Thursday, November 30, 2017

Jack Ruby was in solitary confinement at the Dallas County Jail. But, don't get the wrong idea. It was NOT like Shawshank Prison. 

Ruby had a 3 room suite. Seriously, they converted 3 rooms into a living space for him.  

Three rooms, eh? I wonder what that would cost in New York City today. $5000 a month? $6000 a month? $7000 a month?

And Ruby hung out with his jailers. And they were good to him. They played cards with him. His favorite game was Hearts. That takes 4 people. So, that means 3 men had to take time out from their busy schedules to keep Jack Ruby amused. 

"Hurry up, Jack. We're dealing."

And Ruby had plenty of visitors: family, friends, and of course, his lawyers. And Sheriff Bill Decker would visit him once a week. "How you doing, Jack? You getting enough to eat around here?"

It was a prison with like 5000 inmates. Was he visiting them all once a week? I don't think so.

But, Ruby NEVER interacted with other prisoners. He sometimes could see other prisoners, moving along, or whatever. But, he never ate with them. He never did tatoos with them. He didn't lift weights with them. He didn't work in the laundry room with them. None of that stuff. 

So, the chance that some bozo got to know Jack Ruby better from being in the Dallas County Jail at the same time as him is zero.

And yet, in the last few days, the media has jumped all over that story, that Jack Ruby knew there was going to be "fireworks" in Dealey Plaza and spoke about it freely to a guy he barely knew.  I guess the people who cut Jack Ruby into the plot didn't know that he was a blabbermouth. 

And then, supposedly, Jack and his buddy reunited inside Dallas County Jail. Fat chance. 

But again, it's really all about baiting the buffs. Let's get back to Frazier.

The Prayermanites claim that this, on the right, is Frazier:

Do you notice how distorted that image on the right is? Isn't it reckless to draw conclusions about such a distorted image? And no, I have never tried to draw a conclusion from an image as distorted as that. And then the image second from the left is Prayer Man, and they think there is enough data there to conclude that he is Oswald. Note that a substantial number of researchers have concluded that he is a she, Prayer Woman. But, let's look at it structurally. So, they are claiming that Frazier was looking right over at Oswald. Then, Frazier should have seen him and recognize him, right? But, Frazier has always said that his good friend Lee Oswald, lover of animals and children, was NOT in the doorway. And as for his own location, Frazier has been fickle. The table below was made by OIC Chairman Larry Rivera cataloging some (but probably not all) the places that Frazier said he was. 

Now, if Oswald was alive, I would certainly go to him and show him the Altgens photo and ask him if the Doorman is him. But, Oswald isn't alive. But, Frazier is alive. So, before proclaiming that that guy is Frazier, why didn't the Prayermanites go to Frazier and show him the image, and ask him, "Is that you?" Weren't they at least interested in his opinion? Apparently not. 

At the time of his detention, when he was taken into the DPD, Frazier was wearing an FFA jacket, a beige pull-over shirt which had a few buttons, and tan pants. 

That kind of sport shirt is USUALLY short-sleeved. Is there any reason to think it would be captured stark wide in a film?

So, how much basis is there to conclude that that guy is Buell Frazier? There is so little basis for it that the audacity of the claim is truly astounding. 

But again, if that was Frazier eyeballing Oswald, then it means that Frazier has been living a lie for 54 years. 

My attitude, all along, has always been that this "discovery" is complete, total, utter nonsense, and should be thrown out the window. and the people claiming it, dismissed as buffoons.

I have interacted with some of the individuals pushing this crap, such as Greg Parker and Bart Kamp, and I consider them to be very reprehensible individuals, without a shred of honesty. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they were secretly working for the CIA to bait the buffs, bait the buffs, bait the buffs. 

And here's an example of the dishonesty. This is an image of Shelley and Lovelady strolling along afterwards, and if you look closely, you can see that Lovelady is wearing a short-sleeved shirt.

That is the cuff of a short-sleeved shirt that is billowing there on Lovelady. But, here is how they show it on their site:

They made it into a plaid shirt, and the idea there is that it was long-sleeved. But, what I showed you is the original, and I didn't do anything to it. These bastards are so dishonest; they will just alter evidence to sell their crap. 

The JFK community: Oh, it is an evil place- I gotta tell you. 

Baiting the Buffs

Baiting the buffs, baiting the buffs, baiting the buffs. It's been going on for a very long time. 

So, in 1977, right during the HSCA, an FBI memo surfaces in which a guy says that Jack Ruby invited him to "watch the fireworks" in Dealey Plaza with him. Oh really? And then this fellow, being of a criminal bent, winds up in the Dallas County Jail "where he got to know Jack Ruby better." Now, isn't that special? Baiting the buffs, baiting the buffs, baiting the buffs. 

And in 1978, also during HSCA, a Dallas reporter claims to have interviewed Carolyn Arnold in which she told him something that was totally in conflict with her documented statements about seeing Oswald: she said she saw him eating in the 2nd floor lunch room 5 minutes before the shooting. Hmm. That's funny. Because Oswald said he ate in the 1st floor lunch room, and it's hard to imagine why he would lie about which lunch room he ate in. But, the claims of this reporter (Earl Golz) was all there was. Carolyn Arnold, herself, never came forward.  We never heard from her directly; just him. Baiting the buffs. Baiting the buffs, baiting the buffs, baiting the buffs. 

Then in 1991, JFK the movie included some grainy footage of Officer Marrion Baker running towards the steps of the TSBD, and when he got there, there's a portly figure at the top of the steps. It took, what, 20 years, but some fool on the Education Forum decided "Oswald!" and a whole new preoccupation was born, which resulted in a book which Debra Conway made book of the year, even though she is like the godmother of Buell Frazier. You've heard of the Don. Well, you can call her the Dam. And, Buell Frazier says that his good friend Lee Oswald wasn't there. 

Here they are, Debra and Buell. Don't they look fine? Such devotion. You don't see enough of that these days. 

But then, when someone, a Stan Dane, wrote a book saying that Buell Frazier is completely full of shit, she made it JFK book of the year. What a betrayal of Buell.  But, what she really was doing was: baiting the buffs, baiting the buffs, baiting the buffs. Anything to create noise that will distract people from the truth, that Oswald WAS standing in the doorway, AS the Altgens Doorman.  

Baiting the buffs. It goes way back. Here's one from November 25, 1963:

Did you know that Bill DeMar saw Lee Harvey Oswald in the Carousel Club the week before, meaning just days before the JFK assassination? Hmmm. That's funny. Because Oswald didn't drink. And he didn't smoke, and he actually hated to be around smoke, and those clubs were very smokey, especially in those days. Today, many cities have banned smoking in nightclubs, but none banned it then, and you can be sure it was smokey. And he had no car. And, he was very frugal. So, you really think that after working at the TSBD, he went back to his boarding room, and then what? Took a bus or cab to the Carousel Club? What for? To see the striptease acts? You think he was into that? Based on what? OR, was it to conspire with Jack Ruby about their diabolical plan to kill John F. Kennedy?

Baiting the buffs, baiting the buffs, baiting the buffs, baiting the buffs.  

Now I know why they didn't remove Ruby's statement that the officer had his back to him from the written transcript. It's because the written transcript was published in Elmer Gertz' book Moment of Madness, and obviously, if something is printed in a book, you can't make it go away.

But where did the audio file that exists come from?

So, who put together the file? It's a production. It includes an announcer who says that "there were no windows in his spartan cell; a naked light-bulb shown above him 24 hours a day" and other bull shit. 

But, that is the only version of the audio that we have. It started as audio tape that was in the possession of either Elmer Gertz or Earl Ruby. So, how did it get made into a slick production? And who made it into a slick production? Who made the editing cuts? Who wrote the tripe that the guy says at the beginning? 

I know now the source of the written transcript, from Gertz' book, pages 485 to 492. So, that settles that. But now, I want to know the chain of custody of the audio file and how it got made into a slick production. 

Ruby's Deathbed Confession vs. Vaughn's testimony

In Ruby's deathbed confession, there is a written version and an audio, but they don't agree. They are not exactly the same. 

Why is that? It's not that long. What reason would anyone have had to "edit" such a short statement? 

For instance, in the written version, it states that the officer who was leaning over and talking to Lt. Sam Pierce "had his back to me." That was cut out of the audio.

But wait. If that officer had his back to Ruby, then he must have been on the passenger side of the car. 

Let's make this easy by looking at a map:

So, Ruby was on Main. And he walked to our right to get to the ramp. He had to cross Harwood Street, and the ramp was between Harwood and Pearl.   Notice that it says Pearl Expressway, but that appears to be a modern development. At the time, it was just Pearl Street. Now look at Roy Vaughn's testimony:

Mr. HUBERT. What did you do when the car (Pierce's) came up?
Mr. VAUGHN. The first thing I noticed the car--still standing inside the ramp-and I heard someone at the bottom of the ramp holler, "Watch the car," and when I looked down you could just get a view of the front end of the car coming up the ramp. It had its red lights on, which were in the grill. As it come on up the ramp, I stepped to my right, and it come up the ramp
Mr. HUBERT. You stepped towards Pearl Street?
Mr. VAUGHN. Yes--towards Pearl Street, and I stepped to my right in order to get out of the car's way, and I stepped out on the sidewalk somewhere between the sidewalk and the curb.

So, how could Ruby describe an officer with his back to him if that officer was on the Pearl Street side?

Again: they cut "with his back to me" out of the audio version. Why didn't they cut it out of the printed version as well? Perhaps just negligence. 

Then, note that Ruby and Vaughn knew each other. Vaughn had to deal with some issues at one of Ruby's clubs (not the Carousel) concerning a waitress and some "colored musicians".  Then, another time, Vaughn pulled Ruby over for a traffic violation, but seeing it was Ruby, he let him off without issuing him a ticket. Don't you think Ruby would remember him? 

Then, there is this passage which does NOT occur in the audio version: 

 according to the Western Union records -- the time stamped on the Western Union records -- it's 11:17 the time the incident taking place 11:21, it was 11:21.

I attribute that to "them" wanting to correlate the time with the official story. I figure that either Ruby never said any such thing, OR he said it but with a different time. Recall that in his testimony to the Warren Commissioners he cited 10:15 as the time he sent the WU money wire. 

I have to wonder: how did this wind up in the hands of the bad guys? This was a small recording device that Ruby's lawyer, Elmer Gertz, brought to Parkland Hospital and also present was Ruby's brother Earl. So, that means it was private property, right? So, how did the authorities get the opportunity to edit it? 

Now, let's consider the differences between Ruby's account and the official story. 

Ruby said the police car was a squad car. But when Pierce drove up the ramp a minute before the shooting, he was in an unmarked black car. 

Ruby reported seeing no one in the car except Sam Pierce, but by the time this car reached the top of the ramp, another officer had boarded in front, and there was another officer in back. So, three officers were in the car. 

Ruby reported seeing an officer on foot with his back to him, which means on the Harwood side. But, Vaughn said he was on the Pearl Street side. 

By the way, the DPD did its own internal investigation of the shooting, and the result was that Roy Vaughn was the only one who received any kind of reprimand for what happened. And he profusely protested and hired a lawyer. He insisted that Ruby did NOT get in on his watch. And, he was absolutely right that at 11:17 when he stepped towards Pearl to let Pierce exit, Jack Ruby was not there then. 

Roy Vaughn was really a pivotal player in all this. But, that doesn't mean that he was in on it. I'd say that's unlikely. Roy was 29 years old. He had been a police officer for almost 6 years. When asked his rank, he said "patrolman." I'm pretty sure that's the lowest rank. He said he was working downtown that morning when at 9 o'clock he got a call from Lt. Sam Pierce telling him to report to City Hall. He said when he got there to the "511" office, that there was a coffee pot, and officers were standing around drinking coffee, and he joined them. But apparently, Pierce wasn't there. So, Vaughn just waited for him. It's unclear how long he had to wait. When Pierce finally showed up, he told Vaughn to report to Sargeant Patrick Dean to secure the basement. So, he did that, along with two other officers. 

Then, Vaughn said there was a Sargeant Putnam, who was working with Sargeant Dean, and Sargeant Putnam is the one who ordered him to guard the Main Street ramp. The time, he said was approximately 9:30, but he wavered on that. "I couldn't be definite."

9:30? I doubt it. That seems like a lot to transpire in just half an hour. I bet it was closer to 10:00.  

But, let's think about this: are we to believe that until then, no one was guarding the Main Street ramp? Oswald was scheduled to be moved at 10. So, how can you wait until 9:30 or later to guard that entrance?

We assume there was no one guarding it before Vaughn, right? 

Mr. HUBERT. Did you in fact turn away some people?
Mr. VAUGHN. I had one particular--yes, I turned away several people that were not press--they would try to enter the ramp.

So, does that mean that until Vaughn got there, people were entering freely?

Then, when Vaughn stepped aside to let Pierce out:

Mr. HUBERT. Was your back then toward the ramp entrance?
Mr. VAUGHN. No, sir; my back was not toward the ramp, I was standing to the right of the ramp where I still had a view of the ramp itself, the entrance to the ramp. My back would have been toward Pearl Street--it would be towards the east.

But again: Ruby said the officer had his back towards him, which obviously places the officer on the other side of the ramp, the same side that Ruby was on. Is there any reason to doubt Ruby about this? I can't think of any. 

Mr. HUBERT. Now, after the Pierce car passed by, what did you do?
Mr. VAUGHN. I walked back inside the ramp to my original post, which was 2 or 3 feet inside.
Mr. HUBERT. And you stayed there until after the shot was fired?
Mr. VAUGHN. Yes. 

Now read this: Wow.

Mr. HUBERT. Do you think it would have been possible for anyone to enter the basement who was approaching the Main Street ramp from Pearl Street or the Western Union direction, while the Pierce car was exiting?
Mr. VAUGHN. No; I don't believe it was possible.
Mr. HUBERT. And why do you say that?
Mr. VAUGHN. Because--due to the fact--the time, the period of time like I said, I had a view of the ramp from the period of time the car actually come out, and I waved it on and walked back to the ramp.
Mr. HUBERT. Now, you know, of course, that Ruby says that that's the way he got in?
Mr. VAUGHN. Yes, I realize that.
Mr. HUBERT. What is your opinion about that statement?
Mr. VAUGHN. I don't believe he did.
Mr. HUBERT. You think he got in some other way?
Mr. VAUGHN. He didn't come in at the ramp. How he got in--that, I don't know, but I know--I don't believe that he came in the ramp.
Mr. HUBERT. Is it your opinion beyond any reasonable doubt, and I think you are familiar with that phrase as an officer, aren't you?
Mr. VAUGHN. Yes.
Mr. HUBERT. That Ruby did not enter the basement through the ramp while you were there?
Mr. VAUGHN. Yes, sir. 

Again: Wow. 

I find it interesting that even though, supposedly, Ruby gained entrance at the time that Pierce was pulling out, that only Vaughn was held accountable. But, Pierce had eyes, didn't he? And he was an officer too wasn't he?  If he saw Vaughn step to the right, the Pearl side, to get out of his way, wouldn't Pierce automatically glance over at the Harwood side to help cover it? Plus, there were two other officers in the car with him. So, not one of them glanced over at the Harwood side? And they wanted to blame Vaughn? I don't get it that all the blame was heaped on Vaughn. 

So, what is the most likely thing that happened here? 

First, I urge everyone to listen to Ruby's audio rendering. See if you think he sounds like he is being truthful. This is something that juries do all the time, right?

As I listen to it, I think he is being truthful. I rate the chance that he is deliberately lying at zero. 

And I have no reason to think that Vaughn was lying. I certainly don't think that anyone tapped him on the shoulder and said, "Hey, you know we're killing Oswald today. And we are going to make it look like Jack Ruby did it. So, when he shows up at the ramp, act like you don't see him and let him slip in. Make it look good."

No, I think Vaughn was set up to be the fall guy. He was issued some kind of demerit, but it was just a slap on the wrist. But, it is just ridiculous because why not point the finger at Pierce as well? Didn't Ruby slip by Pierce just as much as he did Vaughn, according to their story? 

The official story has it that Ruby definitely gained entrance while both Pierce and Vaughn were at the head of the ramp. So, how do you blame Vaughn and not Pierce?  

So, what actually happened? 

What follows is speculation on my part, and it is a new train of thought for me. I am not making any definitive statements here. I am just thinking out loud. 

If I assume that Ruby was being truthful (and I do) and if I assume that Vaughn was being truthful (and I do), then I have to assume that the officer that Ruby saw on the Harwood side with his back to him was not Vaughn. He must have been someone else. And that means that it occurred before Vaughn started his watch. Perhaps while Vaughn was drinking coffee with the other officers, the snaring of Jack Ruby was underway. And maybe it was over and done with by the time Pierce showed up. 

The problem with this is that it sets everything back to where Ruby was at the WU office much earlier than reported. Until now, I considered that it might have been as much as an hour earlier, but could it have been earlier than that?  An hour and a half earlier? What time would Ruby have had to leave his apartment to do that? 

So, I am going to have to study this further, and I will try to get Amy and the Wizard to brainstorm it.  

Wednesday, November 29, 2017

You realize that there is a lot of news about the JFK assassination that CBS News doesn't report. But, look what they published just two weeks ago:

So, this "FBI informant" Bob Vanderslice claimed to watch the fireoworks in Dealey Plaza with Jack Ruby from in front of the Postal Annex Building. That was a block and half down Houston Street from Main. So, knowing that the President would be turning from Main onto Houston, doesn't it seem like they would have positioned themselves closer? And then after the fireworks, Ruby said nothing and proceeded to the Dallas Morning News to tend to his ads.

And then, although Vanderslice was an "FBI informant" he was a criminal, and he committed some crime which landed him in the Dallas County Jail where "he got to know Ruby better". 

That is complete, total, utter bull shit. All the indications are that Ruby did NOT interact with other prisoners at the Dallas County Jail. You want a reference for that? Very well:

Don't you get it? Ruby hung out with his jailers; not other prisoners. They kept him away from other prisoners. He did not eat in the communal mess hall. He did not work some job in the prison laundry folding sheets. He did not mingle in the courtyard with other prisoners during outside break. None of that stuff. The idea that Bob Vanderslice got to know Jack Ruby better at the Dallas County Jail is a preposterous lie.

But, it wasn't just CBS, but all the major news outlets picked up this story and ran with it. 

Don't you see what is happening? THEY, meaning the powers that be, are seeding and fueling the idea that Jack Ruby was involved in the JFK assassination- even though it's not the official story, and even though it completely obliterates the lone nut hypothesis. I mean: if Oswald shot Kennedy alone and told no one, how could Jack Ruby know that there was going to be fireworks?  So, they are actually contradicting their own story when they promote this shit. 

But, the way they look at it, I think, is that there are ALWAYS going to be people who believe there was a conspiracy. And they don't mind a bit. It's Government Story #2. As long as you keep Oswald up on the 6th floor firing, they are happy as ducks on water. And by adding Jack Ruby to the conspiracy mix, it ices it that he shot Oswald. And that is the key thing they want to shove down your throat- that you never, ever question that he shot Lee Oswald.

So, they bait you with a phony story like this (there is very solid evidence that Jack Ruby was at the Dallas Morning News during the motorcade, just as he claimed) knowing that it's a ball that some will run with, but they know it will never lead anywhere; it poses no threat. They are just BAITING THE BUFFS. They are just playing with your head. You are their Pavlov dog. Don't you know that? 

Oh, but do I hate the bastards. I hate them to the core of my being. Some people aren't capable of hate. Jack Ruby wasn't capable of hate. But, I am VERY capable of hate, and I don't apologize for it. 


Not everyone who currently follows this blog was around several years ago during my Moorman photo saga. But, I have not changed my mind. I still say that the photo known as the Moorman photo is NOT the one that Mary took. 

And to my naysayers, I say: Explain then why the FBI, the Secret Service, and the CIA kept "borrowing" Mary Moorman's photo, again and again and again, in the weeks following the assassination. They made copies of it on the very day. They even made a negative of it. So, why did they have to see hers again?

It's because there must have been something in it that bothered them. Something that was revealing too much of the truth about what really happened. 

And I know when they swapped it out for another photo. It was when they returned it to her- with all due apologies- with the white thumb print in the center. I have a stack of Polaroid pictures, and when I press my thumb to the center of one, it does nothing. 

You would have to be pretty damn stupid to believe that that was an accident. 

And I think that before they did it, they did a psychological profile of Mary Moorman to determine if she would accept it. And they determined that she would.

And by the way: all claims of images of the original, undamaged Moorman photo being found are bogus. Those are just photoshopped versions of this one. 

I am not going to try to speculate on what Mary's real photo showed that caused them such dismay-enough to get rid of it and replace it with this monstrosity. But, it's important to realize that the limo braked- severely- and Hargis responded right away by braking accordingly. But, Martin on the outside, apparently wasn't paying as much attention, and he did not break right away, and the result was that he gained on Hargis. Hargis and Martin were about even Stephen at this point in the story. But, in the Moorman photo, we have the ridiculous arrangement that Martin was much farther back, and that only his handlebar and his hand and forearm got captured. His RIGHT hand and forearm. So, we are supposed to believe that the camera field dissected him. But, if you look closely at his "hand" you'll see that it isn't a hand. It's more like a clam. It's art. They actually painted that in. At that point, Martin was neck and neck with Hargis, as you can see in the Muchmore film.

Do you see what I mean about Martin's location? So, the Moorman arrangement of the two men is nonsense. And here's something else. You know that the angle of view of a camera expands vertically and horizontally in triangular way from the lens, right? Notice that all the lines emerging from the lens are diagonal. 

So, knowing that, how could BJ Martin be dissected by Mary's camera, so that we are seeing just his right side and not his left?

You could never get such a clean division of him, all the way up to his forearm. 

Because the camera line is diagonal, his right hand could indeed enter the camera field first, but only momentarily first. You could never have that much of his right side captured without capturing his left side at all. I'm telling you: it's art, and crude art at that. 

Why does Bill Newman have his left arm missing? Why is the back of Jackson's motorcycle missing, such that it looks like he is driving a riding lawnmower? 

As I said, the Moorman photo is a monstrosity, and it is NOT Mary's photo. Apparently, her photo showed too much. It dazzles the mind to ponder what she captured.  
It was just announced that Matt Lauer was fired for sexual misconduct. Apparently, it's bad. Apparently, force was involved; as in physically restraining a woman.   

And, I'm glad to see him go. I have never liked him. I have always thought of him as a Statist mouthpiece- someone who spewed the spew and did it with feeling. 

Here he is with Mary Moorman on Elm Street in Dealey Plaza. Mary is showing him how she took her shot, that she took it right when the Kennedys were lined up with her. And he of course, is demonstrating the line of the shot.

 But, the Moorman photo was not taken from that perpendicular angle. It was taken from a diagonal from behind.

And if anything, it seems likely to me that she would have snapped the shutter BEFORE they reached her. After all, she had her eye to the viewfinder and her finger poised to snap from the moment they made the turn at the top of the hill. Shooting early would have meant capturing their faces- rather than the backs of their heads. Can you imagine waiting hours to get a picture and then winding up with the backs of their heads? The Moorman photo was taken by someone at a diagonal angle from behind. Like Babushka Lady.

So, Matt Lauer made his millions spewing his Statist pap, and apparently, he thought that being the great Matt Lauer, that the female workforce at NBC was his personal harem. I'm hoping that criminal charges arise from this. Why not? And then a multi-tens-of-millions lawsuit to strip him of his money? Wouldn't that be grand? And the kicker would be if NBC was added to the lawsuit for hearing about the abuse and not responding immediately. After all, he was their poster boy. There, there now. 

OIC member Adam Steel, from the UK, has made a very impressive poster.

Indeed, if the Doorway Man was Lovelady, why didn't Hoover prove it with images immediately? Why didn't he put Lovelady in front of a sea of cameras so that people could see for themselves that he just happened to have an uncanny likeness to Oswald. Remember the stories? That Lovelady's kids saw Oswald on tv and thought he was their dad. That Lovelady's wife saw Oswald from behind at the TSBD and thought he was her husband. God, is that CIA shit is nauseating. 

The actual fact is that Hoover NEVER provided the public with images of Lovelady. When his men took photos of Lovelady on 2/29/64, and after they were altered as much as they thought they could get away with, they were quietly sent to the Warren Commission. Nothing went to the newspapers. And the Warren Commission did nothing with them. They just left them in the "document pile." We only found out about them and got to see them because of one man: Harold Weisberg. 

The truth is that Oswald and Lovelady no more looked alike than any other two unrelated men. And physically, it wasn't even close. Oswald was 5'9" 131 pounds; Lovelady was 5'8" 170 pounds.

Not only did they not provide images of Lovelady or Lovelady himself; they harassed anyone who tried to grab a picture of Lovelady. Fortunately, Mark Lane succeeded. The protruding ears of Lovelady alone give it away that he wasn't Doorman. 

 The chicanery involved in all this is sickening to behold. But fortunately, the truth is out there, and it's not going away. Thank you, Adam. 
I just got an interesting and supportive comment on my Youtube video about James Bookhout being the Garage Shooter.

 Yes, exactly. Just by the haircut and other features that are visible, (and they didn't give us much) we know that the man is not Jack Ruby. 

It's interesting (to me) how my thinking has undergone an evolution concerning whether Oswald was really shot in the garage. At first, I presumed that Oswald was really shot there, that Bookhout was, indeed, a murderer. But then, I started doubting that it was a real shooting. I started leaning towards it being fake, although I didn't say anything at first. But then, I started saying that it might have been fake. But, that evolved to where I am now 100% certain that it was fake, that there is NO CHANCE that Oswald was really shot in the garage, and I kick myself for ever thinking it was real. It was a spectacle; a made for television spectacle. 

They weren't going to shoot Oswald in the garage. They needed a precision shot. The shot that hit Oswald had a downward slope, entering at the 7th rib and settling at the 11th rib. No one can claim the Garage Shooter did that. Besides, if it was real, it would mean that Oswald wasn't in on it, and if he wasn't in on it, then he would likely have taken evasive action- done something to interfere. How would that have looked on television? No, they won over his confidence. I'm sure they started buttering him up. "We're going to get you out of this, Lee. We just have to fake your death first." It was staged. It was acting. 

And then, even though there were multiple movie cameras in that cubby hole shooting from different angles, not one caught so much as a glimpse of Oswald being moved out of the garage. Not a flash, not a peep. Doesn't that bother you? Because: it damn-sure should bother you. And then we had these CIA moles (reporters) who claimed that they saw it- Oswald being picked up and taken inside. One guy said that Oswald was "dragged" inside. That's not the story, and it's not the way Leavelle depicted it when he made his television movie.    

These pluckers just let the CIA write narratives for them, and they put their name to it. Reporters? Huh. They're not reporters; they're whores. 

I am very heartened by the fact that immediately after the shooting, someone wrote to the Dallas Police and said, "that guy wasn't Ruby." Nothing came of it, of course. But, it was a harbinger of what was to come. And now it's come. 

Tuesday, November 28, 2017

I just got  a fresh new complement for the song we did back in 2013, He Didn't Do It which now has over 10,000 views. And of course, the front man for the band and vocalist and harmonica player is my cousin Tony, and I can tell you that Tony believed every word he was singing. He became a senior member of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, which he is to this day. 

This is really nice. I get a kick out of it every time I hear it. These guys, all of them, are REAL musicians, meaning not like me. And the keyboard player; I forget his name, but if I had 10% of his ability, I'd have more ability than I have now. 

And as I think about it now, after several years, I realize that the title, He Didn't Do It is actually perfect. That's because it sums up in 4 words, and most of them just two letters long, the crux of the truth about the JFK assassination, that he, Oswald, didn't do it. No one could sum it up any more concisely. 

So, if you are new, and you haven't heard this song, please listen to it:

At the start, Tony refers to the place as the drum lab, and that's because the drummer has a day job teaching drumming to students.  So, they come there to take instruction from him; hence it's the drum lab.

I have a dream about Eric Clapton performing this song someday. Think that's impossible? Well, it's a long shot, granted. But, it's not impossible. 

If you believe Lee Harvey Oswald that he didn't own a rifle, and I believe him because I don't think he was stupid enough to lie to police about it. It wasn't a crime to own a rifle and if his rifle was used to shoot someone, it didn't necessarily mean that he did it. Weapons get stolen all the time. 

We have to start with the premise that an innocent person has no reason to lie to the police, and it would be very foolhardy to do so. 

So, if you believe Oswald was innocent, you have no reason to think he lied to police when he said he owned no rifle.

But, think about what else it means. It means that that whole story about Marina watching the assassination coverage on television and then rushing into the garage to see if the blanket with the rifle was still there.  And she was relieved when she saw the empty blanket. Apparently, she couldn't tell that it contained no rifle. 

But then, the police came, and they asked her if he owned a rifle, and she said he did, and that it was in the garage. So, they went into the garage, and some officer picked up the blanket and dropped it, showing that it was empty. And that's when Marina nearly fainted.

But, isn't it preposterous to think that she couldn't tell that there was no rifle in the blanket prior to that? 

Author Thomas Mallon interviewed Ruth Paine, and this is what she told him: "When I asked her, nearly forty years later, to reconstruct what happened in the garage, Ruth groaned, before saying that Marina 'showed this blanket roll, which was on the floor. The officer picked it up, folded it over his arm. It was empty. He didn't even have to open it. You could see it was empty. That was when I had this feeling, My God, it could have been Lee — that he came out last night, that the gun had been there. . . . That was probably the worst moment."

There is no way anyone would mistake an empty blanket for one with a rifle. The demonstration wasn't necessary. Visually, it would be seen immediately. Rifles have got this thing called shape. So, this story has no credibility. 

Now obviously, this did not happen because Oswald owned no rifle. But, when did they start telling this story?

Let us look at the affidavit that Marina signed on November 22. November 22. 

Marina didn't type it. Somebody else typed it from what she said. This is really a short synopsis of her whole life with Lee Harvey Oswald, starting with her marriage to him. And as she recounts everything, it's notable what she doesn't say. She says nothing about him shooting at Walker or wanting to shoot Nixon. She said that he used to own a rifle to hunt with in Russia. Well, the implication of that is that he doesn't own one now. There was no point in mentioning the Russian rifle if there was another one since then. Then she said that she knew there was "a" rifle in Ruth Paine's garage. A rifle? The implication of that is that it wasn't necessarily his rifle. She said that two weeks before, she saw the blanket in the garage, and she opened it to find a rifle. She said that today at police station they showed her a rifle, and it looked like her husband's, but not exactly. For instance, she didn't remember the sight, the telescopic sight. But, wait a second. Stop! Do you mean to tell me that they took Marina to the the police station on Friday, November 22 and did not let her see her husband? Doesn't it seem like she would have insisted on it? "I want to see, Lee."

And apparently, Marina was taken to the DPD on Friday, although I am just finding out about it now.

"Within minutes, the police were hauling off boxes of the Paines' and the Oswalds' belongings, while Ruth protested in vain. A neighbor, Dorothy Roberts, watching this front-lawn drama, which must have resembled an eviction, thought that she had never seen Mrs. Paine so angry. One policeman grabbed Ruth's arm; another threatened to take her children "to Juvenile" if she and Marina didn't hurry up and come downtown with them."

So, we have to face the fact that Marina Oswald was at the DPD on Friday, and she did not demand to see her husband. It is just plain weird. Didn't she think that if she asked her husband what happened that he would tell her the truth? 

But, to be fair, it's possible that she did ask about seeing Lee, and they told her that it wasn't possible that day but that they would bring her back tomorrow to see him.

But, take a look at this affidavit again because it demonstrates that Marina knew nothing about Oswald owning a rifle in Texas. SHE WOULD  NOT HAVE MENTIONED THE RIFLE HE OWNED IN RUSSIA IF THERE WAS ANOTHER ONE SINCE THEN.

And obviously, if he did not own a rifle, then he did not shoot at Walker or seek to shoot at Nixon.

So, in the weeks that followed, they completely twisted her mind, and crafted for her a new alternate reality with alternate memories. And it is scary to think that they could do that. And she has been living with it all these years. Doesn't it seem like at moments she would get glimpses of the past, her real past? I have been told by people who know her that she fears that she is being watched constantly. And that makes sense. Because somewhere deep down inside, she knows the truth. And if that were to surface... 


When the Secret Service checked Marina into the Inn of the Six Flags on Saturday, November 23, they did it when Oswald was still alive. They did it, supposedly, because she needed protection. But why, in that case, couldn't they establish protection at Ruth Paine's house? 

And if she needed protection, what about the killer's mother? Nah. Who's going to bother killing that old bag? Waste of a bullet, right?

It's one thing to protect somebody where she lives, but to move her somewhere else? And they weren't just providing her room. She had to eat, didn't she? They also had to be providing her meals, right? And if she needed to see a doctor, they were going to provide that to, right? Even a dentist? Even everything? So, what they were really doing was making her totally and completely dependent on them. 

But, her husband was being held for double murder. So, how could they confiscate the man's wife, where they were going to be influencing her thinking, showing her evidence, and steering her to see things and remember things their way? How could he get a fair trial under those conditions? 

Obviously, you can't try a man for double murder while holding his wife. That precludes any possibility of a fair trial. And in the state of Texas the "spousal privilege" law is VERY strong. They were cultivating her to be a witness for the State, and not just "a" witness but the cardinal, featured, star witness. It started right away, and by Saturday November 23, they had her physically in their custody.  But, how could they do that when Oswald was still alive? How long could they have gotten away with it if he remained alive?

The answer is: not very long. Yet, there was no point in doing it for just one night or just two nights. I'm sure that when they moved her into the Six Flags Inn, they told her it was for the indefinite future. There would have been no point in doing it otherwise.

Before Marina agreed to do it, why didn't she say, "I have to consult with my husband about this." ? I wish I knew.

What I am saying is: THE SECRET SERVICE MUST HAVE KNOWN ON SATURDAY THAT OSWALD WAS GOING TO DIE IMMINENTLY. That can be deduced from the fact of their action to move Marina into their custody before Oswald was eliminated. To possess her would have been ruinous to the case if Oswald lived and went on trial. So, they must have known that he wasn't going to live, and that there would be no trial.

And let's consider that the person who first interrogated Ruby and for hours was Secret Service Agent Forrest Sorrels. Why him? In the case of Ruby shooting Oswald, it definitely wasn't a federal matter. Oswald was just a private citizen, and so was Ruby. This was a police matter, as much so as any other local shooting. So, why bring in the Secret Service? 

It is an OUTRAGE that they confiscated and took complete and total possession and control of Marina while Oswald was still alive. It was such an outrage that they had to know that it wouldn't last unless Oswald soon disappeared. They simply wouldn't do it for a night or two. So, they must have known that Oswald was going to be eliminated; wiped out; rendered dead. THEIR ACTION PROVES THEY HAD FOREKNOWLEDGE OF OSWALD'S KILLING. 



Imagine if Mark Lane had forced his way into the PD and demanded to consult with Oswald as his lawyer. Say he used Marguerite as his authorization, that she hired him to defend her son. A mother is a pretty close family member, isn't she? 

And if they gave him a hard time about it, he could have pointed out that there were no other lawyers stepping forward. And if they got Robert Oswald or even Marina Oswald to object, Lane could point out that they weren't arranging any legal help for Lee. 

So, it's fun for me to imagine what that meeting between Mark Lane and Lee Harvey Oswald would have been like:

Lane: Did you do this? Did you shoot the President?

Oswald. No, I did not not.

Lane: Did you shoot Officer Tippit?

Oswald: No, I did not.

Lane: Where were you when the President was shot?

Oswald: I was in the doorway. There were other people there: Shelley, Lovelady, Frazier, and others. I wasn't really with them. I keep to myself around here. But, I presume they saw me.

Lane: (reaches into his briefcase and takes out a newspaper) Is this you?

Oswald: (takes the paper; looks at it wide-eyed) Yes, that's me. But, it's a weird image. They did something to it. It doesn't look entirely like me, but that is me. It's definitely my clothes. And hey, that is where I was, so it has to be me. 

Lane: How did you wind up in the lunch room after the shooting? 

Oswald: Bill Shelley told me to go there and wait. He is my supervisor, and I do what he tells me. 

Lane: Do you have any idea who did this?

Oswald: I don't have any concrete knowledge, no. Nobody told me anything. But, I know people who do this kind of thing in other countries and other parts of the world. For instance, if you want a name, there is David Atlee Phillips. But again, nobody said a word to me about killing President Kennedy. Not a word. 

Lane: Is it your rifle they found on the 6th floor?

Oswald: No. As I told police, I don't own a rifle. And their claim that I ordered one from Chicago is totally bogus. I did not.  

Lane: Did you come to work with a large package?

Oswald: No. I came to work with a small package: my lunch. And if you go to the lunch room, the paper bag should still be there in the trash can.

Lane: Did you say anything to Frazier about needing to get curtain rods? 

Oswald: No. Why would I do that? My boarding room has got curtains hanging. I don't know where he got that from. 

Lane: Alright, now listen. First of all, I believe you. Second, it's obvious that you are being framed and that very powerful people in this country wanted the President dead. They couldn't just kill him because it's unAmerican to do that. The U.S. isn't some banana republic. So, they concocted this story that you are a deranged lunatic who did it out of bitterness, resentment, etc. Now, here's what I am going to do:

First, I am going to demand a hearing with the judge concerning the conditions of your detention and your safety. I'll argue for your release on bail on the grounds that we can arrange security for you better than the Dallas Police can, that resentment against you within the community and within the Dallas Police Department is high. The judge is not likely to honor it, but I want to get it on the record that we don't consider you to be safe, and the idea of an accident or security breach that results in an attack on you looms large. And to you, I say: be 100% vigilant at all times. 

Second, I need to impress the judge that because of the gravity of the situation and the risk to you, that the wheels of justice can't turn slowly in this case, that we need to have preliminary hearing within days, in which all of the State's evidence against you is made available to me, your lawyer. 

Third, what do you know about your family's situation?

Oswald: Just that Marina and the children are living with Ruth Paine, and I presume that will continue to do that. Do you know anything otherwise?

Lane: I know that Dallas Police have swarmed the Paine house and are rifling through your possessions.  What can you tell me about Marina? Is she one to stand up to police, assert her rights, etc.?

Oswald: No, I wouldn't say so. She comes from a country where people live in fear of the State.  What should we tell her to do?

Lane: Again, we need to assert that her safety is best provided by private security which we can arrange. We can't allow them to harbor and detain her at a time that they are coming after you for double murder. You can't prosecute a man while holding his wife. 

Oswald: Of course, you realize that I don't have any money- nothing that could buy that. 

Lane: Don't worry about the money. I'll take care of it. 

Oswald: Why are you doing this?

Lane: I was a friend of President Kennedy, and I am not going to let the people who killed him get away with it. 

Alright, now I have motions to file. I have papers prepared which you need to sign, authorizing me to be your lawyer. 

He takes out papers, and they go through the motions of getting them signed.

I want you to tell them that you refuse to undergo any further questioning unless I am present. Will you do that?

Oswald: Yes. I'll do anything you say.

Lane: Good. So, don't talk to them, but do continue declaring your innocence to the press. You're doing a good job of that. 

Oswald: OK. I will. 

Lane: Otherwise, you just have to keep your eyes and ears open. You have to scan constantly for threats. I am going to immediately demand that they provide you a bullet-proof jacket.  

Oswald: OK. I understand.

I intend to visit you every day. And I want you to know that I am going to be working on this 24/7. 

Oswald: I am very grateful. 

Lane: And if they demand something from you that makes you uncomfortable or seems risky to you, don't hesitate to demand to see me. 

Oswald: I will.

Lane: Alright then. I'm going now. Be strong, Lee. You're not alone any more. We are going to make hell for them. Holy Hell. Trust me.

Oswald: I do.  


Monday, November 27, 2017

Postal Inspector Harry Holmes LIED when he told the Warren Commission that Oswald reversed himself about going to Mexico City at the final interrogation. 

That is not a speculation. That is a deduction. The difference between a speculation and a deduction is that they are on opposite ends of the certainty spectrum.

A speculation is the putting forth of a possibility that is not supported by evidence. But, a deduction involves logic. It involves inferring something from something else- that is known to be true and not in dispute. Deduction starts with established facts, and it asks, "What can we infer from those facts? What follows from them, by logical necessity?"

So, what facts are involved in this case? Here they are:  

1. We know that when first asked at the first interrogation, Oswald denied going to Mexico City. Three people attested to that: Fritz, Hosty, and Bookhout.

2. We know that Oswald was NOT being accused of committing a crime in Mexico City.  So, if he went there, he had no reason to lie about it. And especially, when he was being accused of killing the President of the United States and a police officer, he had no reason to lie to police about having gone to Mexico City.

In other words, the gravity of the things they were accusing him of towered over whether he went to Mexico City. And therefore, he would not have lied about the latter when facing the former.  

This is an important issue because at a trial, a defense lawyer might tell the jury, "my client had absolutely no motive to commit this crime." And that packs a punch. We are often told that the prosecution doesn't have to establish motive, but don't believe it. They better establish motive. And usually they do. 

So, our first deduction is that if Oswald had gone to Mexico City, he would have said so when first asked.

3. The final interrogation was a crowded session. It included Fritz, who did the questioning, Holmes, SS Agent Thomas Kelly, SS Agent Forrest Sorrels, and several of Fritz' men. FBI Agent James Bookhout claimed to have arrived late, and he said he just watched it through the glass. Immediately afterwards, he asked Fritz if Oswald said anything of note, and Fritz said no. Now, don't you think that if Oswald had reversed himself on Mexico City, that Fritz would have considered that important? If you check the testimonies of Fritz, Sorrels, and Kelley, you will see that none of them claimed that Oswald reversed himself on Mexico City.

4. Now, let's look at exactly what Holmes told the WC, and it is hilarious. Holmes' credibility was so lacking that even his interrogator David Belin asked him if this wasn't just stuff he read in the newspaper, and he pointed out to Holmes that he wrote a memorandum immediately after the interview, in which he didn't say a word about Mexico City. 

Mr. Belin: Did he ever say anything about going to Mexico? Was that ever covered?
Mr. HOLMES. Yes. To the extent that mostly about--well--he didn't spend, "Where did you get the money?" He didn't have much money and he said it didn't cost much money. He did say that where he stayed it cost $26 some odd, small ridiculous amount to eat, and another ridiculous small amount to stay all night, and that he went to the Mexican Embassy to try to get this permission to go to Russia by Cuba, but most of the talks that he wanted to talk about was how he got by with a little amount.
They said, "Well, who furnished you the money to go to Mexico?"
"Well, it didn't take much money." And it was along that angle, was the conversation.
Mr. BELIN. Did he admit that he went to Mexico?
Mr. HOLMES. Oh, yes.

Mr. BELIN. Did he say what community in Mexico he went to?
Mr. HOLMES. Mexico City.
Mr. BELIN. Did he say what he did while he was there?
Mr. HOLMES. He went to the Mexican consulate, I guess.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. BELIN. Now, with regard to this Mexican trip, did he say who he saw in Mexico?
Mr. HOLMES. Only that he went to the Mexican consulate or Embassy or something and wanted to get permission, or whatever it took to get to Cuba. They refused him and he became angry and he said he burst out of there, and I don't know. I don't recall now why he went into the business about how mad it made him.
He goes over to the Russian Embassy. He was already at the American. This was the Mexican--he wanted to go to Cuba.
Then he went to the Russian Embassy and he said, because he said then he wanted to go to Russia by way of Cuba, still trying to get to Cuba and try that angle and they refused and said, "Come back in 30 days," or something like that. And, he went out of there angry and disgusted.
Mr. BELIN. Did he go to the Cuban Embassy, did he say or not?
Mr. HOLMES. He may have gone there first, but the best of my recollection, it might have been Cuban and then the Russian, wherever he went at first, he wanted to get to Cuba, and then he went to the Russian to go by Cuba.
Mr. BELIN. Did he say why he wanted to go to Cuba?
Mr. BELIN. Did--this wasn't reported in your interview in the memorandum that you wrote?
Mr. BELIN. Is this something that you think you might have picked up from just reading the papers, or is this something you remember hearing?
Mr. HOLMES. That is what he said in there.


And, there is another problem with this whole cock and bull story: Holmes said nothing about Oswald reversing himself. Holmes wasn't at the first interrogation, but Oswald was. He knew that he told them that he never went to Mexico City. So, if he was going to reverse himself, he surely would have prefaced it with an admission: "I know I told you I didn't go to Mexico City, but actually, I did."

But no, according to the Idiot Holmes, Oswald just light into talking about how little money he got away with spending in Mexico City because everything was so cheap down there- like he blanked out on what he had just told them less than 48 hours before. Did Lee Harvey Oswald have Alzheimer's disease? 

Taking into account all of the above, we can plainly see that Postal Inspector Harry Holmes lied through his teeth. The fact that he lied is derived from the known facts, as laid out above, none of which are in dispute. 

I consider what Harry Holmes did to be EXTREMELY REPREHENSIBLE. I consider it to be vile. And I have to admit that I hate this rotten miserable bastard- with a passion. He was evil. 
Bernard Wilds has done it. He has restored the proper color to Ruth Paine's station wagon in the historic picture. You see how easy that was? In his words, he just gave it a quick paint job. 

This is from Life Magazine, November 29, 1963. And, it seems to me, that even then, and right away, people should have noticed that the picture looks posed.

I know people haven't studied Ophthalmology, but they know from common experience, that when someone is rushing in from the side, that you do see them with your peripheral vision, and you automatically glance at them. It's like a reflex. So, how could "Ruby" get so far without Graves, and even Oswald, turning their head and looking at him? And even "Ruby" doesn't look right for what he is supposed to be doing, which is shooting a man to death. He looks so relaxed. It seems like he would look more visibly tense. And in Graves' case, "Ruby" was close enough to him that he would have felt the disturbance in the air from "Ruby"- the wind from his rushing in. Also, he was close enough to sense that there was a warm object moving in. It's just impossible for Graves not to have detected Ruby before he got that far. And as Amy Joyce has pointed out, the gun isn't even pointed right to where the entrance wound was. I think it was very childish of people then to accept this a bonafide image of a shooting. And, I think it is even more childish of them to accept it today.   
This is human interest story. Do you recognize this car? You should.

This guy from the Midwest is a collector of old cars, which he refurbishes. But, he's not going to refurbish this one. He is going to leave it just the way it is. And I understand exactly why. It's because that is Ruth Paine's station wagon, which he paid north of $10,000 for. I presume it wasn't much north of $10,000 because if it was, they would have set that figure higher. It doesn't run. 

The story goes that after the assassination, Ruth Paine decided to get rid of it- bad memories and all. So, she sold it to a neighbor. I guess the neighbor saw the historicity of it. He didn't drive it. He just kept it: for 50 years. Then, he put it up for auction, and this guy is the one who made the highest bid.

There is a famous picture of Ruth Paine posing by the car, holding her son, which they showed on the program.

It's strange that they didn't comment about why the car was blue in the old photo but green in real life. And it was always green. Ruth Paine said so when she testified:

Mr. JENNER - Describe your automobile, will you please? 
Mrs. PAINE - It is a 1955 Chevrolet station wagon, green, needing paint, which we bought secondhand. It is in my name. 

So, why does it look blue in the famous picture? Because this is the JFK assassination we are talking about. And in the JFK assassination, images were altered; they were touched up; they were fixed. So, I am saying that the image was photoshopped- generically speaking. And in this case, it was for a relatively petty reason; they just wanted to create nice contrast between her and the car. Notice that her green pants are close in color to the car (as per the top picture). So, they wanted to make it more visually striking. 

Now, if anybody doesn't like that explanation, what's yours? 

But, there is really a more important reason why I am posting this. There are certain people who keep saying that the Nash Rambler that Roger Craig saw belonged to Ruth Paine. That's impossible because she didn't own a Nash Rambler. She owned this 1955 Chevrolet Bel Air station wagon. 

And if you think she owned two station wagons, well the second one would have to be registered and licensed with the state of Texas, just like the first one. So, we would know about it.

And remember, she was separated from her husband Michael Paine, and he was supporting her and their children. And amazingly, when she proposed taking in this destitute pregnant woman and her daughter and supporting them too (that is, him) amazingly, he said, "Sure. The more the merrier." 

But, he had to draw the line somewhere, didn't he? So, I'm thinking that he didn't actually provide his wife with two station wagons. After all, she could only drive one. So, there was no practical reason to have two. There are things in life in which you commonly keep a "spare" of, but a car isn't one of them, unless you're quite rich.

So, what about him? Michael Paine. Is there any chance that he owned the Nash Rambler that people saw in Dealey Plaza? (It wasn't just Roger Craig who saw it.) 

Well, in the words of the vernacular, I doubt it. Unless there is a basis to claim it, you can't just assume it. It doesn't work like that. That's where Occam starts sharpening up his razor, knowing there are throats to be slashed. He was a padre, but don't be fooled. He was a mean bastard. I wouldn't mess with him. 

So, the notion that Ruth Paine lent her station wagon to David Sanchez Morales so that he could pick Oswald up in Dealey Plaza is just a ridiculous and childish idea spewed by ridiculous and childish people. Don't be one of them.