This collage really shows the contrast between Bookhout and Ruby regarding the shape of the head. 

It's obvious that the man on the right had a longer, narrower face compared to the round face on the left. Obviously, Ruby's nose was much wider, with bigger nostrils. And his neck was longer too. It's very obvious that they are two different men. 

Another researcher sent me this letter from the WC document pile concerning Jack Ruby. It says he was drugged with something called T2KL. I could find no other reference to it. But, it seems like this letter was written in code. Look at the names. Who could have names like that?

The Wizard speaks....

Ralph

We did Turner briefly in October after 'Professor' Norwood tried to use him as evidence of Jack Ruby going down the ramp, but, as you see, Turner has effectively ID-ed Bookhout, not Ruby. Did not recognize the face, he did recognize the hat, recognized Bookhout's heavy frame and, as a huge bonus, thought that the shooter was wearing an overcoat, or long coat. This reflected the fact that Bookhout was 5' 6" but wearing a jacket that seemed to go down rather farther than the ideal length for a person of that height. 

So he arrived 3-4 seconds before the attack? I think that we can put this ramp matter to rest. Bookhout was hovering outside, waiting for a signal: in fact, he probably got three: a visual signal from outside or a window, a blast on a car horn and the car exiting the Main Street ramp with a maximum of fuss: making the TV people get out of the way, screeching its brakes and making the tires screech, on the ramp. He could also probably hear Petitt shouting: 'I want it! Give it to me!' Signal for the calm and level-heaved Bookhout to take the stage. He spent 3-4 seconds waiting beside reporters, lunged forward, fired the shot and, 3 seconds after the lunge, he had taken his dive into the swarm of cops. It was a 6-7 second appearance, backs to the cameras, and video later massaged.

Yes, I think that we have figured that one out.

Wizard 

Write a comment...

Timothy Mikla RC...You do great work! Absolutely amazing stuff. I think Oliver Stone said it best that America is living in denial pertainping to the assassination of JFK. The whole oswald garage shooting drama is kabooki theater once you see it for what it is...a manufactured scene to deceive. The sack over the head of the shooter is what does it for me. As to if Oswald is really shot I must say he does look ashen even through the black and white tv. Love the new jfk show as well...

Like

 · Reply · Message · 2 hrs

Manage

Oswald Innocence Campaign Thank you, Timothy. I think that, most likely, Oswald was shot in the police station after they went inside. Maybe they stuck a hypodermic in his arm with a sedative to knock him out. Remember that we never see Oswald in the jail office. We see cops huddling around, supposedly gazing down at him on the floor, but who knows if he was really there at the time. But, it is absolutely certain that Oswald was shot. They couldn't let him live. And I don't fault the Parkland doctors in any way. They obviously had him there in the condition that they said he was in. But, it is extremely unlikely that Oswald was shot during the spectacle. It was too dangerous; too uncertain; and too crude a way to do it. They needed a surgical shot. It would have been a disaster for them if Oswald had survived. They had to make certain that he would die from it- despite medical efforts to save him.

I am very pleased to announce that Robert Jordan is the newest senior member of the Oswald Innocence Campaign.

Robert is a computer engineer in his regular life. But, he has been studying the JFK assassination since he was a teenager, and he is very well read on the subject. On Facebook, Robert has given me strong support, backing me up, and often offering enhancements to my work, such as this one:

That is Robert's approximation of the division between the two hands being clasped in the Bob Jackson photo. It's not Oswald's arm or hand. He didn't do that. He didn't slap his arm to his chest. We can see in the films that he didn't do that. But, they wanted to cover up the area of impact to account for the fact that we see no trauma to Oswald- or his clothing. So, that's why they stuck that arm there. And the "hand" is nothing short of a monstrosity. It's like something out of Frankenstein. 

So, thank you, Robert. I know you've got my back, and I appreciate it. We are taking this to the end: to the total destruction of the official story of the JFK assassination.  

I spent all of $10 on Facebook to promote my Oswald presentation on Infowars, and the results were that I got 35 Likes or Loves and 12 shared it.

And that is why my enemies are helpless and hopeless to stop what's coming, because: REGULAR PEOPLE RESPOND TO THIS. Outside the bizarro world of JFK-land, people respond to this; they see what I see. And more are going to see it; many more.  

This is gold! It's the testimony of WBAP cameraman Jim Turner who claimed to see Ruby come down the ramp:

Mr. TURNER. ……Mr. Tom Pettit of NBC, which was our newsman
from NBC. He was hollering to me, "Tell them in New York to give it to me."
Mr. HUBERT. That is to say that you would go live on the national?
Mr. TURNER. That's right. We'd go live on the national network.

RC: So, another urgent call to go live when all it was was Oswald being walked 30 feet to a car and then driven away. 

Mr. Turner: So, I was  talking on the direct line to him. The police car left out sometime in that
excitement, going up the exit the wrong way. I mean the entrance the wrong
way.
Mr. HUBERT. Going up towards Main Street?
Mr. TURNER. That's right, which was different from the one, because we had
always seen them come down it, and that was the first time we noticed them
going out of it.
Mr. HUBERT. Did that car have any difficulty going up?
Mr. TURNER Come to think of it, I think he did. I remember a lot of wheels
spinning or something.
Mr. HUBERT. Anyway, what you are saying is, that the movement of that car
attracted your attention, is that correct?
Mr. TURNER. There was some brakes squealing or tires spinning at that time.
Mr. HUBERT. Did you follow with your eyes?
Mr. TURNER. I followed him as far as I could now, there was some more
commotion started a little before that of them bringing a truck in, backing
an armored truck in from the exit side of it, which they were having a
difficult job of getting this truck in. Now, this all happened--I can't
tell you the exact time, because it is all vague in my mind.
Mr. HUBERT. Let's go back to the police car going up the Main Street ramp
towards Main Street, did you follow it with your eyes?
Mr. TURNER. I followed it not only to about a point to where the drive had
started up, because it was impossible----
Mr. HUBERT. To the point where the ramp starts to go up?
Mr. TURNER. Uphill, the slope up, which was this column here had sort of
blocked our view from----
….and, I was standing up at the front of point "4", on the left side
of the camera, which was right next to the column. Jack Beers from the
Dallas Morning News, who took the picture before he was shot--not the picture
after he shot him, was immediately--I was touching him with my left arm,
and I had mentioned to Jack, I said, "Jack, when I swing around for them to
lead him into the truck up there, well, I'll hit you on the knee, if--and
would you get out of the way?"
And Jack said, "Yes." So--this all took place so quick from now on. And then
after I got through talking with Jack, I was--Tom was trying to attract my
attention. I happened to glance up and this was at the same time the car
drove out of the--I'm not sure. I couldn't--that right down where the ramp
it hit--the----
Mr. HUBERT. Level part?
Mr. TURNER. Level part. I saw Mr. Ruby coming in.
Mr. HUBERT. Now, had you ever seen him before?
Mr. TURNER. No, sir; I certainly hadn't. Let me mark "10" as the point where
I actually saw Mr. Ruby. 

RC: Now, let's consider that James Bookhout had to get into that garage, and it had to be at the last minute because he certainly didn't want to be seen and recognized as James Bookhout. So, why not have him come down the ramp? It was perfect because it got him in there, and at the same time, it framed Jack Ruby for doing it at that time, even though Ruby did it much earlier.

Mr. HUBERT. Now, in order to get it right, would you look at the mockup first,
and then place it.
Mr. TURNER. I was right here [indicating], and he was somewhere in this
locality when--it is beyond the second column.
Mr. HUBERT. Will you mark a
line, and mark it "A" and "B" straight across
at the beginning on the right?
Mr. TURNER. All right.
Mr. HUBERT. Now, you have marked a line, having compared it with the mockup,
and you have marked it "A-B".
Mr. TURNER. That is the beginning of the----
Mr. HUBERT. Of the rise?
Mr. TURNER. That's right. I might be a little off there.
Mr. HUBERT. Now you say you saw Jack Ruby. You had not known him to be Jack
Ruby at that time?
Mr. TURNER. No; what set him off from other men was the hat he was wearing.
Mr. HUBERT. What sort of hat was it?
Mr. TURNER. I don't know the technical name. Could you help me out? It was
a felt hat, had a pretty large brim on it, and it was a--round on top, which
you seldom see.
Mr. HUBERT. Snap brim?
Mr. TURNER. No; it wasn't snap brim. It was just a wide brim, and like you
say, I didn't go that far.
Mr. HUBERT. Do you know what color it was?
Mr. TURNER. It seemed to be grey.
Mr. HUBERT. Could you describe any other clothing?
Mr. TURNER. Yes; he was, to my knowledge he was dressed in an overcoat, or
long--it could have been a suit coat, but I didn't notice. 
Mr. HUBERT. Did you have a fair look at his face?
Mr. TURNER. At an angle that I do not recognize him now. He seemed to be
much heavier then than when I saw him in the Ruby trial. 

RC: Jesus, Mary, and Joseph! This is gold! That's it! They had Bookhout come down that very same ramp! And he was, indeed, much heavier than Jack Ruby. 

Mr. HUBERT. Will you mark the position where you saw this man, marking it
with the next number?
Mr. TURNER. All right. Let's see. "10."
Mr. HUBERT. Do you think that that man that you saw at position "10", was
Jack Ruby?
Mr. TURNER. I certainly do.
Mr. HUBERT. He was coming down the Main Street ramp at that time?
Mr. TURNER. That's right.
Mr. HUBERT. He was moving? 
Mr. TURNER. He was moving at that time but this man looks like Ruby, but he
seemed to be heavier than I see him now. I don't know whether it is an
allusion, being in a dark place---- 

RC: Holy Virgin Mother of God! He said it again! Heavier than Ruby! Heavier than Ruby! Heavier than Ruby!

Mr. HUBERT. Did you see a man come out from the crowd and shoot Oswald? 
Mr. TURNER. Yes, sir. 
Mr. HUBERT. Was that man the same man that you have---- 
Mr. TURNER. It was this same man. 

RC: Damn straight it was the same man: James W. Bookhout. 

Mr. HUBERT. That you have marked as "10"? 
Mr. TURNER. As "10". It was the same man, and came out and shot him from "10". 
Mr. HUBERT. So, that if it were Jack Ruby who shot Oswald, it was Jack Ruby 
at place number "10"? 
Mr. TURNER. That's right. Right. Right. 
Mr. HUBERT. How long before the shooting was it that you saw a man in 
position number "10" there in a circle on the ramp? 
Mr. TURNER. It was not more than 15 to 30 seconds. 
Mr. TURNER. There was only a matter of 4 seconds, or 5 seconds, when he 
arrived there that--until Oswald reached the point where he was assassinated. 

RC: Wow! These times are even smaller than I assumed.  So, it was only 4 or 5 seconds that Bookhout waited amidst the swarm before it was time to attack. Well, Bookhout didn't really attack, of course, but he pretended to. He put on a show. 

Mr. HUBERT. You saw Ruby arrive at the front?
Mr. TURNER. That's right. He walked up to--see, this is all in line, from
our camera position to our--there were--they were just a little back of the
side light from our camera to our newscaster----
Mr. HUBERT. But you are willing to say that he was standing at the front
row of the group of people congregated there for possibly 5 seconds before
he moved forward to shoot Oswald?
Mr. TURNER. That's right, that's right.
Mr. HUBERT. All right, let's get a little bit more.about this period for
Jack Ruby to move from the position you have marked "10", to the position
you have marked "12", when he was standing in the front line. Did he have to
go through any great mass of people?
Mr. TURNER No, not to my knowledge, because I didn't see a great number of
men up in there.
Mr. HUBERT. Did he have to push, or shoulder his way up there?
Mr. TURNER. No.
Mr. HUBERT. He could just walk up and get into that position?
Mr. TURNER. That's right. There was some more men out there in this area,
but I can't connect it at this point.
Mr. HUBERT. What I want to get at, from what you tell me the group was not
such that he would have to bulldoze his way through?
Mr. TURNER. No; he just flat walked up.
Mr. HUBERT. Just once again for the record. There can be no doubt in your
mind but the man now identified as Jack Ruby is the man you saw at position
"10"?
Mr. TURNER. Correct. 

RC: Notice that Mr. Hubert did not query about the man looking fatter than Ruby. He wasn't interested. It reminds me of Joseph Ball, who when Fritz told him that Oswald said he was eating lunch with other employees during the shooting, had no interest in finding out who those employees were. 

Anyway, it is clear to me now, and precisely because of this testimony, that fat Bookhout walked down the ramp. Ruby did too, but it was half an hour to one hour before. 

This is my response to you, David.

https://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/07/this-is-incredible.html

Now, you need to get out a camera. This is serious. This concerns the truth about the JFK assassination. We are dealing with a photo about which you are spewing claims but taking no action to demonstrate them- with a camera. Meanwhile, I took out my camera again and proved you wrong. There is no "bunching up" of the sweater obscuring skin. It didn't happen to me, so why should we believe that it happened to Oswald? 

Take out a camera, David. It's time. It's calling. The truth is calling. And the truth wants a reckoning. 

This is incredible. David Von Pein puts up this Jackson photo, and he says:

"Oh, for Pete sake, Ralph. Isn't it obvious what that "blackness" is there? 
It's Oswald's SWEATER, not his wrist. His black sweater is bunched up in 
that "half moon" area, obscuring a portion of his skin. And the other 
blackness that you think looks abnormal is merely the end of the sleeve of 
Oswald's sweater. "

RC: Ah, yeah, duh, anything black has to be sweater and not skin. I knew that, David. Oswald's skin wasn't black. So, was it even necessary to say it? Were you under the belief that I was calling something black his skin? 

So, to clarify, there is a straight part which refers to the juncture of the end of his sleeve and his wrist, and there is a half-moon part, which is also a junction of sweater and skin. 

So, you say the sweater is bunched up in the half moon area? Well, let's test it and see if it bunches up and covers any part of my hand.

So, I did not get that effect. As you can see, I just got the straight wrist with the end of the sleeve coming down to it, and no half moon going over my skin. You said that the sweater was "bunched up and obscuring a portion of his skin." What portion of his skin did you mean? Because: none of my skin got obscured. But, you are saying that the half moon is a bulge in his sweater that was  covering up his skin? Well, in that case, let's get rid of it and see the skin.

So, is that what you're claiming? That a bulge in the sweater was covering up part of his hand? But, before you can claim it, you've got to demonstrate that it's even possible. Here, I am plainly showing that it doesn't happen. My hand is over the sweater. The sweater is bunching, but no "bunch" is affecting my hand or obscuring my hand or covering up any part of my hand. We can see my whole, entire hand. 

So, before you or the Indian or the Pink Guy or anyone else makes any more claims about "bunching" or "puffing" of the sweater, resulting in the covering up of any part of his hand, you need to demonstrate it with a camera because I am categorically denying the validity of it. It's bull shit. It's just more crap being spewed by crap-spewers.   We are seeing my entire hand. No part of my hand is being obscured by my sweater. And until you demonstrate it with a camera, you CANNOT claim that any part of Oswald's hand is being obscured by his sweater. As I've told you, I don't make the rules; but I do enforce them. 

In reality what is happening in that photo is this:

There is a left forearm, sleeve, and hand there, so marked. There is a right forearm, sleeve, and hand there too, so marked, but we are only seeing the thumb on the hand. The hands are being clasped together. And neither hand is Oswald's. 

And I am very proud and happy to say that our newest senior member, Robert Jordan, has contributed his own handiwork to this effort.

That is a VERY good approximation of the division between those two hands. On the right hand, we see only the thumb and no other fingers. And on the left hand, we're seeing the index finger and two other knuckles; there is a finger missing. 

Now listen, David. This has gone on long enough. I am fed up with your lip-flapping. I don't care what you think. I am not interested in what you spew. If you are going to claim anything, you God-damn better demonstrate it with a camera. This is serious! This is about the truth concerning the JFK assassination.  And neither yours nor anybody's lip-flapping has any importance. You demonstrate with a camera the claims you are making. And if you don't, then you are spewing not just your own crap, but the blood of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. 

The Punk complained. He thought I didn't draw the circles right, that I went too high on Ruby, which was slightly above the hairline. 

But, there was a reason for that. In this picture, Ruby is standing with his head cocked. He's got it tilted.

It was a very deepseated, postural habit of his which he did subconsciously. He didn't know that he was doing it. If you asked him, he would have said that he was holding his head straight. That felt straight to him. It felt right. He did it the next day too at the County Jail.

 The top of his head, and the top of his face, was not at 12:00. It was more like 11:55. And 12:00 is the highest point on the clock. So, I did a little compensating for that, and it was justified. 

However, ultimately, it doesn't come down to anything that's drawn. You can see it au natural that Bookhout had a rounder, more compact face, and Ruby had a longer forehead and a longer face.

Ruby had a wider, more pyramidal nose because it fanned out into wide nostrils, rather than the pinched nostrils on the left. Ruby had a longer neck, as opposed to the very short neck on Bookhout. Those are obviously different men.

And, it's already in the hopper, Punk, that I will be back on InfoWars in November because it's JFK month. In fact, I'll try to get it posted on November 22.  I am already working on my materials, and it is going to be dynamite.  

This is war, mudderplucker, and I am raring for battle. We'll see, Punk. We'll see what you can do, and we'll see what I can do.  

Now, let's look at the other claims of the Cherokee Criminal:

First, he tried to deny that Jack Ruby had scruffy hair growth on 11/24 by submitting this image:

He thinks that represents a clean neck. But, let's just come in a little closer:

All I did there was enlarge it. Nothing else. And, as you can see, his neck looks "dirty." It's dirty with hair. Scruffy hair growth. But, the Garage Shooter?

Wow, what a contrast. Of course, that is the "other Ruby" from the Garage, the taller one. But, it's the same with the short one who wielded the gun and rushed Oswald. 

So, I don't know if he is smoking too much Peyote or what, but he is making my argument. His picture shows the scruffy hair growth as well as mine. And they're obviously different men otherwise. It's obvious that Ruby, on the right, had a longer neck than the man on the left, and a less fat neck. They're obviously different men. 

And then he submitted this fraudulent image, only proving that you can put a circle around anything. First, look at it without the circle.

Now, you don't draw a circle around everything, including his ears. Any idiot knows that we're looking at a three dimensional object (his head) in a two-dimensional format (the photo). But, the Native of the National Archives went ahead and did this:

He just grabbed everything he could, including the side of the face. Holy Mother of God. The correct way to do it is this:

You don't include the side of his head, for Christ's sake. We're talking about his face, the part that faces to the front only.

Now, we are talking about a relative thing here. I am not saying that Bookhout's face was perfectly round, like a circle. I'm saying that, as faces go, it was very round. And it was rounder than Ruby's. 

So, Ruby, on the right, had a longer face than Bookhout on the left. It's a relative thing. It's a matter of degree. Ruby's face was longer and farther from round.

Well, one thing I do like about this whole process is that my enemies do spur my output. All of this that I've done this afternoon was spurred by bpete's post, including this very good demonstrative collage, which I should have thought of doing myself but didn't. But, now it exists, and I'll be using it plenty. I'm going to add it to the core images. Who knows, I may be showing it on InfoWars the next time I'm on. I will definitely be showing it on InfoWars the next time I'm on. 

Who could possibly be paying me to declare that Oswald was in the doorway? Who could even conceive of someone paying me for that? Who is going to part with $$$$$$ to have me say that? He never thought anyone was paying me. That is a lie. He is a LIAR! He is filth. He is scum. He is a paid cyber-criminal and street criminal, and so help me God, I will see him prosecuted and punished for his crimes.  

But, never say a Cigar Store Indian can't be useful, or even for that matter a National Archives hitman Indian. He took the gauntlet. He posted a photo to defend the Jackson photo. David Von Pein wouldn't do it, but the cyber/street criminal did. 


And, it doesn't matter if he took the photo or found it. Either way, he submitted it as representing what we see in the Jackson photo. 

And I'll tell you something else: he is going to be famous for this photo. I am going to promote the hell out of it. Yes, indeed, this is going to serve my purposes well. 

OK, so above is what he claims Oswald was doing in the Jackson photo. So, let's start with the wrist. Notice that he has a straight wrist, just as I did when I took my picture. 

OK, so a normal human wrist. What else could we expect, right? But, look at it in Jackson:

That's supposed to be all one wrist. That whole meandering river is supposed to be one wrist. And you can't blame it on the sweater because I tried it wearing a sweater, and my wrist still was straight.

But, the stupid moron actually tried to claim that that "the sweater was pushed up, resulting in it puffing up against his hand and wrist."

Listen up, Peyote-smoking mudderplucker: THAT'S WHAT YOU NEED TO DEMONSTRATE, you God-damn idiot. And not with your filthy mouth, but with a camera! Put a sweater on and take a picture. Show us the push. Show us the puff. You can't just lip-flap it. 

And to others: he is completely full of shit.

That is one wide wrist, and it's no exaggeration. If that half-moon thing is a "puff" it's still got to be covering something, and presumably, his wrist. 

Now listen up, Hondo. I don't give a shit what you think. If you want to make the case that that is real, that that is legit, then you have duplicate it. Photographically reproduce it. Make it push; make it puff; do whatever the fuck you have to do, but make it look the same; duplicate it. And until you do, you can just shut the fuck up because nothing you say means anything. If you are going to defend that as legit, then you HAVE to duplicate it. Not lip-flap it with forked tongue, but duplicate it with a camera. You can just stifle the blah-blah-blah. I don't give a shit about your tongue-wagging. Take a picture in which you duplicate this:

Just duplicate it. And if you can't duplicate, it just proves that I am right, that it is bogus.  
  
So, that's Failure#1 on his part. But now, let's look at his thumb:

Wait a second. That can't be right. He's got his hand going practically horizontal, whereas Oswald's hand is diagonal.

bpete's hand is practically going sideways across his chest. And I see what he did. He was trying to expose his thumbnail, since Oswald's is exposed, so what he did was externally rotate his hand, and then get his thumb on top of it. Or, he dug up such a picture. Yes, you can expose the thumb that way, but you can't if you leave it diagonal.

Alright, so the Cherokee Shyster cheated. But still, we're going to keep looking at it because it still reveals the fraudulence of the Jackson photo. Let's count his fingers:

So, in both cases, I marked the knuckles to indicate the existence of fingers. bpete has 5, and Oswald has only 4. 

Now, let's look at the outer contour, or the perimeter of the thumb. It should be smooth. There are two joints: the metacarpal and the interdigital, but he's got his thumb completely extended, and the contour is very smooth. 

So, that looks smooth, meaning not jutting or cut-out anywhere. But, Jackson?

I rotated it 90 degrees just to demonstrate how bizarre that contour is. It is beyond bizarre. It is grotesque. And you can't blame the sweater because I tried it wearing a sweater, and it didn't change anything. If he wants to try it again wearing a sweater, he can.

I am going to address the other issues he raised separately since they concern something else. Right now, I want to get this up, and I want to spread it far and wide. Let the record show that SO FAR this is the only photo ever submitted to defend the legitimacy of the Jackson photo, and it failed miserably. 

  

Holy Moley!  Even Denis Morissette agrees that the guy at the DPD at 2:00 was NOT Jack Ruby.

So, the only real Jack Ruby is the one on the right. I agree. 

You are UNBELIEVABLE, David Von Pein. That you would have the nerve to claim that if I had only pressed my thumb up to my index finger that all would have correlated is unbefrickinlievable. 

First, neither I nor anyone else can do that. NOBODY can get his thumb up on the index finger like we see in the Jackson photo. That's an image of two hands. But, when you only use one hand you can't do it. The thumb won't go there. There are limits to the movements of the appendages. 

But first, why won't you take a picture? Every smart phone is a camera. Why won't you at least try to be scientific about it? Actually try to reproduce it and show the result rather than just claim it? Do you really think that lip-flapping alone is going to impress people? In a matter such as this? 

Now, I couldn't get my thumb on top of the index finger, where the nail is exposed. That would require fracture or dislocation. But, if you can do it, DO IT! Get out a God-damn camera and take a picture! Every smart phone is a camera! I'm telling you it can't be done. If you want to dispute me, you have to do it with a camera. 

Now compare the shape of my wrist to the shape of his wrist. 

Notice that I have a straight wrist, and he has a wrist like the border between two states. 

Now compare the length of my thumb to the length of his thumb. Mine doesn't even reach the first interphalangeal joint. His goes way beyond it. And look at the size of his thumb. It's way bigger than mine, but it's also way bigger than Oswald's. 

Now, look at the contour of each thumb. Mine looks normal with two digital joints, then the knuckle, and then the first metacarpal bone. So, we're seeing 3 straight bones and 2 joints in-between them. Normal. But, look at the weird contour of his thumb. Did that get reproduced? Now, let's count the knuckles.

 I've got 5 knuckles and fingers, but he's only got 4. 

So, even when I did everything possible to reproduce the position of the hand in the Jackson photo, I still wound up showing that it is a freak hand.

Now, listen up, Von Pein: If you have any inclination to claim that if I had only done this or that, all would have worked out fine, you resist that inclination. Don't give in to it. Instead, you take a camera out, and you demonstrate it. It's time, David. It's long overdo. And you have no excuse not to do it. I'm NOT interested in your lip-flapping. I am only interested in what you can show. So, if you are going to refute me, you will have to take out your camera. Good luck with that.