Wednesday, May 31, 2017

John McAdams 
9:18 PM (34 minutes ago)
On 31 May 2017 22:15:09 -0400, Ralph Cinque <>
- show quoted text -
I've afraid this is all bogus.  The fellow in North Carolina got drunk
and called the Dallas jail.  Some operator got outgoing and incoming
calls mixed up.


Ralph Cinque:

John, Oswald had both phone numbers memorized. He had them in his head. We have it, in writing, the numbers he gave the DPD switchboard operator.

919 834 7430
919 833 1253

How did Oswald have those two accurate numbers for John Hurt, John? And how come he had them memorized? It's not as though he had his address book with him. He had them in his head. 

We have the handwritten record of the switchboard operator, L. Sweeney, trying to make the calls for Oswald until the cops stopped her. 

The drunken call is a revisionist story. It didn't come out until years later. There is a bogus story involved here, John. You just don't know which one it is. 
A very important video has been brought to my attention. It is so important, I have sent it out to the OIC members, with this intro:

I  have been made aware of a very important Youtube video which I wish to bring to your attention. It features OIC member Jim Marrs, but the main speaker is Doctor Grover Proctor, and what he talks about his Oswald's attempted call to US intelligence agent John Hurt in North Carolina the night of November 23. It was the night before Oswald was killed. 

Dr. Proctor provides evidence that Oswald definitely tried to make the call, that it was outgoing. He also explained why he thinks that John Hurt was probably Oswald's "cut-out". He said that in the intelligence world, they put a buffer between the mole (Oswald) and his handlers, and this buffer was called a cut-out. That's all Hurt was, says Proctor. Then, he quoted Victor Marchetti who said that back in the '50s, the Office of Naval Intelligence had a program being run out of Nags Head NC that involved recruiting disaffected serviceman and sending them to Russia as false defectors. And it was the same area code as the call to Hurt!  Then, he cites someone else who claimed to have seen Oswald at Nags Head. 

And he finished with a very interesting and eerie question: 
Was Oswald really an intelligence agent, or was he just someone who was being made to think he was an intelligence agent, when he really was just an intelligence pawn? Dr. Proctor thinks it's the latter.

But, here's something he didn't say, which I am saying: 

Oswald must have tried to reach out to Hurt to get get him off the hook, to tell the DPD and FBI that Oswald worked with US intelligence, and there's no way he would have shot, or did shoot, the President. But, isn't it likely that Oswald would have told his interrogators, "Listen, I am going to call a US intelligence agent, and he can contact the people in US Intelligence who will vouch for me and tell you that I am working with them and that I didn't do this." 

If the aim of the call was to get US Intelligence to vouch for him, why wouldn't Oswald tell his interrogators?

So, I think he did tell them. "I work for U.S. Intelligence." He probably cited Hurt's name, and he may have cited other names. Of course, none of it got written down in anyone's notes or report.      

The Dallas Police stopped the call from going through. But, I would suggest to you that the urgency to kill Oswald was based partly on this. And they had to know that once he got a lawyer, he would surely tell the lawyer the same things, and it would all come out, and I mean publicly. They could not let that happen. So, they had to kill him.

And that brings us to Jack Ruby. Poor Jack Ruby. He showed up at that garage within an hour before the televised spectacle. They went through an act with him, which he, in his demented, drugged state could not figure out, in which they arrested him for shooting Oswald. When Ruby kept saying to them, "What are you doing? You know me. I'm Jack Ruby." why did he say that? If he had just shot Oswald, he would have known why they were pouncing on him. Wouldn't he? But, he hadn't, and he honestly didn't know why they were doing it. So, they rush him out of there, take him up to the 5th floor for processing, and then shortly later, put on the spectacle with Bookhout. That is really what happened. And to ANYONE, including all of you, if you think you "see" Jack Ruby in that garage, you are only "seeing" him with your mind. Not with you eyes. There is absolutely nothing about the Garage Shooter that visually defines him as Jack Ruby. And if you look closely, you'll see that he has features that split from Ruby. 

Here is Dr. Proctor's excellent video:

This image of so-called "Jack Ruby" on the right is ridiculous. It's like a cartoon. Nobody's neck is that straight, and Ruby's certainly wasn't, as you can see on the left. So, besides having a scruffy neck (scruffy with fuzzy hair growth) he had an anatomically normal neck, unlike the freak on the right. And not only is his neck freaky, but so is his head. Notice on the left how the back of Ruby's head bulges out past his neck. That is normal. It's normal on everybody. On the right, he's like a cartoon character with an impossibly straight neck and an impossibly flat head. It is a highly manipulated image. And if you wondering why they gave him that high, horizontal hairline and cleanly razored neck, it's because that's how Bookhout was. It's not how Ruby was; it's how Bookhout was; and they wanted to make him consistent with the short pudgy "Ruby" who rushed Oswald. Of course, his ear is terribly distorted with inky black shadow obscuring the crater of his ear. His whole ear is a monstrosity. They apparently tried to make it look like Ruby's, but failed miserably, and who knows what it looked like originally. That guy was most definitely not Jack Ruby, and he's not close to looking like Jack Ruby. It is a joke, a farce, and an absurdity to claim that he is Jack Ruby. You really have to be dense to say such a thing; or just plain wicked. Oh, but for the evil of it all. Heaven help us for what we have been through. 

Tuesday, May 30, 2017

May 29
- show quoted text -
A blurry screen capture of a YouTube video does not a stiff neck make.

I think a better reference is in the King James Version of the Bible where
two individuals discuss OIC Senior Members..." And the Lord said unto
Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people:" 

Ralph Cinque:

Blurry is it? You've used much blurrier images at your convenience. But, you are being ridiculous because there is nothing blurry about the presentation of his neck. We can see it plain as day, and it is impossibly straight and nothing whatsoever like Ruby's neck.

So, in this case, blurriness is just an excuse. You are just playing the blurry card because you don't have anything else. If you were smarter, you would know better than to respond to this. 
1:47 PM (4 hours ago)
- show quoted text -
From your source..."In the 1960s, new fibers were discovered that made
truly bullet resistant vests possible." one manufacturer and then explain why the DPD didn't have

Ralph Cinque: 

They surely had something, and they could have put it on him. Would it have hurt? No. And if they perceived the danger to be so great as to require half the department to be there to "protect" Oswald, then why do it at all? Why not just move Oswald unannounced in the dead of night and then announce it the next day? And if any reporter complained about it, there are things you can say in response to that. You can't post them here, but you can say them. 
Paul Stevens Great image. Graves on the left (our rt) is just sleepwalking. Oswald's face is acknowledging.

LikeShow more reactions
ReplyMessage45 mins
Oswald Innocence Campaign Paul, that is such a great comment: Oswald's face is acknowledging. Yes, indeed, he is definitely acknowledging what they are about to do. Look at that look! He is looking at someone he knows, someone with whom he is involved, someone who knows something that he knows, someone who anticipates the same thing that he does. Great parsing, Paul. And how could it be Jack Ruby? How, at that point, could Oswald expect anything from Jack Ruby? What, to kill him? To free him? He would never have looked at Jack Ruby like that. He and the guy he's looking at were plotting something together. They were co-conspirators at something. That's what the look is telling us. All of that is contained in that look. And no way would he have given that look to Jack Ruby.  

6:28 PM (5 hours ago)
On Saturday, May 27, 2017 at 7:03:11 PM UTC-7, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> There are plenty of indications that James Bookhout was short: the image of him following Oswald's stretcher as it left the jail office;

So, let me get the straight. You're claiming James Bookhout, dressed like
Jack Ruby, leapt out from the group of reporters in the city hall basement
and shot Oswald. Then after having been mobbed and subdued by the Dallas
Police, and taken away, he then re-appeared a few minutes later and
escorted Oswald's stretcher onto the ambulance in front of the same group
of reporters and policeman that had just watched him shoot Oswald? That
has to be one of the most ridiculous theories I've ever come across. If
you don't see how silly this all is, there's no hope you'll ever get it. 

Ralph Cinque: 

Sparta, you have the essentials right, but no, it is not ridiculous. It is what happened. We never see the Shooter's face in the garage. And the cops were in on it, so they certainly were never going to say anything. And the reporters were carefully selected because they were team players, totally supportive of whatever the government said. 

So, to repeat the good parts of what you said, James Bookhout, dressed like Jack Ruby, did lean out from the line of cops and reporters in the City Hall basement and shoot Oswald. I should add, however, that it was just a blank and that Oswald was shot for real afterwards. So, it was all a ruse. It was a made-for-television spectacle. Then, Bookhout was mobbed by police, who under normal circumstances would certainly have handcuffed him in the garage. But, they didn't. Instead, they herded him out of the garage and into the jail office like a herd of penguins. It's the one and only time in police history that such a thing was done. And once inside they swifted him away but not before taking a picture of him with Detectives Boyd, Sims, and Hall, which we have, and it is definitely not Jack Ruby. 

That is NOT Jack Ruby. That image is consistent with the yearbook images we have of James Bookhout. 

And then, once released, he went down to the jail office and followed Oswald's stretcher out, as he said he did. And he looks nervous there too. 
These are the same guy. The top is pre-release and the bottom is post-release. 

But, the other cops were certainly not going to rat Bookhout out. They were all on it. This was a joint DPD/FBI operation. Bookhout changed his clothes, even his hat, which he wore low.  Again, he does look nervous and uncomfortable, and notice that he is looking down. But, in that circumstance, in that milieu, who was going to think he was the Garage Shooter? If there were any innocent people there at that point, THEIR MINDS WOULDN'T EVEN GO THERE. Not for one second were they even going to contemplate it. The whole thing was deliberately done and photographed and filmed in such a way that Bookhout would not be recognized; not immediately; not later; and not ever. They were wrong about the latter, but they weren't wrong in thinking that most people (like you) would never consider it, not in a million years, because it is outside the limits of their cognition. And guess what, Sparta? Good news. I'm making you famous.   

Monday, May 29, 2017

Is this an image of Jack Ruby in Dealey Plaza? The time was one or two hours after the shooting. I don't know the exact frame. I know it is from a Phil Willis slide.

I know that Mark Lane believed that that was Jack Ruby. I don't know what to think. I don't see any dealbreakers. So, it could be Jack Ruby, as far as I'm concerned. But, I don't think it's definitive. I don't think there is enough visual data there to be certain that it is Jack Ruby. 

But, I haven't seen any other images of Jack Ruby in sunglasses. Oh wait. Except, of course for the one from the police garage, this guy:

Those sunglasses are fake. They were put there to obscure the face of that man, whoever he really was. So, did they do the same thing here?

Again, I don't think there is enough there to claim that that was Jack Ruby. But, it is a very weird image.

What is that? What is that white thing below his head? Is it possible that head was pasted in there? 

Again, I would never claim to know that that was Ruby, but also again, no dealbreaker jumps out at me. I would be more impressed if we had other images of Ruby wearing those thick-rimmed sunglasses. Furthermore, if that was Ruby, and they didn't want him seen, they would have cropped the photo. My gut feeling is that it is NOT Ruby. If I was forced to bet one way or the other, I would bet that it is not him. But, I would rather not bet.  
I think it is very possible and likely that they altered this image, extending and enhancing the hair of the man closest to us, in order to conceal Leavelle's eyes and also Oswald's eyes.

The Wizard notes that this image was shown at Ruby's trial. I maintain that this man's head is too flat on top, and his hair is obviously bulging on the left side. It is conveniently covering up Leavelle's eyes and hiding the fact that he was glancing to his right as "Ruby" was approaching from his left. If you look closely, you can see the true margin of that guy's head and the extra layer of fuzz they added to it, all the way around. And then on the left, there is the big bulge they added. We can't see Leavelle's eyes, but we can tell that his head is turned to his right, and it was. Other frames prove it. And Oswald is turned the other way, to his left, and his eyes are peering at Bookhout. Look how short Bookhout is compared to Blackie Harrison, who is to his right. "Sunglasses Ruby" was nowhere near that short compared to Harrison. 
The Wizard has found another gem. Does anyone have the audacity to claim that Oswald didn't know the man he was gazing at here? Of course, he knew him. He was James Bookhout, and the whole thing was staged. Oswald was in on it too, although he must have thought that they were going to get him out of there.  

Very high value evidence here from The Wizard. It gives us the complete showing of "Sunglasses Ruby" as the Wizard calls him. And it shows how NBC did the break right between the last frame of Sunglasses Ruby and the start of the Garage Shooter's (James Bookhout) bolt to Oswald. So, we never see the transition. We never see Sunglasses Ruby rush Oswald because he did NOT rush Oswald. A different man, the Garage Shooter, who was James Bookhout, did.  So, they gave us a break and photographic noise to cover that up. The Wizard speaks!

"Ralph, after seeing your recent blogpost, I thought that this might be a good time to note that the moment between the “Sunglasses Ruby” and Garage Shooter apparitions is where the suspicious edit/zoom in the NBC film occurs. You never get to see “Sunglasses Ruby” rush Oswald. In 1963, you had to rotate the face of the TV camera to zoom in, and in the 2003 Gary Mack TV re-enactment, they made a big deal of this to “explain” the edit.  The NBC edit also removed Oswald’s glance to the left- at Bookhout."

Ralph Cinque: It's obvious that they finessed the transition between Sunglasses Ruby (with his ridiculous fake sunglasses, and note that the Garage Shooter had regular reading glasses in his jacket pocket, not sunglasses, and if anyone tries to tell me that that is shadow around his eyes, it is going to get ugly) and the Garage Shooter who was James Bookhout. 

Sunday, May 28, 2017

This collage shows the difference in height between the early, "catchers mitt face Ruby" who was tall and the later "Pillbury doughboy" Ruby who rushed Oswald. Fortunately, there is a man there that we can use as a measuring stick, and he is the photographer who is visible in both images. He is standing down from Ruby, meaning closer to us, where Ruby is the next person farther from us. So, that photographer is visible in both images. In the one with Catcher's Mitt, he is shorter than "Ruby". In the one with pudgy Bookhout, he is taller. There is no way that they were the same guy. And note that most of the films don't show Catcher' Mitt Ruby, and often he gets cropped out. Apparently, they aren't tickled pink about selling him any more, and I can't say I blame them for that, although I blame them for a hell of a lot, including killing Kennedy and Oswald.

Robert Glenn And this guy's jowels seem more profound than what Ruby seemed to exhibit.
Reply1 hr
Ralph Cinque That's a good point, Robert. You're really left with nothing to match to Jack Ruby. He's way too tall. This guy was almost as tall as Blackie Harrison, who was a giant. It is "other-worldly" to claim that he is Jack Ruby. But, neither was he the short tyke who rushed Oswald. What I think is that this was a guy who was there who they just decided to turn into Jack Ruby. His eyes were different so they gave him sunglasses to cover them up- a photographic trick. They gave him that weird neck in back, not to match Ruby, but to match Bookhout because he was razored like that. They altered his ear to make it kinda like Ruby's, though it sure looks a mess. And the way they slapped disparate pieces together, they wound up with that ridiculous spread between his sideburn and his ear. The whole image of this guy is a monstrosity. Who knows what they started with. This may be the weirdest piece of photographic shit in the JFK assassination.

From the side, nobody's neck is that vertical, and Ruby's certainly wasn't. The cervical spine has a lateral curve which reflects its natural convexity. It's not like a straight column of blocks. The guy on the right is like a cartoon character. He can't possibly be real. Why would anyone think that he is Jack Ruby? The only reason for doing so is because Officialdom says so. Are you going to fall for that?
Look how distorted and grotesque the ear is. It can't possibly be real. This guy's ear must have been enormously different from Ruby's, and this was their pathetic attempt to make it look like his, in case anybody checked.

The other Ruby impostor in the garage, who is not the one who rushed Oswald, is a highly manipulated image. Look at the distance between his sideburn and his ear. It is impossibly wide. No one is built that way. Look in the mirror at yourself. You can't find me another image like this in the world, unless it's a cartoon. And notice how beveled his sideburn is. That's not how Ruby's was. The sunglasses are most likely fake. Why would he be wearing them in that dark garage? Again, i it is a highly manipulated image, and it is preposterous to think that he was Jack Ruby. He's too tall to be Ruby. The vertial lines in his face do not correspond to Ruby. There is just no basis at all to claim that he is Jack Ruby.

Saturday, May 27, 2017


6:38 AM (6 hours ago)

- show quoted text -
That's not what you said originally Raff*. You said that you asked for a
picture and he said he didn't have one. Nothing strange there.

You have a co-worker saying he was no less than 6 ft. That's evidence of
him being no less than 6 feet. What evidence do you have that he was 5'

Ralph Cinque:

There are plenty of indications that James Bookhout was short: the fact that he had to stand on a pedestal to see James Hosty in the hallway; the fact that he couldn't see JFK during the motorcade because of people who were standing in front of him; the image of him following Oswald's stretcher as it left the jail office; the image of Oswald going to talk to him in the hallway before the Sat. 6:30 interrogation, and each of those images confirms the other. There is NO ONE ELSE but James Bookhout that those images could be. That a co-worker said he was no less than 6 feet means nothing. Why? Because there is this thing people do called LYING, and it is my strong conviction that that retired FBI agent is doing just that.