low Bremer is. He's on the ground there. He is not on his feet. He is either sitting or kneeling on the ground. He is off his feet. And that's a position that the Garage Shooter was NEVER put in. He remained on his feet all the time in that garage. He was scurried away on his feet. He was never put down on the ground like Arthur Bremer. 


Alright, so he's down on the ground, and the cops are really restraining him. From here, they put him in a police car. But, do you really think that they stood him and did that without cuffing him first? As I said, the film is of such poor quality that you can't visualize it, and there's little that you can visualize. But, it would be very strange if they stood him up from here without cuffing him.

Here's a cop with a choke-hold around Bremer. Do you really think that after that they released him to put him in a police car without cuffing him?


Hey, Punk! I know you're stupid, but try to get it into your head that it does you no good to refer to another orchestrated State shooting. If you get pulled over for smoking too much peyote, and you don't pass the sobriety test, even if you're perfectly docile and cooperative, if they arrest you, they are going to put you in cuffs. And if you pull a gun, getting handcuffed will be the least of your worries. I'm talking about the real world, not the world of political assassinations. Which is not to say that the assassinations aren't real, but the stories they tell of them are not. And frankly, I don't know of any exceptions to that: JFK, MLK, RFK, George Wallace (though he survived, permanently impaired) John Lennon, Ronald Reagan (though he survived and recovered fully). I should add Vince Foster to the list. I think I will. I just did. Consider it done. 

At least we got to see Arthur Bremer's face, which is more than we can say of Jack Ruby during his so-called commission of murder. And it's more than we can say of James Bookhout for the entire JFK assassination and for the rest of his long life. The only images we have of him are from school yearbooks- and they were all altered, every single one.   




This is as close as the garage shooter came to being put down on the ground, which is to say: he never was. He remained on his feet always. It is the ONLY time in the entire history of police work in which a violent offender was taken somewhere without first cuffing him. "Ruby" was never put down on the ground. People talk about it like it happened, but it never did. Instead, he remained on his feet, and they danced him out of there. And it is an outrageous thing. Didn't he just fatally shoot a man? Didn't he try to get off another shot and kill someone else? That's what Jim Leavelle claimed, that were it not for LC Graves locking the barrel of the revolver that "Ruby" would have killed him. So, a guy like that you don't put in handcuffs right away? You waltz him somewhere first, do you? You wait until you get him inside to handcuff him, do you? Why does anyone want to make excuses for this? This is utterly indefensible. And there is only one thing that explains it: the shooter wasn't Jack Ruby. 
There are a lot of idiots in the world, and some of them are criminal punks. Case in point:

A certain bpunked individual thinks he can claim to know that the Oswald-like figure, being allowed into the TSBD, was black. What's he going by? The color of his neck? That doesn't look like a natural color for anyone's skin. Look at the color of his hand. Look how different it is from his neck. So, the odds are very great that that charcoal-colored neck is bogus. Compare it to the color of the neck of the Bonnie Ray Williams figure. He was black. Bonnie Ray was black, and so was this other guy masquerading as him. This was supposed to be 15 minutes after the shooting, and Bonnie Ray Williams was definitely NOT out in front at that time. He said in his testimony that he and Jarman and Norman were detained by police when they came down the stairs from the 5th floor, and that "the police wouldn't let anyone go outside." So, that can't be him even though it's supposed to be. And it can't be Lovelady either because Lovelady left immediately with Shelley for the railroad tracks. And after looking around briefly, they returned to re-enter the building through the back door. And then they were in there for a long time, first guarding the freight elevator, by order of Roy Truly, and then taking police on a tour of the 6th floor. There is NO CHANCE that Lovelady was milling around out in front at the time this clip corresponds to. 

I repeat: The purpose of placing the Oswald-like figure into this phony clip was to provide contrast, a solid pattern in contrast to Lovelady's plaid shirt. 

As for Oswald's shirt, it really wasn't solid; it had a fine, grainy pattern. 

The contrast varied a lot among his pictures as to how much it showed. I wouldn't call that plaid because the lines aren't distinct enough. But, there was definitely variation there, and depending on the lighting, it showed a lot or a little. What we are seeing on Doorman's shirt is Oswald's fine pattern plus some light reflection and generalized distortion from the gross enlargement.

That is the same guy. You can see how much the faces resemble each other. You can see the same shirt, worn the same way, over the white t-shirt. That is Lee Harvey Oswald on both sides of the collage. The brasher contrast on Doorman is due to haze, distortion, and light refection. 

So, you lose again, Punk. You've yet to win. I always get the last word. Then, you move on to something else, but you get defeated at that too. You can't win. You can never win. That's because I'm right, and you're wrong. You are defending the indefensible. Lee Harvey Oswald was standing in the doorway when President Kennedy got shot. If you don't like it, you can always go commit some more interstate crime. But, I don't suggest you try it against me again. I really don't. 

Saturday, May 20, 2017

This is the mother of all Bossa Nova songs, the one that started the craze back in the 1960s. Written in 1962 by the incomparable Antonio Jobim from Rio De Janeiro, it is based on a real experience he had sitting in an outdoor cafe' every day and seeing this beautiful young woman walk by on her way to the beach. And the Girl from Ipanema has been identified. She is Helo Pinheiro, and she is still beautiful today at age 71. 
The Girl from Ipanema has become one of the most recorded songs in music history. It has always been a favorite of mine, and here, I sing it in both English (The Girl from Ipanema) and in Portuguese (Garota de Ipanema). Paul Popa does some classy improvising on guitar here, and my thanks to him. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3n40bcxvOE&feature=youtu.be





It's been pointed out by a friend that the guy being allowed in at the beginning of this clip looks uncannily like Oswald.


I realize we are just seeing him from behind, but he seems about the right height, with a slender build, and wearing a shirt that reminds us of Oswald's. Of course, he is not Oswald, and nobody in this clip is who he is supposed to be: it's not Lovelady; it's not Williams; it's not Arce. The whole thing is fake, and they are all actors. The whole clip is an FBI creation. But, it is curious why they would write it this way. Who is that guy supposed to be being let in? So, it's a police checkpoint 15 minutes after the shooting. So, who would they let in? He's obviously not a fellow officer. He's not an FBI agent. They wouldn't be letting a reporter in. The only thing that comes to mind is: an employee. But, if he was an employee, we would know who he is. It's not like there was another employee there who was dressed like Oswald. 

Who he is is: nobody, because the whole thing is fake. So, don't even waste time trying to actually identify him. All we can do is wonder what they were thinking when they made this goofy thing. Why would they put an Oswald lookalike in it?

Well, let's consider: they put a Lovelady lookalike in it, even though Lovelady was definitely not there at the time. They put a Bonnie Ray Williams lookalike in it, even though he could not have been there at the time. And, they put a Danny Arce lookalike in it, and he couldn't be there either. They put an older guy in a fedora hat in it, and I presume in his case, that they were duplicating Fedora Man in the Altgens photo. They put an old woman in a scarf in it, and I don't know what made them do that. 

But, here's what I'm left with: Their purpose in making this was to defend the idea that Lovelady was the Doorway Man in the Altgens photo. So, they put an Oswald-like character into it, basically just to fuck with people's heads.  There is no legitimate story to explain that guy being let in. YOU NOTICE THAT HIS SHIRT LOOKS SOLID BROWN WHICH STANDS OUT IN CONTRAST TO "LOVELADY'S" PLAID. And the plaidness of "Lovelady's" shirt is the whole raison d'etre for making the clip. So, it's really just a way of highlighting Lovelady's plaid by offering something in contrast to it. And by making the guy look like Oswald, it's sending you the message that Oswald and Lovelady were dressed differently, that Lovelady wore plaid and Oswald didn't. 

In reality, Doorman's shirt does not look plaid. Plaid refers to horizontal and vertical lines crossing and forming boxes, and there is not a single box on Doorman's shirt.


The contrast there is not because the shirt is plaid. The light/dark contrast is due to light reflection and to haze and distortion from the gross photographic enlargement that it is. It's not plaid. It's not plaid. It's not plaid.

But, they thought they could get away with calling it plaid, so they set up that clip to send you the subliminal message that Oswald's shirt was not plaid but Lovelady's was. And that's why they put that Oswald lookalike in it.

Again, it is a phony clip. It isn't Lovelady. It isn't Williams. It isn't Arce. These may have been the first crisis actors.


Friday, May 19, 2017

We all know what time Oswald was brought to the Homicide Bureau. It was 2:00. We can even see it on the goofy "clock on a coat hanger" that they installed into the film just to sell us on 2:00.

OK, so we're sold. So, where was Jack Ruby at 2:00?

According to Morley and Windsor, Ruby was at the Carousel Club at 2:00. According to them, there is a phone record that proves that he called his sister Eileen in Chicago at 2:05 from the Carousel Club, and the call lasted for 8 minutes. And according to them, it is "verified." It's in the phone record of the phone company. 

While Ruby was on the phone with his sister, Alice Nichols called on another line, and at 2:15, he returned the call to Alice.

According to Ruby attorney Elmer Gertz, who wrote Moment of Madness, at 2:30, Jack went to Rita's Delicatessen and bought quite a few food items to take to his sister Eve.

At 2:37, Ruby reportedly called his friend Alexander Gruber in Los Angeles from the Carousel Club.

According to Larry Crafard, Ruby left the Carousel Club shortly after 3 and went to his sister Eve's house. According to her, he only stayed there 8 to 10 minutes. 

You can continue to follow his movements that afternoon:

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

But, at no point did he go to the Dallas Police Department that afternoon. Therefore, this must be a bogus image, that of a Ruby impostor. 






Thursday, May 18, 2017

Jack Ruby did NOT got to the garage with the intention of shooting Oswald, and we know that beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt, because:

1) he brought his dog along
2) he showed up an hour and twenty minutes late

He had to know that if he shot Oswald in a police garage, crowded with police, that the police would arrest him on the spot, and he would never go home. So, why bring the dog? He wouldn't. He couldn't. But, that's only if he was planning to shoot Oswald. If he wasn't going to shoot Oswald, then he brought the dog because he had every expectation of driving home with her. 

And likewise, it was widely publicized that Oswald would be moved at 10 that morning. So, if Ruby were going to shoot Oswald, he would have showed up somewhat before 10. He certainly would not have come an hour and twenty minutes after 10. 

So, there really is NO CHANCE that Ruby went there to shoot Oswald. So, why did he go there? HE DIDN'T KNOW. He honestly didn't know. The only reason he ever gave for walking to the ramp is that the mob of people there attracted him, raised his curiosity. But, as I explained last night, they had no reason to be there. Oswald was NOT going to be brought out that way. He was going to be brought out on Commerce Street, where the Brinks trunk was in the driveway. Those people waiting on Main Street had no reason to be there at all. So, why were they were? They were Ops. They were there for Ruby. He may have been specifically programmed to look for the crowd of people and go to them. And once he got to them, who knows, one or more of them may have coaxed him down the ramp. 

But, Ruby didn't know why he walked down the ramp. He never gave a reason for that, which is to say, he did not have a reason; he did it for no reason. He did it because he was programmed to do it; brainwashed to do it; hypnotized to do it. And that's why he did it. It's the only reason why he did it.   
This is not Jack Ruby. It is a Ruby impostor. And he was planted at the DPD on Friday afternoon. Think about the implications of it.

Since Ruby was being framed on Friday afternoon, the story of Sunday can't possibly be true. Above, he is being made to seem that he is stalking Oswald, obsessed with him. But, since it's not really Ruby then the story is false. And since the purpose of it was to support the Sunday story, the Sunday story cannot be true. 

The notion that anybody put Ruby up to shooting Oswald is ridiculous, and it is the sign of a very weak and stupid mind. Shooting Oswald in a police garage surrounded by policemen meant certain capture, certain prosecution, and certain conviction. Since it would effectively destroy Jack Ruby's whole life, what could they possibly threaten him with if he didn't do it? What could be worse than destroying one's whole life? Do this or else? Or else what? You're as good as dead anyway if you do it. What could be worse than what happened to Ruby? 

And the idea that he did it because they threatened his sister or someone else is equally ridiculous. The people who say that have watched The Godfather too many times. And I would pose the question to you: if someone ordered you: "kill so-and-so or else we'll kill your sister" are you going to do it? Are you going to kill so-and-so?

Don't listen to the very weak minds who advance this crap. Ruby saw no one one from the Mafia that weekend. And, it wasn't the Mafia who planted a Ruby lookalike at the Dallas Police Department. 

Do you realize that Ruby had Dallas police saying things to him that weekend such as, "Someone ought to be a hero and do the world a favor by pumping Oswald full of lead." It was officers of the law who said that to Jack Ruby. Are you starting to get the picture now about who set him up?

But, they only set him up to take the blame, not to actually do it. They didn't need him for that. They didn't want him for that. They knew he wasn't right in his head, so why would they want him firing a gun in a small, cramped, crowded space that included themselves? 

The fact that Ruby was being framed on Friday afternoon tells us that they made plans long in advance to use Ruby as the patsy when they killed Oswald. Think about how much work it was to find that Ruby double. And no doubt he did a lot of special grooming to get that Ruby look.  How did they even find him? They must have done a painstaking search. They probably started months before November 22. So, apparently, it was decided early-on that Ruby would be the patsy for the Oswald murder. And, it's fascinating that both Oswald and Ruby had doubles.  

The story of Oswald's killing is a complete, total, utter lie, and what they showed us on television was nothing but a staged, theatrical spectacle. They were acting. They were all acting. Do you understand that? It may be that, to this day, the Oswald shooting is the most bizarre piece of "fake news" there ever was. 
Jack Ruby did NOT go to the DPD on the afternoon of November 22. But, there are images of him milling around in the hallway there near the Homicide Bureau. What does it mean? It means those images are bogus, that it wasn't him, but rather, a Ruby impostor. Very reliable researchers have done a painstaking gathering of all the evidence of Ruby's activities and whereabouts from November 20 to November 24, and I mean not just hour by hour, but minute by minute. And they explain their methodology at the beginning. Yet, there is not a stitch of evidence that Ruby went to the DPD on Friday afternoon. That guy milling around in the hallway was NOT Jack Ruby, and the implications are searing. Take a look at this.
So, Jack Ruby MUST have been hypnotized to go to the police garage. The plotters were never going to just hope that he went there. They had to be sure he did. And, it had to be THAT WEEKEND that he was hypnotized to do it because it was hoped that Oswald would be killed in the theater. Framing Ruby as Oswald's killer was just Plan B. It didn't materialize until Oswald survived his apprehension by police. 

So, let's see if we can figure when it happened, where it happened, and by whom. Who put him under? Fortunately, there are some painstakingly detailed timelines of Ruby's movements and activities for the whole weekend, that is until, 11:21 Sunday morning. Here is one by M.A. Moyer and Betty Windsor. They explain at the beginning how they went about compiling it.

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

We know that David Ferrie was a hypnotist. Whether he knew and was connected to Jack Ruby is debated. But, I also found out that Jack Ruby had a hypnotist in his employ. He did stage hypnotism at the Carousel Club. His name was William Crowe, and his stage name was Bill DeMar. 

I'll continue with that shortly, but I want to point out something now that is VERY important. In that painstaking timeline by Moyer and Windsor, there is NOTHING about Ruby going to the DPD on Friday afternoon. Do you remember what we were told? That when Oswald was brought to the DPD, getting there about 2 PM from the Texas Theater, that milling around in the hallway near the Homicide Bureau was Jack Ruby.


Here's the link again to the timeline. See if it says anything about Ruby being at the DPD at 2:00 or any time on Friday afternoon. It refers to him attending the Midnight Press Conference that night but not a word about him going to the DPD in the afternoon.

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

So, what does it mean? It means that Ruby did NOT go to the DPD the afternoon of November 22. It means that that guy above was NOT Jack Ruby. He was a Ruby impostor.

Why would they want to make it seem like Ruby was there? It was just to make him seem like he was stalking Oswald, obsessed with him.



Note that Ruby's nose did not hook down bird-like like that. And note that Ruby wasn't as bald as this guy.



So, the guy at the DPD was NOT Jack Ruby. He was a Jack Ruby double. But, the very fact that they had a Ruby double tells you that the official story must be bogus. It must be a lie. That Ruby had a double tells you that he was being set up. And he was set up. He was set up to be Oswald's killer without really being the one who did it.   

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

This song, Besame Mucho, was written in 1940 by a young Mexican woman, Consuelo Velazquez, and it has grown to become the most celebrated, most acclaimed, and most performed and recorded song to ever come out of Mexico. Consuelo was also a very gifted classical pianist who graced the concert stage in Mexico and around the world.  In addition to that, she was very beautiful.



Besame Mucho has been translated into about 50 languages, including English. The English version was sung by Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, Ella Fitzgerald, Sarah Vaughan, and many other greats, including Elvis Presley. It really became a Big Band and Jazz Standard and still is. But, to my ears, this song needs to be sung in Spanish to really get the feel of it. So, that's how I have sung it. And I thank my good friend Paul Popa for adding his guitar sound to it.  

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


I have long suspected, and I feel very strongly, that James Altgens and his wife Clara were murdered with carbon monoxide in 1995. That's because the way their deaths were reported was so evasive elusive, and mysterious that it has all the hallmarks of a cover-up. 

In the earliest reports, there was no mention of carbon monoxide. Then, it was mentioned that police suspected that carbon monoxide played a role in their deaths, but it wasn't conclusive. And then, in the end, they seemed to settle on the idea that they both died of natural causes, that is, sickness and old age, but carbon monoxide was the finishing touch. Clara's own nephew made excuses for them dying, saying that Aunt Clara (age 73) had suffered from heart problems and other health problems for some time. Well, what about Uncle Ike? He have any health problems? 

It was said that a police investigation was underway and that autopsies were being performed. And after that: nothing. Not a peep. We never got the results of the autopsies. We never got the results of the police investigation. The story just died. 

People who die of carbon monoxide poisoning get distinctly pink. Were they pink? It was never mentioned. And if a spontaneous malfunction in their home heating equipment caused this, then why wasn't it investigated? Someone was responsible, and someone should have been held responsible. Hundreds of millions of Americans heat their homes with gas. It is by far the most popular way to heat homes because it's the cheapest. So, when someone dies of carbon monoxide poisoning, it is very important to get to the bottom of it- for the sake of everyone else still living who heats with natural gas. But again, the story just died. 

But, there was a JFK-related murder even after that, that of JFK Jr. in 1999. And the point man on that is John Hankey. If you haven't watched his video, you really should:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vehk03v23y4   

The gist of it is that at 9:39, John contacted the tower at Martha's Vineyard. FAA regulations require that a pilot not descend below 2500 feet without contacting the tower, and John did. Then, at 9:40, the plane began its catastrophic plunge into the sea. 

Coast Guard Petty Officer Todd Burgun reported on television that JFK Jr. made contact with the tower at Martha's Vineyard at 9:39. Did I mention it was televised? John Hankey shows the clip. 



So, there is the existence of the television clip, and what Todd Burgun said in the clip is confirmed by radar information from the NTSB that JFK Jr.'s plane did hold at 2500 feet. What was JFK Jr. holding for at 2500 feet other than to talk to the tower, as required by law?  But, the radar info came later, so how did Todd Burgun know it? He must have been told by the air traffic controllers at Martha's Vineyard that JFK Jr. made contact with them at 9:39. 

But, very quickly, Todd Burgun was taken off the case, and so was the entire Coast Guard. The Pentagon took over- not only the investigation but reporting to the media. Now, why would that be? It wasn't a military thing. It was civilian. But, the guy put in charge, Lt. Colonel Steve Roark, said repeatedly that JFK Jr. NEVER made contact with the tower at Martha's Vineyard. 




No mention was ever made of Todd Burgun's report; it was like it never happened. It was disappeared- except it wasn't. 

Then, this Pentagon spokesman, Richard Larrabee, claimed that the first report of JFK's plane being missing came in at 2 AM. 



Jesus Fucking H. Christ! The family expected them at 10 PM. So no one from the family, either family, contacted authorities about the plane being missing until 2 AM? 

In reality, friends of Lauren Bessette contacted the FAA within minutes of the plane's non-appearance.  And shortly after that, the Kennedys contacted the FAA. And the FAA did nothing. 

How could it be that no one reported the plane missing til 2 AM when Senator Ted Kennedy, himself, contacted the FAA at 11 PM?

At 7 AM, Ted Kennedy called Bill Clinton at the White House, and Clinton ordered the Air Force to start searching for the plane. Jesus Fucking H. Christ. It came to that. 

So, the Air Force starts searching over a vast expanse of area, hundreds of square miles. But, they had JFK's radar blip for the whole duration of his flight, so they knew exactly where it went down. 

This is the official N-Tap radar report that they had, showing JFK Jr.'s plane descending, actually getting a little below 2500 feet and then recovering to 2500 where it held to contact the tower. And then it went into an immediate dive, straight down. 



How do you not know from that where the plane is? Plus, there was the ELT, which is the emergency beacon that the plane gives off in a crash that tells you exactly where the plane is within a few feet. So, they had the N-Tap radar and the ELT, and yet, they still didn't know where the plane was? 

The Air Force kept up its circus search, but when a suitcase belonging to Lauren Bessette washed up on the shore of Martha's Vineyard, the Coast Guard, on its own, found the crash site. The battery from the cockpit voice recorder was missing; therefore, there was no audio. 

Carol Ratowell, a Kennedy family friend, said that she was told a flight instructor was on the plane. And John always flew with a flight instructor. John Hankey goes through all the reasons why there was likely a flight instructor onboard the plane. It would have been listed in the flight log, but they never found that either, even though the bag with the flight log was spotted in the retrieved luggage. The right front seat, in which the flight instructor would have been sitting, was missing from the plane. 

They claimed that the fuel selector valve was turned off, depriving the plane of fuel. Even if that was true, the plane was a good glider, so it would not have plunged even with no fuel at all. But, it takes two simultaneous maneuvers to get the valve to the off position, which means that it can't happen by accident. He would have had to deliberately do it. So, what it means is that the official story has it that JFK Jr. committed double murder and suicide. 

John Hankey's theory is that the flight instructor, whoever he was, was a Manchurian candidate who was programmed to plunge the plane into the sea. And I think it is very credible. And what's the alternative? The fuel valve was turned off, so who did it? Are we really supposed to believe that JFK Jr. committed double murder and suicide? Is that supposed to be more credible? 

But, why did they have to kill JFK Jr.? And by "they" I mean the same people who killed JFK Sr. It was not because JFK Jr. was about to run for office. He wasn't. He made it clear that there was NO CHANCE that he would run against Hillary for the Senate seat in New York. And it stands to reason that he wouldn't. He was friends with the Clintons. He, like they, was a Democrat. He wasn't going to trash Hillary to get elected. And since he didn't seem bent on running for the House, it meant that any Senate run for him was years away. 

But, what he was doing was equally threatening, and it concerned his political magazine, George. He interviewed Oliver Stone, a leading JFK conspiracist. He published a controversial article about the assassination of Menachem Begin which alleged conspiracy and a lone nut patsy.  And he was about to cover the civil trial in the Martin Luther King case, which the mainstream media would ignore but which he was NOT going to ignore. 

And reportedly, "George" was a double entendre, that he was telling the world who killed his father, George Bush. Read:

http://themillenniumreport.com/2016/03/jfk-jr-told-the-world-who-murdered-his-father-but-nobody-was-paying-attention-3/

And that makes the killing of JFK Jr. a JFK assassination killing. So, that means, as late as July 1999, they did a JFK assassination killing. 

Have they done any JFK assassination killings in the 21st century? I don't know. Maybe they have; maybe they haven't. But, one thing I have no doubt of whatsoever; that they would kill again and they will again, if necessary, to suppress JFK assassination truth. 




































Why did Jack Ruby go to the police garage? Do you realize that that has never been satisfactorily answered? 

He didn't go there to shoot Oswald. He couldn't have. He knew Oswald was expected to be transferred at 10:00, so if he intended to shoot Oswald, he would have gotten there by then- or before then. And he had no way of knowing about the delay. How? Nobody could call him. They didn't have cell phones then. Moreover, he brought his dog along, and if he knew he was going to shoot Oswald, he'd have known that he wasn't going home, and rather than bring a dog along, he would have made arrangements for his beloved dogs.

So, why did he go there? The only thing he said about it was that he saw the people gathered at the Main Street ramp and that that attracted his curiosity.

But wait. Why were there people gathered at the Main Street ramp? I can understand why people were gathered at the Commerce Street ramp because Oswald was going to be driven out that ramp. Remember that they had a Brinks truck there, which they backed into the entrance of the Commerce Street ramp, and you could see it there. Then, the plan became that they were going to use that as a decoy and put Oswald in a police car driven by Detective Dhority. Of course, they knew very well that that was never going to happen. But, the point is that all the action was on Commerce Street; not on Main Street. 

And here is another important but rarely mentioned fact: the ramp was one-lane and one-way, and it went from Main to Commerce.


So that was shot from Main Street. You see the cubby-hole on the right where the action took place, and beyond that it leads out to Commerce. You see it has STOP in large letters. You see that it has tire tracks which have darkened the road; and it's only one track. So, it's obviously one-way. Therefore, there was NO CHANCE that those people gathered at the Main Street ramp were going to see Oswald. So, what were they doing there? What were they gathered for?  

It's true that Officer Rio "Sam" Pierce went out that way. But, he had to because the Brinks truck was blocking the exit on Commerce. Besides, he was a cop. No one was going to arrest him for going the wrong way on a one-way road. But, he was there, I suspect, just to distract Roy Vaughn, that is, to create the illusion of distracting Roy Vaughn, so that Ruby "sneaking" in could be sold. You see, Vaughn stepped into the street to help Pierce get out; he needed help, you see. It gave Vaughn an alibi for not stopping Ruby.

But again: why Why WHY were people gathered at that ramp? I suggest that they were all police plants, that it was NOT a spontaneous crowd. The story became that Ruby, who had no intention of doing anything but transact business at Western Union, decided to check out the ramp because there were people there. For that excuse to work, there had to be people there. Hence, they had people there. There was no other reason for them to be there. 

Still, this was a plot; a DPD plot. And you can't tell me that they hoped that Ruby would just see the crowd of people there and be mesmerized. Surely, they weren't going to depend on that. They had to KNOW in advance that he was going to enter that garage. They had to KNOW he was going to do it long before he knew he was going to do it. So, how could they know it?

I've been thinking about it for a long time, but now I'm ready to make a categorical statement. It was by HYPNOSIS. Jack Ruby must have been hypnotized. They knew Jack Ruby was going to go to the police garage because they hypnotized him to go there. 

He had no conscious plan of going there. His roommate George Senator was home that morning. And Senator was a witness to everything: the call from Karen Carlin, then Ruby's decision to go to Western Union. But, Senator never said that Ruby said that after Western Union he was going to go to the police garage. And again, why would he? Why, if Oswald was expected to be moved at 10 would Ruby expect to see him at 11:15? And other than seeing Oswald, what reason would Ruby have had to go to the police garage on a Sunday morning? For what other purpose? 

As always, when I get an idea, I want to see if anybody else got it before me, and in this case, somebody did. Here is an article from Rense about Ruby being a Manchurian candidate. 

http://www.rense.com/general31/rubyh.htm

Of course, the article proposes that Ruby was programmed, through hypnosis/mind control to go there and shoot Oswald. And maybe it's true. But, it doesn't mean that Ruby actually shot Oswald. He didn't. The Garage Shooter was Oswald was James Bookhout. 

And it makes no sense that they would hypnotize Ruby to shoot Oswald and actually let him go through with it. Why? BECAUSE IT WAS TOO DANGEROUS. It could easily go wrong. Someone else could get hurt- or killed. They weren't going to take a chance like that. 

The people at the Main Street ramp were all police plants and NOT spontaneous gatherers. And the people at the bottom of the ramp were all police plants too and not regular newsmen. This had to happen beforehand. It was well before 11:15. It may have been 10:15. 

So, they programmed Ruby to GO THERE, but did they also program him to shoot Oswald? Well, if they did, they must have made sure his gun was empty. We know that no shot went off during this opening act which came before the headliner. 

Remember that a person doesn't remember what he's doing under hypnosis. Ruby kept saying afterwards, "it's all a blur; it's all a blur; it's all a blur." That is consistent with being under hypnotic influence.  

My hunch is that they did hypnotize Ruby to shoot Oswald, but how far it went is in question. Did he take the gun out? Did he point it? Did he pull the trigger? I don't know. But, what I do know is that they were fully aware of him, and they were ready to pounce on him the moment he began to act.

Another interesting question is whether Oswald was there. Ruby reported not recognizing anyone in the garage. But, Ruby knew many cops who were in the garage at the televised shooting, including Blackie Harrison, Jim Leavelle, and more. So, were they not there? Did they have different people there when Ruby was there? And if they weren't there, then maybe Oswald himself wasn't there, and they used a double instead. That's entirely possible. 

All of this happened before the televised shooting. Then Ruby was hastened away to the 5th floor- out of sight. With that out of the way, they could get on with the main act, which was the ruse seen on national television. 

Jack Ruby MUST have been HYPNOTIZED. It's how they got him to the garage. But, they weren't stupid enough to have a hypnotized person fire a loaded gun. Remember that they themselves, the Dallas Police, were in harm's way. There is no way they would have let Ruby actually do it, fire a live round. They didn't need him for that. They needed him only to take the blame for it. Jack Ruby was framed, just like Lee Harvey Oswald was framed, except that they went about it in a radically different manner. Lee Oswald was NOT hypnotized; Jack Ruby was.     






Tuesday, May 16, 2017

Another consideration that bears on this discussion of the shirts, and again, I do mean shirts, plural, because that's what we're looking at, is the fact that the images of Oswald's shirt at the time were taken with 1963 photography or film. And we all know how poor the quality was. But, this image was taken with 2013 photography.


Plus, I'll remind you that some of the images from the JFK assassination were deliberately blurred, such as the Dave Wiegman film.


That is Lee Harvey Oswald there in plain view, so they had to obscure him and distort him, and obviously, they couldn't do it to him in isolation. So, the result is that there are no discernible faces. This was taken by NBC. That's NBC News. Don't you think they could have and would have provided Wiegman with the best equipment available?

The best quality footage is that of "Lovelady" in the doorway, (you know, like "Ruby" in the garage) which first surfaced in 1966, so three years later, in response to Harold Weisberg bellyaching that Lovelady wore a short-sleeved striped shirt.


  
Never mind the fact that that guy smoking in the flashy red shirt isn't Lovelady and that Lovelady wasn't there at the time but rather inside the building guarding the freight elevator and then giving police a tour of the 6th floor. And never mind the fact that that is supposed to be Bonnie Ray Williams on the left in the brown shirt, and he was skinnier than that, much skinnier, and he was up on the 5th floor watching the motorcade, and when he came down the stairs he ran into police who stopped him and Jarman and Norman and took their statements. And, he said, specifically, that they wouldn't allow anyone to go outside. And never mind the fact that the pale guy in black with the black hair with his head turned is supposed to be the very dark-skinned Danny Arce who said that, like Lovelady and Shelley, he went up to the railway area to look around after the shooting and then around to the back door to re-enter the building and was not milling around out in front. And never mind the fact that the others also are of doubtful authenticity. For instance, the old guy in the fedora hat: who is he and what did he want? You know he didn't work there. If he worked there, we'd know who he was. And who is the old woman on the right? You know she didn't work there. Who is the woman in the curlers? She came to a Presidential motorcade with curlers? Who is the woman in the scarf? At this point, it was what? In the 70s? What did she need the scarf for? Windy was it? Muslim was she? But, never mind never-minding any of it. Mind it all. It's bogus. The whole clip is a bogus pile of crap. But image-wise, it is probably the best there is from the whole JFK assassination. And they tried to tell us that it was taken with the camera of postal employee Jack Martin.



I dare say that the image on the left was not taken with the same camera as the image on the right. 

But, I digress. Let's get back to the image of the Newseum shirt.


Note that the shirt is on a makeshift torso, so we are seeing it being worn. So, what excuse is there for not showing the way Oswald wore it?


You see how it's all folded over, right? You see how soft the shirt was, including the collar, which enabled it to do that. Do you think this shirt could do that?


Of course it couldn't; not in a million years. It is a standard American shirt. And that is the big lie: that Oswald wore a standard American shirt. He did not. His shirt came from Russia, and it got here the same way he did.



Notice in the above image that Oswald has a "lapel" comparable to and similar to that of Detective Boyd who is wearing a jacket. Could this shirt do that?


Again, not in a million years. It is a standard American shirt. They have been lying to us about this for 53 years and counting. 


And I don't think we should assume that anything about this image is an accident. For instance, what is causing the unusual lightness in the shirt pattern on the left side, that is, our left? Is that supposed to be a lighting effect? But, they were in control of the lighting. And look at the focused ball of light on the right sleeve, and again, that is our right. That obviously is due to light, but what light? Was it just an accident? Huh. Yeah, it was just an accident like what happened to Kennedy was an accident. And by the way, none of the color differences we see can be attributed to wear because there is also this image of the shirt:



That, believe it or not, is supposed to be the same shirt. It reminds me of UT's burnt orange. Hook em Horns. 


Do you think Oswald's shirt was as flashy as that? Of course not, and the other image proves it.



And it shows that when the lying Nazi American government lies, it does so in spades and with complete abandon. And they have their formerly jackbooted bpetes to target and harrass and commit crimes against people like me, and traveling interstate to do it, which makes it a federal crime. But, that's what we are dealing with: a Nazi regime, and one that most certainly killed John F. Kennedy. How ironic that Kennedy's own murderers were in charge of the investigation into his death. And they have been in charge of the cover-up from the beginning, which continues unabated to this very day. But, it's hopeless for them. They have as much chance of surviving as the German Nazis or the Russian Soviets.  The truth about what really happened is, like the genie, already out of the bottle. And there is no getting her back in. Oh, how sweet it is. Barring my assassination, I expect to live long enough to see the whole edifice of lies crumble. 

  


Monday, May 15, 2017

This is a continuation of the discussion of Oswald's shirt, but the bottom line is this: Oswald's shirt was uniquely Russian. He brought it back with him from Russia. It was not an American shirt. However, from the beginning and all along, they have been displaying American shirts to us, that is, standard American shirts. But, Oswald's Russian shirt was different, being made of soft, pliable material, including the collar and including the placket down the middle. And that's what enabled it to fold over and look like the lapel of a jacket. There are no American shirts that do that; not then, and not now. They had to hide that fact. So, they have been throwing American shirts at us and changing them repeatedly but never once showing us Oswald's actual shirt. That's because OSWALD'S SHIRT WAS HIS ALIBI; he was wearing it in the doorway.

 http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/05/this-image-here-shows-pockets-on.html
This image here shows the pockets on Oswald's shirt better, that is, compared to the other images. And as expected, they are equal. 


So now, let's look at the Newseum shirt again.


That is an inexplicable and indefensible difference, and I challenge anyone to produce another shirt with such an unexplained disparity in the pockets. 

Here is another image showing Oswald's shirt, showing how subtle the pockets were. 



And here's one more:




It's interesting how on this one, his right pocket on our left stands out more than the other one which is extremely faint. But, undoubtedly, his pockets were equal, and there is no excuse for the disparity we see here.



And note that from what we are seeing here, even the shape of the faint pocket on the left is wrong. On the right the pocket appears very wide, with short length and an oval shape. But, on the left the faint pocket seems much longer than it is wide, and we don't see any of the ovalness at the bottom.


So, there is no defending this. It is NOT Oswald's shirt. Oswald's shirt was made of a soft material that folded over very easily. It's not true of that shirt. What do you think would happen if you folded the collar? As soon as you let go, it would pop back. It would never do this:


Look at the way it's folded over, from the collar on down, like the lapel of a jacket. American shirts don't do that; not now, and not then. This shirt couldn't do it:


Obviously, it couldn't do this.
Go to your closet right now and try to get any shirt you have to do it. The stiff collar and hard placket prevents it from happening. This shirt below is a standard American shirt. It couldn't possibly do that. 


But, this is a Russian shirt. Oswald got it when he was in Russia. Even Marina has admitted that he brought it back with him from Russia.

So, the big lie, which they have been telling for 53 years and counting, is that Oswald wore a standard American shirt such as this one:


 But, he did not wear such a shirt. He wore a Russian shirt, with soft, pliable, bendable material, that gave it the look of a jacket.


Are you aware that several people described Oswald's shirt as a jacket? One of them was Officer Marrion Baker, who was the first person to see Oswald after the slaughter on Elm Street. Baker described Oswald's shirt as a brown jacket. 
And it's understandable that he would. Doesn't it look like a jacket? 


And it's hardly surprising that Baker did not recognize this shirt, which is another standard American shirt and not Oswald's shirt.

Lies, lies, lies. Blood, blood, blood. And the bloodied continue to kill John Kennedy each and every day, with many being paid to do it. And they are still committing crimes to suppress JFK truth. Will they kill again? They have killers in their employ, I know that. I wouldn't put it past them to kill again. And I live every day of my life in full awareness of that.