Sunday, September 24, 2017

Let's look again at the ridiculous sweep of hair on the side of his head that Shorty Bookhout has going:

That can't possibly be real. And especially for Bookhout who was an FBI agent. They didn't go around like that. And again the artificiality of the the little tuft in front is very conspicuous, as is the very idea that he would wear his hair so wild and woolly in back and on the side but keep it so short in front. Think about it a minute. How could he wind up with a haircut like that? He'd have to ask the barber for it, specifically: to cut it that way. But, why would he do that? How could James Bookhout be that focused on his hair? And how could he decide upon that look? Did I mention that he was an FBI agent?  And when you plainly see that his little upturned pug nose was not Bookhout's nose...
...why does ANYONE continue to claim that he is Bookhout? What is this? The Bizarro World? How big a deal-breaker does it take for people to let go of the claim? You keep making it after seeing a thing like that? Only in the JFK assassination community. Only in the rotten, miserable, bloodied world of JFKing do you see a thing like that happen. 

Saturday, September 23, 2017

The Wizard has taken this 1934 image of Bookhout from his SMU yearbook and blended it with one from 1930. 

And here is the high school photo from 1930: 

Note that the above image is not acknowledged to be Bookhout, but it is definitely him. The image usually designated as Bookhout is actually Tommy Collinwood, and we even found a yearbook in which Tommy signed his name over that image.

So, the guy on the far right in front in the group picture is definitely NOT James Bookhout, even though Denis Morissette and Linda Zambanini have claimed it. Why would Tommy Collinwood write his name over James Bookhout's image? Besides, you can see the resemblance directly above. So, that's Collinwood. This is Bookhout:

 Credit for this discovery goes entirely to the Wizard. He's a Wiz. 

Alright, so now we compare the 1934 image of Bookhout with the 1930 image:

You see what I mean? It's an exact match. That short, pudgy guy was Bookhout.

And you really think he grew into this?

As the saying goes: fat chance. 
This is Young Jim Bookhout alongside the Elevator Shooter. Notice the facial likeness and also the postural likeness. And people do "learn" their posture from their parents.

Why would young Jim Bookhout look so much like Jack Ruby? Ruby didn't hold his head like that, and as expected, Jim Bookhout looked nothing like Jack Ruby. So, why does Jim look so much like the Shooter? 

Wizard: We were lucky with Bookhout's facial features. He had those close-set Northern European eyes, and these gave him and his relatives a very distinctive look. The inclination of the head of Jim Bookhout in the boat photo is also very useful.

Ralph Cinque: And, it confirms what I have been saying that children derive their postural habits from their parents. They imitate them. 
Here it is as a gif, again made by the Wizard. God, is that not father and son?  You'd have to be a fool to deny it. 

Found by the Wizard, these are images of young Jim Bookhout, the son of James Bookhout. And as you can see, he didn't and doesn't have s-shaped eyebrows.

And when you do a gradual transition to the Elevator Shooter, it's an excellent match-up. We'll start with the Elevator Shooter. 

So, how could Jim Bookhout look so much like Jack Ruby? 
So, Denis Morissette thinks he can arm-wrestle with the Wizard? We'll see about that. I pity the fool. This is the ridiculous image that Morissette came up with of Bookhout's father, that is unsourced. 

That's supposed to demonstrate that s-shaped eyebrows ran in the family. The truth is that s-shaped eyebrows don't run in anybody's family. I quickly showed Denis how easy it is to come up with an image like that.

And here is what the Wizard found. It is from but the British version. It says that it is Frank Bookhout and his wife Mary Agnes, whose maiden name was Sullivant.

We haven't determined yet exactly who they were except that the man was a Bookhout, and there is no hint of s-shaped eyebrows. Here's the link. When you get there, you'll have to scroll down:

Here is an image of Jim Bookhout, the son of James Bookhout, and as you can see: no s-shaped eyebrows. That's him and his dad, and neither one of them have s-shaped eyebrows. And don't tell me he looked that much like Jack Ruby. 

And here is another image that the Wizard found of James Bookhout's first cousin John. No s-shaped eyebrows.

And here is another image the Wizard found, one Pastor James Bookhout, another cousin of JWB:

And, as you can see, he is gracing the good people of the Bridge Christian Church without s-shaped eyebrows. 

What Morissette submitted is just more JFK photographic flim-flam from the people who have been flim-flamming the JFK assassination since before it even happened, starting with the phony Backyard photos. 

Wizard 1;  Morissette 0. 

Let's look further at Oswald's statement to Bookhout in the hallway right before the 6:30 Saturday evening interrogation. It's interesting that by that point in time, the "air" about him was very different from how it was when they first marched him into City Hall the day before. Then, the tension in the air was thick, and you could cut it with a knife. But, by Saturday evening, it was much more relaxed. You hear someone saying, "Here he comes, there he is..." But, there is no tension with it; no animosity; it was more like announcing the arrival of a celebrity. Listen to it yourself:

Then, once in the hallway, Oswald goes up to Bookhout to talk to him. And what's amazing about it is that even though he was handcuffed in front, that he was so free in his ability to move. The afternoon before, the big cop had a grip on his arm, and it seemed like a vise. But here, I don't even know if Oswald was being held at all. I can't tell. Can you tell? But, if he was being held, it was a light hold. You see Oswald walking over to Bookhout, which obviously wasn't ordered or scheduled, and no one stops him. No one pulls him away; no one pulls him back.

So, if someone had Oswald's arm, and we can't tell from this image, he wasn't really steering him or restraining him. Oswald, on his own power, went up to Bookhout. And the fact that Bookhout's eyes are closed is probably photographic flim-flam. Why would that guy, whoever he was, have his eyes closed? Notice how the eye brow got erased laterally. And notice that he's got hair growing over his ear. An FBI agent? Do you see the haircut on the detective looming large in the picture? Well, that's about how all those law enforcement guys were groomed. None of them had hair growing over his ear. So yes, they doctored that image of Bookhout. But then again, we have yet to find an image of Bookhout that wasn't doctored. 

But, let's hone in on what Oswald said to Bookhout. He said; "What have you got against Broby?" Now, Broby may not be correct. That's the most I can gather from the sound of it, but they may have deliberately muffled that word so that we can't hear it correctly. And who knows: they could have even substituted "Broby" for whatever he said; an audio splice. But, what I think we can be sure of is that Oswald asked Bookhout what he had against somebody; against some person. 

So, Oswald must have cited a person, and Bookhout must have said something derogatory about that person. But, who could Oswald have cited, and why would he have cited him? He must have cited someone whom he thought would vindicate him; whom he thought would vouch for him; and it must have been someone from the intelligence community. Who else? You don't think they were making small talk, do you? They weren't talking about some team's quarterback, were they? 

So, Oswald must have said something like, "Talk to so-and-so. He'll tell you that I have ties to the intelligence community. And he'll certainly tell you that I could not have shot the President. The whole idea is crazy. Why would I do such a thing? I'd have to be out of my mind, and I'm not."

And then, that very night, he tried to call John Hurt in Raleigh, North Carolina, which was close to a Navy intelligence center. If we put aside the spin and just go to the testimony of the night operator who witnessed it, and actually, it was the supervisor of the woman who did it, who handled it, she said it was definitely an outgoing call. And she said that two detectives showed up and instructed the woman not to put the call through. 

So, Oswald attempted to do the smartest thing he could have done, which was to reach out to someone he knew in the U.S. intelligence community to vouch for him. 

It's a little complicated because the switchboard operator involved was L. Sweeney, I think Louise. But, this memo was actually written by her supervisor, Aretha something, if I recall correctly. 

  Look what it says there. It says Collect. That means it was outgoing. Who would call the Dallas Police Department to speak to Oswald and make the call Collect? That is absurd. The fact that Oswald had both of those numbers memorized to give to the operator tells you the importance he put on the connection. 

Besides, if you read the form, it definitely indicates outgoing. For instance, it says the call was "To" Raleigh, NC. It doesn't say "From".  Then, Oswald is described as the "Person calling" and Hurt is described as the "Person called." And Aretha stipulated it just that way. 

The only things Fritz wrote down about the Saturday evening interrogation was Oswald's denial of being in the Backyard photo and his complaint about being in just a t-shirt for the lineup. But, they had to talk about more than that, right? And once Oswald denied ever owning or possessing the rifle and claimed to be in the doorway during the shots, what else could they ask him about the JFK shooting? And when did they ever ask him anything about the Tippit shooting? We never even heard how Oswald said he got from his room to the theater. They must have asked, and he must have said, right? So, why isn't it part of the record? 

And then at the final interview on Sunday morning, presumably the longest, Fritz wrote down absolutely nothing about what was said. 

And let's consider that Oswald denied the claims of Frazier and his sister that he carried a long bag. And in Frazier's case, it wasn't even long enough to house the rifle. And he described the bag as an ordinary grocery bag- from the grocery store. Now, do you think that if you began with paper and tape that you could make a bag that anyone would mistake for a grocery bag from the grocery store? And think about the fact that they could find absolutely no one who could corroborate the claims of Frazier and his sister. No one in that building, apparently, saw Oswald with a long bag, even though it was something he couldn't hide. And after Jack Doughterty denied that Oswald carried such a bag, don't you think they canvassed the rest of the employees. "Did you see Oswald early this morning, and did you observe him carrying a long bag?" How many employees were asked that question? It had to be a lot. 

Oswald may well have alluded to his intelligence connections during those lengthy interrogations. And I mean that he named names.    

Adam C Steel Oswald was clever
LikeShow more reactions
Reply5 hrs
Ralph Cinque Yes. He was clever, and he was downright smart. He did a good job of vouching for his innocence in the two days that he lived. And it's one of the reasons they had to kill him so fast because if he ever talked to a lawyer, the entire case against him would have crumbled. They knew it, so they had to kill him before he talked to one. But, Oswald was innocent; not just innocent of shooting, but innocent of any involvement in the assassination. Jim Garrison came to that conclusion. So, don't read too much into Oswald's statement about being a patsy. Don't take from it that he knew whose patsy he was and how the assassination went down. He had no explicit knowledge of any of that. What he said that was very telling is that "they're taking me in because I lived in the Soviet Union." So, he thought that because he had defected to Russia that he was automatically a suspect, like he was on some kind of list, that it was a matter of "rounding up the usual suspects." That's what he thought. And I think his plan was to get the people that he knew in the intelligence community to vouch for him. That's why he attempted to reach the intelligence agent in North Carolina late Saturday night, John Hurt, as you recently reminded me his name.

Friday, September 22, 2017

I just remembered that the Wizard found an image of Bookhout's father, and you can see he did not have s-shaped eyebrows.

So, on what basis does Denis Morissette claim that this is Bookhout's father?

That is Denis Morissette, and he sent me this image, purportedly of Bookhout's father, to show that s-shaped eyebrows run in the family. But, how hard would it be to alter the image on the right, which looks more like a charcoal drawing than a photograph?

And we are only talking about digitally altering it, which I could easily do myself. Here's Sean Connery:
I did that. See how easy it is? I'm not even an expert. And I didn't even use the best program. That's just using Paint, not Photoshop.

So, you certainly can't go by the image Denis provided. Wouldn't it be better to look at a photograph of Bookhout's son?

Nobody has or had eyebrows like this:

Furthermore, the new alleged images of Bookhout don't show eyebrows like that.

Surely, if he had an S happening there, we'd see it.

And likewise above. So once again, Denis Morissette has shown his extreme gullibility, his lack of judgment, and his propensity to bend, twist, and turn to accommodate the narrative that he prefers. An unyielding, uncompromising commitment to truth he most certainly does NOT have. 

I mentioned last night that Denis Morissette has put those alleged new images of James Bookhout up on his JFK investigators website, and he's done so without qualification or reservation. There are no question marks this time, no disclaimers, no expressions of any doubt. But, consider that there is a qualitative difference between the two images. 

One occurs in a newspaper article in which it states that James Bookhout is in the picture. Of course, that isn't proof of anything. Newspapers can be wrong in their descriptions and designations, and often they are. But, at least it provides an argumentative basis to claim that it's Bookhout; that is: it provides a reference to him.

But, what about this image? It doesn't come with any reference.

How can one just be presumptive that that has to be James Bookhout? According to Morissette, it was found by Bart Kamp. So what. Is he God? Do we automatically accept the claims of Bart Kamp? Bart Kamp believes that this is Lee Harvey Oswald:

So, that establishes his photo-identifying skill and lack thereof. So, why should anyone accept his claims about Bookhout?

Furtheremore, we don't even know anything about this image.

It's a digital image, so presumably, Bart Kamp found it online somewhere. But where? How could it not show up in searches before now, say, in searches for images of Will Fritz? And what do we know about the time of that picture? How do we even know it's from the JFK assassination? And what basis is there to assume that that guy is Bookhout? He has a very gaunt face, and we know that in Bookhout's last image prior to the assassination, which unfortunately goes back to 1937, his face was very puffy.

 We see disparity of the ears, nose, face in general, eyebrows certainly, and even the hair is dubious. How could a man who was already showing signs of recession at age 23 have the exact same hairline at 49? Isn't hair loss progressive? 

And if you're going to use the newspaper image as verification for this other image, you can't because the man in the newspaper clipping was obviously very tall whereas this other man was not.

And there are other differences as well. There is the puffy face on the left and the gaunt face on the right. There is neat, normal looking hair on the left but a strange haircut on the right, with a big sweep on the side and then a crewcut in front, followed by unruly hair behind it. And, it's especially disconcerting because we know that all the FBI agents were very clean-cut with short tidy haircuts.

So, without explaining how and where he found it, Bart Kamp makes the extraordinary claim that that's James Bookhout, and the "research community" just accepts it carte blanche? Is that how it works? 

Denis: take those images down from your website. If you have a shred of decency and honesty, you will do so.    

Thursday, September 21, 2017

Denis Morissette has put up both new alleged images of James Bookhout on his JFK investigators website, and he got rid of the previous bogus image of Bookhout. And it's the second time, that I know of, that he has had to remove a bogus image of Bookhout.  

So, you would think that that would give him caution before making claims about any new images. You would think that would cause him to seek some confirmation and validation before he installs these new images.  But no, he just goes right to it.

And just think: James Bookhout's son Jim is still very much alive and presumably very accessible. He can be reached through the Texas Peace Officer's Flag Fund, which raises money to honor fallen Texas police officers. It's a noble cause. My father was a police officer, and he had several close calls in which he could have been killed. His partner was killed just inches away from him. Luckily, my father always came home.

So, why wouldn't Denis Morissette check with Jim Bookhout before putting up any more pictures of his father? And especially in this case when the two images he put up don't even correlate with each other. By all indications, one man was very tall while the other was of average height. 

So, why wouldn't Denis check with Jim first? 

"Jim, this is Denis Morissette, a JFK researcher. Two images of your father have surfaced, and before I put them up on my JFK investigators website, I want to run them by you. That's because I have been wrong in the past, and I don't want to put up any more bogus images of your dad. So, please take a look at these two images and tell me if either or both of them are your father. I would appreciate it very much. And thank you. "

Joseph Backes admits that Fritz got out of the way so that the shooter could have access to Oswald. And we are agreed about that, although, obviously, we disagree about who the shooter was. But regardless of who the shooter was, it makes Fritz complicit in the murder. 

So how, at midday Friday could Will Fritz be seated at the Trade Mart waiting for JFK to arrive and expecting to enjoy having a steak with him, and then less than 24 hours later be involved in killing somebody? It's not as though Will Fritz was a murderer by nature was it? 

No. Of course not. The only way Will Fritz could have been involved in doing what was done to Oswald is because it was ordered of him, and I mean from the highest and most exalted Earthly authority: the President of the United States.

Phil Nelson tells us that LBJ's henchmen, Bill Moyer and Cliff Carter, were on the phone with Fritz over a dozen times on Friday afternoon, telling him that he had his man, that no on else was involved, and that he needed to close the investigation. Now, how could they possibly know that? It's outrageous that they did that, don't you think?

Why would Fritz decide, himself, to do what he did? He wouldn't. He couldn't. He didn't. The Commander in Chief must have told him that it needed to be done because the Kennedy family and the American people needed closure, that it was important for everybody to get back to living their regular lives, that a long protracted criminal trial would paralyze the whole country, and since it was certain that the jury would convict Oswald and put him to death, that the expediting of that verdict was needed to provide relief and restore the ship of state. It was something like that.

We have been told that LBJ actually called the Parkland doctors while they were operating on Oswald. Well, if he would do that, don't you think he would call Will Fritz? 

Then, Fritz got all of his detectives involved, and I'm sure he put it to them the same way, and adding a pitch about doing it for Tippit, who must have meant more to them than JFK. 

Why were they so sure Oswald was guilty? It was the wave; the wave of conviction in that direction which swept over them as it swept over almost everybody. Wave? Make it a title wave. 

And then Hoover had to be involved too. It was his agents who assisted the Dallas Police in the plot, and it was his Agent James Bookhout who played the role of Jack Ruby.  Johnson and Hoover. They are the ones who mobilized the Dallas Police and the FBI to take out Oswald and set up Ruby to take the blame.  

You have to wonder though: alright, Oswald; they thought he was a double murderer, so that justified killing him. But, what did Ruby do to deserve the fate that he got? The men who played him and framed him were men whom he loved and admired, and they knew that he loved and admired him, that he was a DPD groupie. So, how did they justify it? I don't know, but I'm sure they consoled themselves by being nice to him, calling him "Jack," and acting like they had always acted towards him. I've read that they played cards with him to help him pass the time. But again, it was always "Jack". Good old Jack Ruby. 

Look: Crowder looked robust at 63. You think he's going to get decrepit by 67? 

How can this possibly be Bookhout when the ears don't match and the nose doesn't match?

I said: How can this possibly be Bookhout when the ears don't match and the nose doesn't match? Do you think you get to just ignore things at will? And isn't it obvious that the man on the right doesn't have eyebrows like the man on the left? And that no man on Earth has eyebrows like the man on the left? And that means that the eyebrows on the left are false. Therefore, the primary image of James Bookhout from before the JFK assassination, which required going back to 1937, just happens to be an altered and deliberately falsified image.  

My suspicion of James Bookhout being the Garage Shooter arose from realizing that OSWALD KNEW THE SHOOTER. This is not the glance of a stranger.

So, I asked myself: WHO COULD OSWALD HAVE KNOWN? In that situation, it could only be someone from law enforcement, which means a DPD detective or FBI agent. I BEGAN TO SUSPECT JAMES BOOKHOUT PRECISELY BECAUSE NO IMAGE OF HIM COULD BE FOUND. And then when I read his alibi for not attending the jail transfer, I found it had no credibility. And then when I found out that he attended all the Oswald interrogations, I realized that James Bookhout spent more time with Oswald than anybody. 

But obviously, all of it was completely moot until I found an image of Bookhout. He was either compatible with the Garage Shooter or he wasn't. And I do want to stress that it was I who found the yearbook images of Bookhout. And until I did, there were no images of him whatsoever.  

So, when I finally discovered this image and recognized immediately from the phony eyebrows that it was altered, I realized that a devious and malicious cover-up was going on concerning Bookhout's looks. 

 So, let's look at the comparison to the newly found 1968 photo again, and remember that we already know that the 1937 image was altered because it is not possible that James Bookhout had those eyebrows. 

If the starting image was altered, and it was, how likely is it that the matching image is also altered? Extremely likely. Granted, those hairlines look similar, but how likely is it that a 23 year old man who was already showing signs of significant recession had the same hairline at age 67? Extremely unlikely. If you look at the lips on the right, they don't even look photographic. They look like stripes from a felt pen. So, there is dissimilarity with the ears, nose, mouth, and eyebrows. What matches? Only one thing: the puffiness of the face. Young Bookhout has puffy, bulging cheeks, and so does the man on the right. But, it was precisely to match those bulging cheeks on the left that the image on the right was manipulated as we see. But, when could that have been done? I'm the one who brought the image on the left into the light; into awareness. I discovered it. It didn't exist in the discussion before that. It would have been pointless to do it before that. You can't match something unless the other thing is present. So, the image on the right must have been altered after I bought out the image on the left. I'll say it again: The image on the right must have been altered after I brought attention to the image on the left. It was about a year ago that I discovered the image on the left. But, if they altered the image on the right to match it, why would they wait to bring it out? They wouldn't. They couldn't. They didn't. Therefore, the image on the right must have been altered very recently. 

So, what this shows is that photographic altering for the 1963 JFK assassination is going on in 2017. And that's a chilling thought. They are working the JFK cover-up and re-working the JFK lie as earnestly and aggressively today as ever before. And what I keep wondering is: will they kill again?