Well, it's Halloween, and there's nothing scarier than me singing, right? So, let's have a song. This is my rendition of the classic 1930 jazz standard Body and Soul by Johnny Green. It continually amazes me that Johnny Green wrote this because he mostly composed film scores, for instance for Easter Parade, West Side Story, and An American in Paris, all of which won him Academy Awards. But, Body and Soul is so deeply and darkly jazzy; it sounds like something Thelonious Monk might have written. It is also the last song recorded by the gifted Amy Winehouse in a duet with Tony Bennett, and they really took it to the heights and made it soar. The song is haunting but made even more so by her tragic death. This is one of those songs for which I just don't know how Johnny Green sat down at a piano with some staff paper and a pencil and wrote it. It is so unique and so good. It is the most recorded song in jazz history, Body and Soul.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egz92yDmmNc&feature=youtu.be

This was written by the Wizard BEFORE he read what I wrote last night, but you'll see that it dovetails with it nicely. In fact, his first paragraph is like a succinct telling of what I wrote last night. 

Amy/Ralph,

I definitely agree that the main 'push' of all, or most of, the activities was aimed at supporting the idea that Ruby was actually guilty and that they wanted to avoid discussion of any other possibility: hence all the talk about Ruby knowing Oswald - that was a diversion. In fact, the perps probably encouraged Oswald/Ruby conspiracy talk.

Ralph's idea that Ruby was drugged and that they took advantage of his blackouts fits everything I have learned so far. Critics will say that it's implausible, but in the JFK case you have to take a different perspective on timelines and not get things back-to-front. I think that the deal was that somebody noted Ruby's blackouts in the past, possibly years before, and tagged this as useful information - a possible ideal patsy for some future crime. When the most important crime came round, they used their asset - as simple as that. I doubt that Jack was the only potential patsy in the event that Oswald survived the Friday.

I also agree with Amy's contention that the money order was an alibi and part of the setup. The odds of anybody needing to wire money on a Sunday morning in 1963 must be a bit thin. It's just too neat. Against this, we have the fact that Ruby himself did repeat that story and other parts of the official story, but we have to re-evaluate everything he later said (the what, where and when) that supported the DPD story. For example, how much of it can be attributed to Ruby's willingness to be told what to say? (The blackout would not have stretched back to the money transfer, etc.) He hinted to Warren that he had not told the truth and started to drop really big hints to the press near the end, when his already destroyed life was falling apart even more.

RC: Let's consider that there aren't many statements to the press by Jack Ruby. He didn't talk to reporters the way Oswald did. But, there is the famous one with reporters in which he alluded to Johnson being involved in the assassination. Did he really know something? Think about it from his lawyer's perspective. His lawyer was right next to him when he said it. So, don't you think afterwards, his lawyer said to him, "Jack, if you know something about LBJ being involved, you need to tell me. Your life is on the line. They want to kill you." It is a fact that during his imprisonment, Ruby read conspiracy books. He read one that I've read, A Texan Looks At Lyndon by J. Evetts Haley, which was truly the first book to point the finger at LBJ. But Haley, was a Bircher, and his thesis was that Johnson put Oswald up to it. In other words, he accepted everything about Oswald being the lone gunman, but he added Johnson to it. And his spin was that Johnson was a Communist. Ruby was deranged; he was mentally ill. He had no knowledge about LBJ's involvement. And think about it from the plotters' perspective. Let's say that Ruby was brought into it on some operational level. Why would they tell him anything about LBJ's involvement? It was a need-to-know situation, and Ruby would not have needed to know that. Now back to the Wizard:

I would find it logical to conclude that they had him in the DPD early on the Sunday, even if he was instructed or led to do the money order himself. They would have wanted maximum control of him, but he would not have been desperate to hide himself.

I have it in my mind, from the past, that a witness called Elizabeth Pascoe confirmed Ruby's blackouts at his trial, but that name is on my backlog of things to double-check. The trial pdf is essentially a series of images and non-searchable. If you miss something you have to go back.

I agree that much of the 'detail'  in the Warren Report is flim-flam and padding to give the appearance of thoroughness.

Wizard 

I have a new thesis to present tonight concerning Jack Ruby. It does not contradict anything that I have said before. I began thinking about it in connection with all the Jack Ruby sightings there are, some which are undoubtedly false. For instance, the one at the DPD on Friday afternoon is DEFINITELY false. There are phone records which prove that Ruby was on the phone with his sister Eva at the time (2:00) from the Carousel Club. And that's the most heralded of the Ruby sightings since there are supposedly images of him that go along with it. But, it wasn't him. He wasn't there. He said he wasn't there, and the phone records prove he wasn't there. And there are also witnesses who placed him at the Carousel Club at that time, such as Larry Craford.  

The second most heralded sighting is probably Julia Ann Mercer adamantly claiming to see Jack Ruby driving a pickup truck in Dealey Plaza an hour before the motorcade and transporting weapons and a shooter. Again, false. Ruby was at the Dallas Morning News at the time, tending to his ads, and there were multiple witnesses, including Hugh Aynesworth. There was the woman who said that her daughter and friends saw Jack Ruby give Lee Harvey Oswald a pistol outside the TSBD shortly after the shooting. Now, who would be stupid enough to brandish a pistol in Dealey Plaza shortly after Kennedy was killed? If Ruby was going to give a pistol to Oswald, don't you think they would have been smart enough to meet somewhere else to do it? 

At least two witnesses claimed to see Jack Ruby at Parkland Hospital, but Ruby denied going there, and why would he lie about that? It wasn't a crime, was it? Some take it as far as having Jack Ruby plant the "Magic Bullet" on the stretcher. 

Victoria Adams claimed to see Jack Ruby outside the TSBD after the shooting, "barking orders and acting like a cop". George Aplin claimed to see Jack Ruby sitting a few rows behind Oswald at the Texas Theater at the time of his arrest. 

There are more, but are you getting the picture now? That there are just too many Jack Ruby sightings?

So, here's what I think, and it is chillingly Machiavellian. I think Ruby was set up to be the patsy for the Oswald killing (which was decided well in advance) but, the plotters knew that many wouldn't accept the story, as told. So, for those who were going to contest it, they wanted to steer them into a safe zone that would never get them anywhere near the truth, that Jack Ruby didn't do it. On the contrary, they were going to provide a strong motive for why Ruby did it- something much more satisfying to the conspiracist than the one Ruby's lawyer thought of, which is that he did it save Jackie a trip to Dallas (and I'll point out again, that there is no compelling reason why Jackie Kennedy would have been called upon to testify at Oswald's trial). So, the stronger motive is that Ruby did it to silence Oswald because Ruby was involved in the plot to kill Kennedy. 

I'll repeat what I've said before that that is very foolish because no one would destroy his whole life and be willing to lose everything just to silence Oswald. HOW COULD ANYTHING BE WORSE THAN DESTROYING ONE'S ENTIRE LIFE?

You could make the argument if it involved killing Oswald from a great distance or in a manner that allowed escape. But, nobody would be willing to destroy his entire life and lose everything just to silence Oswald. Nobody, as in no one. Nada. Zilch. Zed. 

Remember what Ruby did right before going to the basement: he wired money to one of his employees, Karen Carlin. So, he was taking care of business, wasn't he? But, what did it matter if he was about to lose everything and never return to his business? 

So, the whole idea is cockamamie, and that's why the plotters cleverly coaxed the conspiracy-minded to go down that road. It would keep them busy, and far away from the truth that Jack Ruby didn't shoot Oswald. 

And, it makes no sense for the plotters to put Jack Ruby up to shooting Oswald if he was involved in the assassination because once arrested, he could talk, right? And wouldn't his lawyers have browbeat him to talk? Wouldn't it mitigate his own case to talk? How could the plotters take a chance like that?

And, how could they get him to do it when it meant losing everything? Frankly, I think that if Ruby shot Oswald the way that he supposedly did,  he would have been better off turning the gun on himself. Why not? What did he have to live for after that? He was never going to be a free man again. He was going to lose everything. He was never going to have his life back. He was going to be sleeping in a jail cell from then on. So, what's to live for? 

I say that the false Ruby sightings were deliberate, as deliberate as the false Oswald sightings, such as Oswald going to the rifle range and Oswald going to the car dealership. These false sightings seem to provide motive for Ruby to shoot Oswald (even though they really don't because nothing could attract a person to completely destroy his own life). But, they keep people far, far away from the truth, that Ruby did NOT shoot Oswald.  Jack Ruby was framed and innocent. And I don't believe for a second that he was involved in the JFK assassination or that he had any motive, whatsoever, to shoot Oswald.  It's all made-up. You're being conned. You're being tricked. You're being hoodwinked. It's the craftiness of it all that gives me the chills. You see, if you want to think that Ruby was involved, and he shot Oswald to silence him, they don't care-- so long as you think he shot him. And if you do think he shot him, then they are playing you like a marionette. 

Listen to me: THEY don't mind if you want to think that Oswald was in a conspiracy when he shot Kennedy- SO LONG AS YOU THINK HE SHOT KENNEDY. It's Government Story #2. They offered it to you. And likewise, THEY don't mind if you want to think that Ruby was in a conspiracy when he shot Oswald, SO LONG AS YOU THINK HE SHOT OSWALD.  

Interesting letter here from the Wizard:

Ralph, 

I am in the middle of watching the slightly demented 1992 movie "Ruby", something I have put off for months, apart from examining its portrayal of the shooting. I'm sure you recall their attempt, in the movie, to explain the rogue microphone by having a TV sound boom guy carrying a portable mic on a long extension.

It might be just a co-incidence, but in this film Ruby's CIA contact is called "Proby", which sounds eerily similar to Oswald's frustrated remark to Bookhout in the hallway: "What have you got against Proby?" ??

The script was written by Stephen Davis, who based it on his play "Love Field" and who also wrote the script for "Double Image"/"Yuri Nosenko KGB". I am not aware of any real life CIA agent called Proby, and "Ruby" is a bizarre mixture of fact and fiction, probably designed to "top up" the nursery rhyme that "Ruby killed Oswald", but who knows...?

Davis, a Cambridge university graduate, was also responsible for the movie "The Long Good Friday", which portrayed the IRA in a gangland/organised crime context. "Double Image" reflected the view of the CIA faction that regarded Nosenko as a false defector who used his implausible story of the KGB's total lack of interest in Oswald to exploit the US establishment's adherence to the Lone Nut story to stir up trouble.

I don't expect a lot from the released files, other than a few things that escaped the censor. I did, however, expect some dubious documents that would provide an excuse for "Castro did it" speculation in the press. I have seen  a couple of those already.

Wizard

Jack Ruby began his testimony to the Warren Commissioners by pleading with them to give him a lie detector test, and as if that wasn't enough, he said he was willing to take truth serum or be sedated with some drug if it would help establish that he was telling the truth. And then he went on to explain why he didn't go to "the parade." He said he disliked crowds. And he said that he was preoccupied with his business, making it successful, because he owed the government quite a bit of money. Then, he gave a detailed description of what he did at the Morning News Office and the people that he talked to and pretty much everything that was said. 

Ruby was not well in his mind. He was flighty. He would go off on tangents. And he provided details about things in his life that not even the Warren Commissioners could have been interested in, but they let him talk. 

I'm sure you've met people who lack the maturity to realize that other people don't have the interest in them that they have in themselves, and thus, they provide way too much detail about themselves to others. And that's what Ruby did. He had verbal diarrhea; he just didn't know it. Here is example: he gets to the point in his narrative in which he mentions someone he knows and likes in Dallas, and he says to Earl Warren:

Jack Ruby: There is a fellow in town that has been very good to me named Gordon McLendon. Do you know him, Mr. Warren? 
Chief Justice WARREN. I think I do not. 

Why would Jack Ruby have any expectation that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who didn't live in Dallas, knew his acquaintance Gordon McLendon? It's wacky. It's zany. Really, Ruby was out of touch. 

See for yourself. Read it, or at least browse through it. 

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/ruby_j1.htm

And, you can tell that the Warren Commissioners were just coddling him as they would a child or a retarded person. Talk about going soft and gentle. I think they pitied him. And the idea that months later, a Dallas jury would convict him to death? Death? This verbose, childlike guy who never evinces the slightest twinge of malice? They were actually going to put him to death? It's unbelievable. I'll bet you Earl Warren was shocked with that death sentence, and I'm sure he didn't agree with it.  But, as I read it, I don't think Ruby was lying. Remember, he was accepting responsibility. He wasn't denying shooting Oswald. He accepted it because others whom he trusted (the Dallas Police, his heroes) told him he did it. He was ready and willing to accept the consequences of having done it. So, why would he lie? 

And then, get this: he gives the Warren Commissioners a detailed account of what he did on Friday from morning until midnight, and he said nothing about going to the Dallas Police Department in the afternoon. He spoke of talking to his sister Eva on the phone and then going to the deli to buy food to bring to her apartment, and that would have been the time that he was supposed to be at the PD "stalking": Oswald. But, his testimony proves that Ruby never went there on Friday afternoon, and the Ruby sightings from that event are false. That guy wasn't Ruby. But, he was a Ruby double, and the very fact that they had one is disturbing.

This was such a great find by Amy Joyce, the grey stripe in the ribbon of "Ruby's" hat in the Jackson photo.

That was painted in because they didn't have Photoshop in those days. And, of course, it didn't occur on Ruby's hat, as you can see on the right. And that means that the Jackson photo was definitely altered by somebody. There is zero chance that that image came out of Jackson's camera as the original. So, there is NO CHANCE that the Jackson photo was in Jackson's camera until he got back to the newspaper and developed it. Unless you want to say that Jackson did it? But, he has never admitted any such thing, and there is no reason to think he would do such a thing. What for? The delay in his getting back to the paper was because authorities took his film. They had to look at it before he could have it. 

Amy Joyce:

FYI Ruby's glasses were bifocals. 

"one pair black horn-rimmed bi-focals"   WC exhibit 1322

Maybe this will help your argument in forum?  Maybe they didn't make tinted bifocals back then.  

Ralph Cinque:

Thank you, Amy, and here is the link if people want to see the document themselves:

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1322.pdf

They certainly were not sunglasses, and there is no reason to think that horn-rimmed bi-focals would be tinted. Besides, as detailed as they made the description, surely they would have said so if they were tinted. 

Here is an image of Ruby wearing glasses at his trial.

Response to a researcher who requested elaboration on the timeline of the garage shooting:

What I am talking about is this: I maintain that when the Dallas detectives shoved "Ruby" who was Bookhout through the door into the jail office, that there were no reporters inside there. Nobody saw it, and nobody filmed it. There is only one footage from within the jail office after the shooting, and that is the one by Jim Davidson of WFAA. And with him was reporter Bill Lords who did the talking. It starts several seconds after the garage scene, but I maintain that there was at least a 1 minute interval that had already passed. And it may have been longer than that. During this interval, Bookhout was disposed of by handing him off to Boyd, Sims, and Hall, who swifted him up to the 3rd floor where we see them in this photo:

Also, Ruby was brought down and placed in position to make his cat walk. And he was so out of it mentally that he didn't know up from down. Unfortunately for them, they left his jacket up on the 5th floor, which completely exposes the ruse, since the Garage Shooter would have still been wearing his jacket. 

And likewise, Oswald had to be dealt with, and I suggest that they quickly sedated him. Someone may have thrust a hypodermic in his arm containing a strong, fast-acting sedative. All of that had to happen before they could get to the jail office scene in the Davidson film, which looks like serenity, with officers standing around mumbling as they peer down (supposedly) at Oswald. And I'm not saying Oswald wasn't really there, just that I don't know if he was really there since I can't see him with my own eyes. And they had the time because as Hoover pointed out, the elapsed time from the shooting to the jail office was only 25 seconds. Another 1 minute and 25 seconds passed om the jail office until you hear Bill Lords say "It is now 11:24 in Dallas." So, that's 1 minute and 50 seconds total from the time of the shooting until Bill Lords notes the time of 11:24. If that was 3 minutes after the shooting, and we have only 1 minute and 50 seconds accounted for in the passage of film time, then it means that over 1 minute is missing from the film. I'm saying that that is when Bookhout, Ruby, and Oswald were all dealt with simultaneously. And in Oswald's case, since he got into the jail office before Bookhout (as proven by the second Beers photo in which "Ruby" is still there and Oswald was long gone,

it means they had a bit more time to deal with Oswald. 

This is the 2nd Beers photo, and it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Oswald was evacuated before "Ruby". You see Harrison on the right? Well, he was directly behind the shooter and had him from behind. So, the shooter has to be in front of him, as indicated by the red arrow. So, "Ruby" is still in the garage, but Oswald is long gone. Oswald was evacuated first. But, wasn't he a lethally wounded man? Didn't they have to size him up first, get a sense about how hurt he was? Didn't they have to be careful about how to lift him and doing it slowly and gently and softly? And wasn't Leavelle hampered by the handcuffs which were supposedly not removed until they got into the jail office? So how is it possible that Oswald was taken out first?

The only way it's possible for Oswald to have been removed first is if he wasn't really hurt, and he wasn't. 

In addition to all the reasons why this guy can't be Billy Lovelady, such as, that he doesn't look like Billy Lovelady, and Billy Lovelady wasn't there at the time, the plain truth is that he couldn't be Doorman either. For one, his shirt isn't splayed open like Doorman's.

Doorman's shirt wasn't just unbuttoned; it was splayed open. It was parted like the Red Sea. The other guy's isn't. But, here is something that is both comical and pathetic. Look at it closely again:

When Gorilla Man turns his head leftward into profile to us, there is a brief moment in which a narrow band of white appears in the center of his shirt. The Ops say that's his t-shirt, ipso facto, his shirt was open, like Doorman's. But, that is ridiculous. First, most likely, it isn't even real, and that's because it only occurs in the center on the shirt, and not at the top. How could it be open in the center but not at the top? Second, it is nothing in comparison to Doorman's display. The big wide opening of his shirt, exposing his t-shirt, is the most conspicuous thing about Doorman. It's not some little sliver. 

And third, this looks like something that was added to the image as an afterthought. The plain truth is that, in making this phony clip, they entirely forgot about Doorman's shirt sprawl. They were so focused on displaying the plaid shirt, in all its glory, that they forgot about the shirt sprawl. 

Of course that plaid pattern is nothing whatsoever like the "pattern" we see on Doorman's shirt, which is irregular, amorphous, and noisy. What shirtmaker would give a shirt such a pattern and expect to sell it? They try to make shirts attractive, didn't you know?

Look at all the boxes on Gorilla Man's shirt. There is not a single box on Doorman's shirt. Of course, someone drew into it faintly the image of a bizarre hand, whose thumb is on the wrong side. If that was the right hand of the black guy, hailing a tamale vendor, his pinkie would be on the outside, not his thumb. Try it yourself and see. Turn and face right, and then raise your right hand. Your pinkie is on the outside. You couldn't possibly get it turned around the way it is supposed to be there. It is just more photographic flim-flam in a case that is swimming in it.

Oh, but for the evil of it all. 

We know who the Penguins were, so we might as well put in their names.

What I don't get is that Blackie Harrison has got the shooter from behind: with both arms. So, how does the shooter go anywhere from there? You can't tell me that, with his brute strength, the shooter dragged Blackie. 

It appears that Blackie Harrison has turned 90 degrees. He is facing the Main Street ramp now. 

Then, it keeps migrating north, and this is the last view we get of the Penguins in the KRLD film. 

After this, it goes blind, where there are people in the way blocking our view. 

That's good old Pierre of "I saw the flash on the black sweater" fame. 

Look how far up the ramp Graves is. I put an arrow to the corner of the cubbyhole. So, he is well past it.  Look how far Graves has traveled. What was the purpose of that? The purpose was to get as far away from Oswald as possible and to get the cameras as far away from Oswald as possible.

After that, it just goes to obstructed views where there is someone's back in front of the camera. And by the time we can see again, it's all over. 

Let's look at it in the Phenix film:

Well, that got cut off right where McMillan is joining the pile, but still it's worth seeing. It certainly shows that Leavelle's claim of taking evasive action in advance is a total lie. And, he never showed the shooter on his shoulder. What happens is that he eventually grabs the shooter around the nape of the neck with his right hand, but that was after Black Harrison had already made contact, and Bookhout was diving into the swarm. But, I think it's amazing that Leavelle was fixated on the shooter at this point when supposedly, he was handcuffed to Oswald. Handcuffed. As in their hands could never be apart, that's Leavelle's left hand and Oswald's right. So, when Oswald did his actions, which were to crumple forward and down, and then veer back, going up on his toes, and then going straight down like a freight elevator at the TSBD, think about the path of his right hand in all of that. Well, that was also the path of Leavelle's left hand, yes? So, how was that not tugging on him? And doesn't one automatically look in the direction that one is being tugged? 

If you watch the NBC footage, you can see Harrison make his turn through 90 degrees and then start pushing up the ramp to get away from Oswald. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cvm8YLUKsMQ


You do see Miller come up and put something black over the head of the shooter, but after that, it goes to veil shots, and then to pandemonium shots but with no visibility that matters. 

Eventually, it goes to this:

And, it just gets worse after that. The whole thing is designed around what you can't see and making sure you don't see. For the longest time, you see Bob Jackson with his camera up to his face, but where are all the pictures he didn't take?

Amy Joyce found this in the Document Pile. It is a message to Rankin from none other than J. Edgar Hoover. 

He must have been referring to the Davidson film because it's the only one that continues into the jail office. Hoover pointed out that from the time of Oswald's shooting to where they are inside the jail office showing the clock was 25 and 1/2 seconds. And it was shortly after that that the announcer cites the current time of 11:24. If the shooting occurred at 11:20 (and there seems to be some dispute as to whether it was 11:20 or 11:21) that is 3 or 4 minutes which is a lot longer span of time than the length of the film between those two points. Hoover's explanation is that there is a splice in the film, and therefore a span of time is definitely missing. And that's what I said before I ever saw this. I tried to tell the Idiot Backes that when the jail office part begins, that things have already settled down, and it's much too calm for it to be just a few seconds after the pandemonium in the garage. So, how much time got cut out? I don't know, but even it was just 1 minute, and it could have been longer, it was long enough to scurry Bookhout out of there and get Ruby in position for his cat walk. And also, of course, do whatever they did with and to Oswald. I consider this a very big find, so thank you, Amy Joyce. 

I am having a discussion with someone I won't name about the 1981 exhumation of Oswald, and this person mentioned Dr. Linda Norton who led the team: 

"Yeah, she is ugly too. When she announces the findings she twice says 'beyond a doubt', which of course makes me doubt her.

And this was my response:

Good one about the meaning of "without a doubt". Similarly, we just found today a memo in the document pile by J. Edgar Hoover in which he said that people have to be convinced that Oswald was the real killer. The real one. Huh. Said because he knew very well he wasn't the real one.  Ralph 

Memo from Amy Joyce:

Blackie Harrison is the 4th person I've found that said that Oswald was brought into the jail office AFTER Ruby.  I figure that one could easily make that mistake and perhaps two, but not four!  Two of the people that said so were guarding the door, and Blackie was one of the men that supposedly brought Ruby back there.

RC: We have to relate this to the films. We see a movement towards the side door, then men going through it, and then one man closing the door. And that was supposedly and reportedly for the removal of "Ruby".

So, if Oswald was still in the garage at that point, why don't we see him being carried? 

There is only one thing that makes sense to me, and that is that men formed a barrier around Oswald, then he got up and scurried into the jail office, and through the double doors. And that explains why the action moved so far northward, towards the Main Street ramp. I've said repeatedly that all the cameras stayed with the subjugation of the shooter when, of the two, the victim was more important. The shooter wasn't going to get away. What was at stake was Oswald's condition. So, the cameras should have stayed on him. But, not one did. They all followed the mob of Penguins who were tackling "Ruby".  And that took the cameras way over, leaving Oswald, conveniently, out of view.

 Do you see what I mean? Oswald could have danced the two-step out of there, and it wouldn't have mattered. It wouldn't have hurt anything. The cameras weren't pointed at him.

That's it; stick your arms out, you dirty mudderfruckers. Just look at that. Those men are facing opposite each other, yet they're doing the same thing. You think maybe they were told ahead of time to do that? The guy in the center isn't even facing anyone except for a cop. So, who is he holding back? 

That guy providing the veil, making sure we can't see in the direction where Oswald was, was Bob Jackson. So, what did he see? How come we have never heard a word from him about what he witnessed concerning the removal of Oswald?

It just gets worse after that. This is Jackson too:

Finally, someone pushes Jackson down to end his blocking of the view, and no doubt it was after the coast was clear, meaning, Oswald was gone. 

I would pay money to find out who that was who pushed Jackson aside because it was obviously someone in the know, someone who was savvy of the whole situation, and helping to manage the photographic record. 

And Jackson was holding a camera the whole time, so why wasn't he snapping away? That one bogus, highly altered, highly manipulated image of the shooting is all he got? 

I curse him. I curse them all. 

Sparta, on McAdams' forum, is arguing that Ruby's glasses at the Midnight Press Conference were tinted, and therefore, they were essentially sunglasses, and that is a bogus deduction, as I'll explain. What that idiot fails to consider is the photographic quality of the whole image. 

Why assume they were tinted lenses? What would be the need for tinted lenses at a time like that? Look at the eyes of the man to the right of Ruby, our right. His eyes are so dark, we can't see them at all. Look at the man with the camera over his neck to our left. His eyes are black too. Look at the man on the far left whose entire face is black. Now, this is the JFK assassination, so you never know what they did to the photo; what's real, and what was altered. But considering the unusual lighting and darkness results that we see, there is certainly no reason to assume that Ruby was wearing tinted glasses. And guess what? There is another version of the image that doesn't look tinted at all.

 Notice that he looks younger there. The notion that Jack Ruby was wearing tinted glasses at the Midnight Press Conference is preposterous. And, I'll warn you: Occam is going to come back from the 13th century with his razor, and I hear he's got a mean slash.  

This was all predicated by the 1992 movie Ruby starring Danny Aielo. This was his signature look:

Now, why was that chosen? It certainly wasn't because of his look at the Midnight Press Conference. It was from this:

First, that is NOT Jack Ruby. Second, the image is so highly altered, so highly manipulated, that it isn't certain that we are looking at anyone real, that anyone had that look. And how could anyone have his sideburn a mile away from his ear? That isn't even anatomical. And third, that is NOT shadow around his eye. One idiot said it was shadow from the studio lights. But, it takes three things to make a shadow: a light source, an object between the light source and the area in shadow, and the area in shadow. So, what would be the object casting the shadow over the man's eye? And why is it jet black? Look at the eyes of Tom Pettit who is more central in the photo. There is no shadow around his eyes. What we're seeing on the disputed figure can't be shadow, and if it is what it appears to be, sunglasses, then that is an object that Jack Ruby most certainly did not have on him. And it's just one more reason why that figure is most certainly NOT Jack Ruby, for which Denis Morrissette agrees.  

Isn't it interesting that on November 24, 1963, J. Edgar Hoover referred to Nicholas Katzenbach, who was the Assistant Attorney General. But wait. That was the 24th, and the famous Katzenbach memo wasn't sent until the 25th. So, what was Hoover referring to? Isn't it apparent that he was in touch with Katzenbach almost immediately? But,  there was an Attorney General. His name was Robert Kennedy. And there was no mention of him. It goes to show that as soon as JFK got shot, RFK got eviscerated as Attorney General. Katzenbach became the go-to person at the Justice Department, for both LBJ and Hoover. And when Katzenbach wrote his famous memo the next day, it was written to Bill Moyers, who was as high up in LBJ's Texas Mafia as it got.  

"The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial."

Now, why would Katzenbach need to say that to Bill Moyers? Bill Moyers? The guy who on Friday afternoon was pressuring Will Fritz to shut down the investigation because he had his man? He certainly didn't need to hear that from Katzenbach. He just needed to Katzenbach to repeat it back to him. That was Katzenbach's way of saying,"Yes, I hear you. I'm one of you. I'm on your team. I can do this." 

And, I don't assume that Katzenbach was part of the conspiracy. I don't assume that someone tapped him on the shoulder beforehand and said, "Hey, you know, we're killing Kennedy on Friday." But, what I do surmise from it is that after the assassination, someone tapped him on the shoulder, either someone high up in Johnson's circle or even Hoover himself or both and said, 

"We've got our eyes on you to be the next Attorney General. In fact, you are now our go-to person at the Justice Department, since Robert Kennedy is busy grieving and all.  But, we need your complete cooperation in support of the official story because the survival and stability of this country depends on it. We are counting on your patriotism at this critical juncture."

And, I'm sure Katz got the message. And, he did go on to become the next Attorney General. But, think about it: he worked for RFK and indirectly for JFK. And, he was probably well aware of the conflict and tension and strong personal dislike between Kennedy and Johnson. So, shouldn't he have put off Johnson's people and gone to RFK and asked, "What do YOU think?" before committing to anything? By what right did he act independently? He was the Assistant Attorney General, and he was supposed to serve his boss, the Attorney General. 

"The thing I am concerned about, and so is Mr. Katzenbach, is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin."  

Hoover wrote that on November 24, and from the sound of it, the implication is that he spoke to Katzenbach. So, he and the LBJ team were both talking to Katzenbach, and maybe LBJ himself talked to him. They had to find out where his allegiance was. I'm sure they waved carrots at him and heaped praises on him. They may have even told him that he was already their point man at Justice, not RFK. And that became the defacto reality.  

Anyone who thinks they did it out of respect for Robert Kennedy is out of touch. Robert Kennedy was someone they had to manage; not trust. He wasn't on their team. Their only concern about him was that he not go rogue. And he didn't. He may have thought about it, but he didn't. 

From the Document Dump, there is this memo by J. Edgar Hoover written on November 24, 1963, shortly after Oswald died.

"There is nothing further on the Oswald case except that he is dead."

What does it mean? Can you read between the lines? I think it means, "What a relief that Oswald is dead."

So, what do you figure? That Hoover just got lucky, that Jack Ruby came along, penetrated the Dallas Police wall of security, and shot Oswald? This is J. Edgar Hoover we are talking about, a guy who never depended on luck for anything. Then, he said:

"The thing I am concerned about, and so is Mr. Katzenbach, is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin."

The "real" assassin? As opposed to what? The fake one? If he had said the "lone" assassin or the "only" assassin, that would sound familiar, but in saying "real", Hoover was admitting something that never gets admitted today, that the whole entire story lacks credibility. Think about it: Hoover was "concerned" as in worried about "convincing" the public. 

Then, there was this:

"Oswald having been killed today after our warnings to the Dallas Police Department was inexcusable," Hoover dictated. "It will allow, I am afraid, a lot of civil rights people to raise a lot of hell because he was handcuffed and had no weapon. There are bound to be some elements of our society who will holler their heads off that his civil rights were violated — which they were."

What the hell was he saying? That because Oswald was handcuffed and had no weapon that it wasn't a fair fight between him and Ruby? That he didn't have a fighting chance? 

First, Oswald wasn't really handcuffed, but the reason civil libertarians would holler is not because he was handcuffed or because he was unarmed, but because he was in the custody of the Dallas Police who were responsible for his safety. 

So, Edgar, how were Oswald's 'civil rights' violated? You agreed they were violated. But surely, you don't mean that Oswald should have been armed, do you? 

And Hoover said the FBI warned the Dallas Police that Oswald was in danger. But, the Dallas Police reportedly received dozens of phone calls threatening Oswald. So, they were plenty warned even without Hoover. But, what were Hoover's warnings based on? Did these vigilantes, besides calling the Dallas Police to reveal their intentions, also call the FBI to say that they were gunning for Oswald?

"OK, I called the Dallas Police, but I better call the FBI too just so they know that I'm comin' and I'm totin'."

It's ridiculous. Only in the JFK assassination. 

And, if Hoover thought the Dallas Police were so derelict, why didn't he order an FBI investigation of the Oswald shooting? 

And how does that mesh with his first statement, about there being nothing further?

"There is nothing further on the Oswald case except that he is dead."

What he really meant is: there is nothing further on the Oswald case NOW that he is dead.

All of this was nothing but showboating. Hoover was up to his neck in the Oswald shooting. His own man, James Bookhout, played the role of Jack Ruby for the cameras. 

The only disciplinary action that resulted from the Oswald shooting was that Roy Vaughan got a slap on the wrist, but don't be concerned because he went far. He went on to become a police chief of Midlothian, Texas, which is 25 miles southwest of Dallas, and then he went on to become a Municipal Court Judge in Midlothian for 13 years. He lived until 2010. His obituary didn't even mention his involvement in the Oswald assassination. 


 

Adam Steel, a bright young man from England and a recent new member of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, gave me an interesting idea tonight. We were discussing Oswald and Tippit and whether they knew each other. I informed him that John Armstrong believes that Tippit drove Oswald from his room to the Texas Theater. But, I've long been hung up on the fact that at the Midnight Press Conference, Oswald referred to Tippit as "a policeman." He said, "I know I am accused of murdering a policeman. I know nothing more than that." It seems very odd to me that he would refer to someone that he knew as "a policeman." If he knew him, I would expect him to refer to him by name. 

But, Adam pointed out that Oswald may have referred to "a policeman" because that's all he knew. It's possible that his interrogators only brought up that a policeman was killed without stating his name. And as I think about it, I realize that it was commonplace to refer to "the officer." Even Fritz spoke of "the officer" that "we have identified him for killing the Officer." Not Officer Tippit, just the Officer. So, maybe they were doing the same thing with Oswald. Although if it's true, it's another strange thing about the case because they were accusing him of killing Tippit. So, how do you accuse a person of killing someone without naming the person you think he killed? 

But, there is so much we don't know because they wouldn't tell us. We have no idea what Oswald told them about how he got to the theater. We have no idea what he told them about where he was at the time of the Tippit murder. We have no idea what he told them about why he went to the theater. Did he tell them who told him to go to the theater? Did he tell them what he expected to do after leaving the theater, had he not been arrested? He underwent 13 hours of interrogation, and if you add up all the things that are know to be said, it comes to only a small portion of that time, less than half, I'd say. So, what was said the rest of the time? Thank you, Adam Steel. 

Think about how it was for the reporters in the garage. They see this guy rush in and shoot Oswald, and then police start wrestling with him, and without handcuffing him first. And then, within seconds, he was gone, swifted away inside building. 

But, those reporters couldn't know that once inside the jail office that the shooter was pushed down to the ground and handcuffs applied. For all they knew, they took him someplace else, far away, without cuffing him. Why assume that, once inside, they would handcuff him?  Based on what?

And think about how it was seeing all these cops go into action in a coordinated way without anyone saying anything, without anyone directing. How, without vocalization,  did all these cops know that they were going to drag the shooter through the corner door into the jail office? And keep in mind that in none of the reports of what happened did anyone claim that verbal orders were given. Not loudly, not softly; no one ever claimed such a thing. They just dragged the shooter into the jail office because that's what they did.

And then there was the speed. Nobody pulled the wrong way. Nobody thought, for instance, that they were going through the double doors.  Somehow, they all intuitively knew exactly what they were doing and how they were doing it. It was a police miracle. 

And there are some people out there who can't argue with me about this. For instance, Joseph Backes said that Will Fritz moved out of the way to give "Ruby" an opening. Well, in that case, Fritz knew that Oswald was going to get shot, and that they would have to contend with "Ruby" afterwards. So, why wouldn't they have a plan? Do you really think that Fritz knew, but he kept it to himself? He didn't even tell Leavelle? Even though Leavelle was on the other side of the bullet? And didn't he have to tell Leavelle and Graves because otherwise either of them might have interfered, right? And, he didn't want them to interfere, did he? 

So, if Fritz knew, and I agree that he knew, then he must have informed his men. And if he informed them, they must have discussed what they were going to do afterwards; after Oswald was shot.

Of course, it is absolutely crazy to think that Fritz knew and that he was going to let Jack Ruby fire the shot in that garage. Ruby? How could he possibly trust Ruby? How could he possibly subject his men to the risk? Didn't he care about them? 

But, the point is that even in Backes' warped version, the pre-arrangement exists as a necessity.

And, I'll admit that my thinking about what happened has undergone an evolution. And, you know that I now believe that the Garage Shooting was a ruse, that Oswald was NOT shot there. And, for a long time, I assumed that he was shot somewhere in the police station. But, now that I realize that Graves did not ride in the ambulance- and he lied about it- that he followed the ambulance upon leaving but led the ambulance upon arriving, that indicates to me that a stop was made. I can't see Graves overtaking the speeding ambulance. There was no need to, and there was nothing he could do for them. They didn't need him to lead the way. Ambulances travel without police escorts all the time. Then and Now. So, Graves must have met them somewhere and then when they resumed transit, he led the way. 

So, where did they go, and what did they do? Is it where Oswald was really shot? Remember that we have no images of Oswald in the jail office. We only have images of him in the garage and being loaded into the ambulance.

  

That was a still photo, I think. But, let's compare the content of it with images from the KRLD film.

So, this one shows that Oswald's left arm was indeed dangling on the ground. 

But then, Harold Wayne Wolfe, the assistant, walks around and places Oswald's left arm on the stretcher.

Then, as they're lifting him, it looks like it may be Oswald's hand in the center. Hard to say for sure. But, during the loading, we get this weird capture of a monster hand with at least 6 fingers. Now, that's fake. 

Then, the hand completely falls apart and loses its photographic integrity.

And you can't blame Youtube, Backes, because there is a perfectly normal hand on the left. 

There is much less to see in the NBC footage, but I did capture this:

Note that that NBC footage is much worse quality than the KRLD. I have to assume that it was deliberate. After all, you can't assume that KRLD had better equipment and more competent personnel.

But, the problem with that image above is that besides looking artificial, the forearm is too short. Look how short the sleeve is from elbow to cuff.  The forearm is 5/6 the length of the arm. We are certainly not seeing that there. Also, the NBC footage does not show the police car following the ambulance like the KRLD footage does. You don't see it at all when the ambulance pulls out. Then it breaks to Tom Pettit who blabs. And then it goes back to Commerce Street, and you do see a lone police car going down Commerce, and I presume it's the same one. But, I doubt that anybody picked that up until I just did. It seems to me that the NBC footage deliberately avoids telling you that a police car followed the ambulance. But, getting back to the original iconic photo:

So, I presume the hand across the abdomen lying right on top of the wound is fake, and it certainly looks fake. Look at the coloring of the right hand and compare it to the coloring of the left hand which is on the ground. Why would they be any different? And notice that except for Oswald's right hand which looks pale, the rest of him has pretty normal coloring.