Wednesday, March 22, 2017

The story of the Jackson photo is that "Ruby" shot Oswald from almost directly in front of him. But, we know that's not true.

Oswald was shot in the side, where he was facing straight ahead, and the shooter came at him from the side.

That's quite a difference. Yet, people have always described the Jackson photo as the arrangement that existed at the time of the shot. The "experts" tell us that it was taken just .3 second after the blast, but can the positional arrangement change that much in just .3 second? I don't think so. 

And because of the misleading information of the Jackson photo, many people, even today, think that Ruby shot Oswald from out in front of him. 

But, I think most people would try to get in front of the guy and shoot at him from front to back. You know the expression, the "broad side of a barn." Well, there is a broad side of a person too, and shooting someone in the side is much more risky, especially in a skinny person like Oswald. 

But, in terms of doing harm, the shot through the side, if it lands, is much more devastating. 

A shot to the front, where you are just shot in the belly, you stand a good chance of surviving.  Over 80%. That assumes, of course, timely delivery to a trauma hospital. Furthermore, there is a darn good chance that you won't lose consciousness. 

In Oswald's case, they had to make sure that the shot, the one shot, was fatal, where the best surgeons in the world would NOT be able to save him. And, I'm sure it was also very important to them that Oswald lose consciousness and not be able to communicate to anyone about what happened. So, they had to cut those blood vessels to deprive him of blood. I'm telling you: it was a precision shot. They knew exactly what they were doing. 

It is extremely unlikely that a sudden impulse shot by Ruby would have been lucky enough to accomplish all that. And if you think Ruby did it, it had to be a sudden impulse, right? Because: he brought his dog along and left her in the car. He wouldn't have done that if he knew he wasn't coming back. Right?

But, if the Jackson photo was taken just .3 second after the shot to the side, then why does it show such a different arrangement, with "Ruby" in front of Oswald?  The answer is that they had to do it that way because the goal was to show as little as possible of "Ruby" since he wasn't really Jack Ruby. Notice that you can't tell from looking that it's Jack Ruby. You don't have enough visual data there. With that little visual data, there is any number of men that that guy could be. Probably thousands. Maybe tens of thousands. 

They had to make sure that we didn't see enough of him to figure out the truth; that he wasn't Ruby. After all, what are you really seeing there? You're seeing a short, pudgy guy in a Fedora hat. The world is full of short, pudgy guys, and the world is also full of Fedora hats. You can't ID that guy as Ruby from looking at that figure. You hear me? You can't see his face. Well, if you can't see his face, how can you be sure he is Jack Ruby? People only think he's Jack Ruby because they've been told he's Jack Ruby. That's it. Well, I'm telling you that he is NOT Jack Ruby. And the reason you can't see his face is because they wouldn't let you see his face, and again, that's because he is not Jack Ruby.

Look at the thickness of his legs compared to Oswald's skinny legs. Were Ruby's legs that thick? Let's see. No, they weren't. Look closely, and you'll see that those jail pants were pretty baggy. Ruby's legs weren't as skinny as Oswald's, but they weren't as hefty as Bookhout's. 

Now, on the comic relief side, this is from NEWSWEEK, a magazine that has published nothing but lies about the JFK assassination for 53 years.

But here, they are attacking Russia, which has risen to Public Enemy #1. Well, maybe #2 after North Korea. 

They're saying that the Russian economy is so bad under Putin that the poor Russians can only afford to buy 2.5 pairs of shoes per capita per year, in contrast to the thriving Americans who bought 7.8 pairs of shoes per capita in 2015.

Are they kidding? That's nearly 8 pairs of shoes in a year. If I was Bill Gates and Warren Buffet combined I wouldn't buy 8 pairs of shoes in a year. How many shoes can I possibly wear? In the last year, I have bought exactly one pair of shoes- a pair of sandals. So, if I only bought one pair, what does that mean? That someone else had to buy 15 pairs to make up for it? 

What do you think? Do you think the average American really bought nearly 8 pairs of shoes for himself in 2015? How many did you buy? Ask your relatives. Ask your friends. Take a poll. I think you'll find that that number is way too high. 

And the article goes on to bash Russia. I'll give you the link to it.

So, Russia is poor and struggling while America is rich and thriving. Is that so? Well, one thing they didn't mention in the article is the debt load of each country. Don't debts factor into the wealth calculation? 

We'll start with Russia. Their national debt (in U.S. dollars) is about $154 billion. 

In contrast, the national debt of the U.S. is officially close to $20 trillion

So, roughly speaking, Russia has about 1/120 of the debt of the United States. And keep in mind that in the U.S. a lot of the debt is "off-budget." If you included all the obligations that the U.S government has, for instance, things like federal and military pensions, veterans benefits and expenses, and other things that are off-budget, the total unfunded indebtedness and liabilities comes to a staggering and astronomical figure, with some estimates north of $100 trillion. 

So, which country is likely to go bankrupt first? You do the Math.

And these are the same pluckers who accuse others of issuing "fake news." 

Dear Pete and Bernard,

I am informing you both that I received an auto-generated response from Dealey Plaza UK thanking me for contacting them and saying that they will respond shortly. Except that I never sent them anything. See the attachment.

So, I suspect that one of my longtime enemies, such as Pink O'Blazney, sent it out using the Czech remailer, which they love so much. And it made it look like it came from me. They have done this repeatedly. They have even had me threatening people with physical violence, and one guy Jerry Dealey got awfully close to calling the police. Fortunately, once I informed him that I didn't send it and had nothing to do with it, he believed me. 

It would help me if they sent me the correspondence because it's likely that I'll recognize the style, and that may give me a clear idea of who sent it.

So, wherever that went in the organization, please let them know that I didn't send it. I can't reply to the notice I received because it's a no-reply notice. I thank you both.


Tuesday, March 21, 2017

I wonder if Jack Ruby ever watched the footage of himself shooting Oswald, supposedly. I would think that when he was sober that he had the ability to recognize himself. 

And did he ever see the Jackson photo?

I should think that he would have noticed that that is not him in it. It's not how his hair was in back nor on his neck.

 As you can see, he had considerable scruffiness which the Garage Shooter didn't have. And his hair in back wasn't as long and full as we see on the Garage Shooter. 
They're obviously very different. But, this goes beyond that. I should think that, INTUITIVELY, Ruby would have recognized instantly that this wasn't him. Haven't you always been able to recognize yourself in a photo? 

And the other thing is that seeing this would probably have jogged Ruby's memory that he had no memory of this. As it was, Ruby had no memory of the actual shooting. When repeatedly asked, he just said that he went to the garage and Oswald was brought out and then the police pushed him to the ground. Never once did Ruby ever say, "I took out my gun, rushed him, pointed it at his ribcage, and pulled the trigger." 

So, would seeing it, say, in the KRLD footage, have jogged his memory? I doubt it. In fact, I guarantee it. For one thing, the Jackson photo doesn't show the actual shooting. Oswald was shot in the side from the side. In the Jackson photo, "Ruby" is in front of Oswald shooting directly at his abdomen. So, how could Ruby have a memory of doing something that wasn't even done? 

Here's a clip of it. Watch it again, even though I know you've seen it before. I want you to notice how muted the whole response is. How unusual was it? It was shockingly unusual. It was so unusual that most people go their whole lives without ever experiencing such a thing. And that's true of probably over 99% of people, that they go their whole lives, from cradle to grave, without ever experiencing such a thing. So, how come nobody acted shocked? 

Nobody acted shocked. There wasn't a single gasp or scream or shout or startle of any kind by anybody. There was no look of shock on anyone's face. Nobody jumped. Nobody darted. You had the Penguins doing there thing, covering up "Ruby," and then dancing him into the building, but that's it. 

Just imagine if say, you were at the mall, and somebody went up and shot somebody. Imagine the reaction there would be among the crowd. Imagine what you would hear. And even if you want to say that this involved a lot of cops (tough guys) there were also a lot of reporters and cameramen. They're not so tough. Are they? But, nobody acted out. Nobody acted or sounded appropriately shocked and startled. 

I tell you, I'm just not buying it. I think it was all planned. I think it was all staged. Jack Ruby wasn't even there. The guy playing Jack Ruby was James Bookhout. And he shot a blank. This whole thing was theater. Oswald was shot afterwards, and I suspect it was inside that jail office. 

Robert Jordan You make a lot of sense Ralph Cinque. The shot that hit Oswald was too perfect for a strung out person to make
LikeReply1 hr
Ralph Cinque What a nice, concise statement. I couldn't have said it better, Robert. Thank you.
LikeReplyJust now

Monday, March 20, 2017

If you read through this timeline of Jack Ruby's activities for the three days preceding the 24th, you realize that he was on the go constantly. It was frenetic. Day and night. There are a couple of references to him sleeping, but the amount of time he spent sleeping is incredibly little. Lots of people can tolerate an occasional sleepless night, but how many can tolerate several such nights in a row?

Jack Ruby was wired. He was sky-high on amphetamines. And that's why he could apparently get by on so little sleep. 

But, the question is: were the plotters aware that he was taking huge doses of amphetamines? Was anyone urging him to take such huge doses? Were they helping him in any way, perhaps by supplying them? We know that Ruby saw a doctor at 6 PM on November 20.  What was that about? We know he was being goaded to shoot Oswald, such as Officer Olsen telling him that somebody ought to cut Oswald inch by inch into ribbons and referring to Ruby as "the greatest guy in the world."  Now, I'm not even going to assume that he thought such a ridiculous thing, but why would he say such a ridiculous thing, except to butter Ruby up?

Ruby's roommate George Senator is a VERY suspicious guy. He reportedly said that at 10:15 on Sunday morning, Ruby told him that he was going to kill Oswald. What? Then why didn't he call the police? And don't tell me that it's because he didn't think Ruby would actually do it. He knew Ruby was strung out on uppers. Even if you thought the chance was only 1 in 100, wouldn't you call the police?  

But, let's assume, for the time being, that Ruby's drug-induced psychosis was a factor that the the plotters were aware of and were seeking to exploit. Well, how would they exploit it? By having Ruby shoot Oswald? 

But, why would anyone choose to have a psychotic person bear a loaded gun and start shooting someone? Is it necessary for me to point out that things can go wrong at shootings- even when you don't have psychotic shooters? 

The shooting of JFK went terribly wrong. Didn't it? And they, presumably, had the best snipers they could get. We can be certain that money was not a restraining factor in getting the best shooters. 

And don't you think it was their expectation that the first shot would be lethal? Of course, that is the shot that missed. It was taken from a low elevation in the Dal-Tex building, and it went right over Kennedy's head. It may not have missed him by much. And then it went practically the whole length of Dealey Plaza before being brought to the ground by gravity. But really, the shooting of JFK was a fiasco. They accidentally shot Connally. Twice. And they didn't deliver a fatal shot to JFK until he was practically at the steps at the bottom of Dealey Plaza. Hey! It did not go well.  

If the Dal-Tex shooter had hit Kennedy in the back of the head, it would not only have been fatal, but instantly fatal, and all the other shooters would have been called off. The spotters would have held them back. And surely, it would have been much better for the official story if there were never any shots taken from the front. 

So, when it comes to shootings, things don't always go as planned- even with the best shooters. But, Ruby wasn't an expert shooter at all, and the idea that he could be trusted to shoot Oswald is ridiculous. 

Do you understand that the shot that hit Oswald was a precision shot? They needed a shot, one shot, that would be fatal. If Oswald had survived the shot, it would have been an unmitigated disaster. They would have had no chance to do it again. Who would believe that a prisoner, under the tightest police security, could twice be shot, on two separate occasions, by an intruder? Nobody could believe that. Even Walter Cronkite would have balked at that. The one time stretches credulity a lot as it is, but twice? Again: nobody would believe it.

I mentioned the other evening that Ruby got by two police guards at the Main Street ramp. One of them was in a police car pulling out, but even so, he had eyes. He could see. And he knew Jack Ruby. And the other guy was on foot. The official story has it that he, Officer Vaughn, stepped into the street to hold up traffic so that Officer Pierce could get out, but was that really necessary. What if Vaughn wasn't there? Would have Pierce have been stuck?  Unable to exit? Did he really need help doing a common, everyday, driving maneuver? And considering the lengths that the Dallas PD was going to to secure that garage, why would Vaughn de-prioritize that for even a moment? 

How difficult was it to keep Ruby from entering that ramp? An 80 year old Walmart greeter could have done it with ease.  

No, I'm afraid that when you really look, objectively, at the story of how Jack Ruby got through police security into the garage, you are forced to conclude one thing: that the Dallas Police let him in, that they wanted him to come in. 

And if they wanted him to come in, then surely they wanted him to shoot Oswald. 

But, would the Dallas Police actually let Ruby do the shooting? Pull the trigger? They knew he was strung out on drugs. They knew he was unstable. Stop thinking that this was easy, that anyone could do it. It was not just a matter of hitting Oswald. He had to be hit exactly the right way, to deliver a sure-fatal wound, and not hit anyone else. 

And stop thinking that the Mafia put Ruby up to doing it. The Mafia was not involved. Ruby was not involved with any Mafia in Dallas. He was involved with Mafia in Florida and in Louisiana. So, unless they called in their threat and their order for him to kill Oswald, the Mafia wasn't involved. The Dallas Police were involved. The Mafia didn't let Ruby into that garage. Dallas policemen let Ruby into that garage.

But, here's the point: the official "lone-nut" Ruby story is just as ridiculous as the official "lone-nut" Oswald story. Both of them were set up.  

And, just as I have been saying that they never actually would have armed Oswald and had him do any shooting (remember: he couldn't hit a rabbit with a shotgun in Russia) then likewise, if there was anyone involved in facilitating Ruby's presence in the garage, that they too would never have wanted him to actually do any shooting. Both Oswald and Ruby were just patsies. 

Nobody would trust a psychotic, drug-strung maniac, like Ruby, with a precision shot. 

And, Ruby did not take that shot. I'm telling you: James Bookhout did.   


I was just informed by someone that in his testimony Jack Ruby claimed that he only went to the DPD twice: on Friday evening at 11:15 PM for the Midnight Press Conference and on Sunday morning. That's it. 

Now, why would he lie about that? He wouldn't. He couldn't. He didn't. And it confirms that the Wizard is right, that the Friday 3 PM Jack Ruby was an impostor.

The 3 PM Friday Jack Ruby was much balder than the real Jack Ruby.

That guy on the left was NOT Jack Ruby. 
Read this, and then think: Jack Ruby, who was taking two strong amphetamines, Benzedrine and Preludin.

What is Amphetamine Psychosis?

Amphetamine psychosis is a condition that can affect an individual who has been abusing high doses of amphetamines for an extended period of time. This issue, which according to the CDC is “similar to schizophrenia,” involves paranoia, hallucinations, and violent or erratic behavior. A person can experience this effect no matter what amphetamine drug they are taking; methamphetamine, amphetamine, and dextroamphetamine can all cause issues with amphetamine psychosis if taken in high enough doses every day.

What Leads to Amphetamine Psychosis?

Like with cocaine, amphetamines release dopamine into the brain, causing a pleasant reaction. Those who abuse the drug are hoping to experience an extreme version of this reaction, called euphoria. The feeling becomes addictive and the individual will take more in order to continue feeling it.
According to the NIDA, “With repeated exposure to cocaine, the brain starts to adapt, and the reward pathway become less sensitive to natural reinforcers and to the drug itself.” The same issue occurs with amphetamine abuse; it is called tolerance. As tolerance develops, the abuser will need to take higher doses of the drug each time in order to feel those effects.
These extremely high doses of the drug act on the brain so strongly that, eventually, the individual may come to experience the negative side effects of the drug in a way that becomes more like a chronic mental illness. Like in the case of other stimulants, many abusers will binge on these drugs as well, which as stated by the CHCE, is most often the behavior that causes this condition. Despite the issues of amphetamine psychosis, users who arrive at this point are usually addicted already and will not want to stop taking the drug no matter how negatively it affects them.

What are the Symptoms of Amphetamine Psychosis?

Amphetamine psychosis can cause hallucinations, aggression and violent behavior.
Amphetamine psychosis can cause hallucinations, aggression and violent behavior.
Also called toxic psychosis or stimulant-induced psychosis, this condition is extremely dangerous and will be very upsetting for friends and family members to see an individual struggle with. It is important to understand that, in the event of someone exhibiting the symptoms of this disorder after abusing high doses of amphetamines for a long time, treatment will be necessary.
The symptoms of amphetamine psychosis are
  • Paranoia
  • Compulsive behavior
  • Delusions
  • Hallucinations
  • Picking at the skin
    • This behavior is common, especially among those who abuse methamphetamine, because of the prevalent hallucination of bugs burrowing under a person’s skin.
    • These hallucinations are called crank bugs.
  • Violent behavior
  • Aggression
  • Hostility
  • Fear
  • Confusion
  • Prolonged anxiety
  • Insomnia
  • Homicidal and suicidal thoughts
All of these symptoms point to an individual who is experiencing intense amphetamine psychosis. Because the condition is so similar to schizophrenia and other mental illnesses, it can often be mistaken for such, but you should not rule out the possibility that the individual might be acting this way because they are on drugs, especially if they have never shown signs of psychosis or schizophrenic behavior before. The condition can be very terrifying, though, for both the individual and others around them.

Is Someone who suffers from Amphetamine Psychosis Dangerous?

Yes. An individual with this condition is extremely dangerous and difficult to predict. They will be intensely afraid of others, even those they’ve known their whole lives, as a result of their paranoia. They will likely become convinced that those who care for them are actually trying to hurt them which can make them very volatile.
The tendency of an individual with this condition to hurt others or themselves is high. That is why, when approaching someone with amphetamine psychosis, you should take extreme precautions not to upset them or antagonize them. The best way to get them help is to call 911, especially if they are very upset or angry.
Under NO circumstances should you try to talk someone down from these problems yourself. An individual with amphetamine psychosis needs treatment and will likely not snap out of the condition. It might take them a week or even longer of intensive treatment before they start acting like themselves again.
Bernard E. Scoville, who started the petition on the Move website calling for a new and honest investigation of the JFK assassination, has agreed to become the next senior member of the Oswald Innocence Campaign. 

I see from his Facebook page that Bernard is a very active JFK truther. He also has a webpage of his own for the petition, which is here:

So, that's two Bernards in a row in a less than a week's time. What were the chances of that? We welcome both of them to the Oswald Innocence Campaign. 

Sunday, March 19, 2017

Nothing is more relaxing and enjoyable to me on a Sunday evening than to do a song. So, if you will once again indulge me, this is a classic by the great Duke Ellington. He was truly a legend in his own time. No one was more revered. Everyone knew that he was really gifted. He played the piano as easily and effortlessly as most people breathe.  

When George Gershwin was getting ready to perform his historic Rhapsody in Blue for the first time in 1924, he personally invited Duke Ellington to attend. And Ellington did. 

Everybody wanted to play with him and record with him. His songs, such as Sophisticated Lady, Satin Doll, Take the A Train, Mood Indigo, Don't Get Around Much Anymore, and It Don't Mean A Thing If It Ain't Got That Swing became not just musical standards, but signs of the time in which he lived. They are deeply embedded in our culture. And that includes this song from 1944 which became a big hit for Ella Fitzgerald, I'm Beginning To See The Light

Let's look closely at this image of the 6th floor. You can ignore the lines and markings. That's something that John Armstrong is working on, which we are discussing, but it's not ready for prime time. 

How could there be a stack of boxes 7 high? Why would anyone do that? There are multiple reasons why nobody would. It's dangerous. It's damaging to the books on the bottom. And it's totally impractical. What if you needed to get to the box that's on the bottom? You'd have to remove 6 boxes to get to it. 

And how could they do it? Wouldn't they need a ladder? There were no ladders there that we know of. How could they get it so even like that? They must have done that for the picture, don't you think?

Notice how in this case you get the definite sense that the bottom box is bearing a heavy load. How about here?

And look on the left how they stacked the boxes sideways.

They've got those boxes stacked on their sides. First, boxes have got a top and a bottom, and they're designed to be put down on its bottom surface. Plus, the boxes are filled so that the books are flat inside. When you stack the boxes sideways, you are stacking the books on their edges. Why would anyone do this? It seems intuitive to place a box down on its bottom surface. I would. Wouldn't you?

In the Sniper's Nest, some of the boxes are stacked vertically.

 Who would do that? When you stack boxes, you're not trying to make them as high as possible. You'd prefer that the stack be as low as possible. So, who would do it that way? Oswald? OSWALD?When could Oswald have possibly had the time to do that? We are told that the boxes weighed on average 55 pounds. You think he lifted all those boxes to set that up? When? The 6th floor was occupied with workers all morning. They were building the floor. Remember? So, you think he did it during the lunch break? You think he had time to retrieve his rifle, assemble it using a dime for a screwdriver, then move all those boxes in position? But wait. Bonnie Ray Williams was on the 6th floor eating his chicken on the bone, Fritos, and Dr. Pepper. And he remained there until Jarman and Norman arrived on the 5th floor. How does that possibly leave enough time for Oswald to do all that? There is no time window that Oswald could have done it. This, by itself, proves that he was innocent. 

People, this is evil. That anybody, in this day and age, thinks that Oswald did this is just plain evil. Stupid and evil. This wickedness has got to stop. It has lasted too long as it is. We need to throw it off. America needs to throw it off. 
Last night, I discussed how Joseph Ball really pressured Bonnie Ray Williams about what time he left the 6th floor. Ball wanted it to be early- the earlier the better, supposedly, to give Oswald enough time to do everything he had to do before shooting Kennedy. (And, it's getting increasingly harder to put that into words without cracking up.) 

Ball was like the 800 pounds gorilla, and Bonnie Ray wasn't a brash guy to begin with. His attitude seemed to be: "Whatever you say, Mr. Ball." The guy I like is Jack Dougherty because when Ball tried to pressure him about the long bag that Oswald supposedly carried, (and remember that Frazier's story was, and is, that Oswald was carrying it between his armpit and his cupped hand) Jack pretty much told Joe, in effect, "Fuck you, Moefoe."  That's right; Jack wouldn't budge.  

But, determining how long Bonnie Ray Williams was inadvertently guarding the 6th floor and keeping all intruders at bay is important. And one way we can do it is to approach it from a different angle. We know that Bonnie Ray didn't budge until he heard his pals James Jarman and Harold Norman milling around on the 5th floor. That's what provoked him to go down there.

There are a couple of guys on McAdams' forum who make a religion out of Jarman and Norman going up to the 5th floor. And they make it sound like it was VERY close to 12:30 that they arrived on the 5th floor. And I mean no more than a few minutes before 12:30. And if that's true, then Bonnie Ray was up on the 6th floor until practically the witching hour. 

But, let's look at Jarman's and Norman's own testimonies to see what they said about the timing of it. Remember that Jarman and Norman first went outside. And they were going to watch the motorcade from outside. So, they took viewing positions outside. They, like so many others, were going to watch the motorcade from outside. 

Mr. BALL - Where did you stand? 
Mr. JARMAN - I was standing over to the right in front of the building going toward the west. 
Mr. BALL - Were you on the sidewalk or curb? 
Mr. JARMAN - On the sidewalk. 
Mr. BALL - The sidewalk in front of the Texas School Book Depository Building? 
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir. 
Mr. BALL - How long did you stand there? 
Mr. JARMAN - Well, until about 12:20, between 12:20 and 12:25. 

So, Jarman said he was outside until at least 12:20. And remember that, he had to start from west of the Entrance and walk to the corner of Houston, and then down Houston Street to the back of the building, and then to the back door to re-enter the building, and then take the elevator up to the 5th floor. As I time it in my mind, it doesn't get him up to the 5th floor until shortly before 12:30. And Bonnie Ray had to hear him pacing the floor up there before he would chose to leave the 6th floor.  What about Harold Norman?

Mr. BALL: Who was standing with you and Junior on the Elm Street sidewalk?
Mr. NORMAN. I remember it was Danny Arce.
Mr. BALL. And who else?
Mr. NORMAN. I remember seeing Mr. Truly and Mr. Campbell. They were standing somewhere behind us, not exactly behind us but they were back of us.
Mr. BALL. Anybody else? Mr. NORMAN. Well, I believe Billy Lovelady, I think. He was sitting on the steps there.
Mr. BALL. He was?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes. That is about all the employees I remember seeing out there. There were more people out there.
Mr. BALL. Did you stay there?
Mr. NORMAN. Well, we stayed there I believe until we got the news that the motorcade was coming down, let’s see, is that Commerce, no Main, We went back in the building, James Jarman and I.
Mr. BALL.. Where did you go when you went in the building?
Mr. NOBMAN. We got the east elevator. NO ; the west.
Mr. BALL. The west elevator?
Mr. NORMAN. The west elevator. And went to the fifth floor.

So, he seemed to be saying that they remained out in front until they got word that that the motorcade was coming down Main. Main is a long street, but I presume he meant that they got word that that motorcade was close to Houston on Main, meaning that it was about to enter Dealey Plaza. That's when he and Jarman began walking around the building to re-enter through the back door and ride the elevator up to the 5th floor. So, how long before the motorcade passed the building did they do that? Well, all I can say is: not long.

So, the fact that people talk about this as though it happened just a few minutes before the shooting seems to be confirmed. And that means that Bonnie Ray Williams remained on the 6th floor until just a few minutes before. 

Of course, it has reached the point of utter nonsense to refer to Oswald going up to the 6th floor, but we know that someone was up there, brandishing a rifle, and some reported seeing a second person up there. They could not have gone there until Bonnie Ray Williams left. So, were they waiting for him to leave? But, why would they do that? Why would they assume he was going to leave? Not even Bonnie Ray thought he was going to leave. It was a last minute thing. He heard the trampling below and figured that must be his friends, so he left to join them. 

So, what happened? I think the most likely thing is that the intruders, who invaded the 6th floor, got there very late- just before the shooting and after Bonnie Ray Williams left, and that they were witless of him, and he was witless of them. They just didn't cross paths. The Sniper's Nest must have been set up well in advance. Maybe it was done the night before. Here is a picture of it:

That is the Sniper's Nest right there at the back and center of the picture in front of the double windows. That could have existed for a long time, even before that morning. It could have been set up the night before. It wouldn't have stood out. Why should it? What stands out to me a lot more than that is that stack of books 7 boxes high. 7 boxes????? Count them. They are 7 boxes high there on the right. Who stacks boxes of books that high? And how did they do it? I mean: there were no ladders there, so how did they build that tower? We shall have to talk further about this.    

This is the testimony of Bonnie Ray Williams, and it's important because he claimed to be on the 6th floor eating until close to the time of the shooting.

Remember that Oswald, supposedly, had to go to the 6th floor, set up the Sniper's Nest, retrieve his rifle, assemble his rifle, using a dime as a screwdriver (which they assume because they couldn't find any screwdriver) and generally get ready. Could he have done any of that with Williams up there? I think it would be impossible for Williams not to become aware of him. If he couldn't see him because of the stacks, he'd still hear him. And then he'd look to see who it was. So, I think we have to assume that for as long as Williams was there, there was no one there but him. So, what time did he leave? Well, in this interview, he estimated that it was 12:20 that he heard some commotion down on the 5th floor and figured that it was his friends, Jarman and Norman, so he went down there by elevator. And he was right, it was them. And he stayed there with them, and the three of them watched the motorcade from the window below the Sniper's Nest. 

However, Joseph Ball challenged him about the time, and you can understand why. Joseph Ball wanted to give Oswald enough time to do what he had to do before the shooting, and the more time the better. I don't assume that 10 minutes would be enough. It sounds to me like Williams got there about Noon, and he ate his lunch which consisted of chicken on the bone (he kept referring to it as a chicken sandwich, even though there was no bread involved) some Fritos, and a Dr. Pepper. They found the remnants of his lunch. (I wish it had occurred to Oswald to urge the police to look for the remnants of his lunch in the 1st floor lunch room. That would have done a number on Frazier. But then again, if they had found it, they may not have admitted it. And whose to say they didn't look for it and find it and say nothing?) And remember also that there are two images of Williams at the 5th floor window during the motorcade. So, he was essentially telling the truth, and he had no reason not to. And of course, it is preposterous to bring Oswald into it at all. He ate his lunch in the 1st floor lunch room, and then he mozzied over to the entrance and wound up going out the glass door and standing on the top landing to watch the motorcade. But, there was definitely one man, and there may have been two or more up there on the 6th floor during the motorcade. So, what time did they get up there, and how did they get up there? Did they take the elevator? Did they take the stairs? And how did they get down? Again, stairs or elevator? And did they get to the 6th floor before Williams left? And then what? Did they just wait for him to leave? What if he didn't? Or did they arrive after he left? These are important questions for which we should seek answers. 

Saturday, March 18, 2017

Chuck Berry just died. Yikes, what a giant. He honed the sound of Rock N Roll as much or more than anybody. Nobody did it better. All I can say is: I'm so glad he was living in the USA.

You have to be a complete idiot to believe that Jack Ruby just slipped on by the guards at the ramp entrance on Main Street. After all that security they enacted, he just waltzed on in, did he?  

Look: Ruby got in because they wanted him to get in. It is impossible that Dallas Police failed at something a Walmart greeter could easily have done. And what does that imply? It implies that Dallas Police knew what was going to happen, that the whole thing was their operation. 

I don't know exactly what happened when the real Jack Ruby was arrested. Did he ever draw his gun? He had no memory of it. He never recalled it. He didn't dispute that he did, but he never recalled it, and there's a difference. He had no actual memory of it. It wasn't something that he could see and relive in his mind. And no gun was actually fired because the sound of the blast would have been heard, even on the street. I just don't know if his gun ever came out. But, we do know that Dallas Police were manipulating Ruby, saying things, like "somebody should do the world a favor and put a bullet in that guy." They knew he was off his rocker. Jack Ruby was bonkers. But, since Ruby never recalled drawing his gun, I don't assume that he did.   

And considering that he was willing to take responsibility and suffer the consequences for the action, it is foolish to think that he would not have admitted it if he could remember doing it.  

So, think about it: they let Ruby into that garage. Don't even talk to me if you can't admit that. So, they let Ruby into the garage, and then what? They just got lucky? He just spontaneously decided to shoot Oswald? Shut up. Get out of here. You know very well that if they let Ruby in, then they were behind the whole thing. And they definitely let Ruby in. 

Ruby was just patsy#2. Oswald was #1, and he was #2. The same people who killed Kennedy killed Oswald, and from the beginning and all along, it was the plan to kill Oswald. He wasn't supposed to live even as long as he did. 

This is the guy who took the shot in the garage, and there is simply no doubt about it.

I went to Dealey Plaza and proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the black-hole face of Black Hole Man was a photographic alteration. You can't blacken out your whole face by visoring your eyes with your hands. It's impossible. 

They did that to him, and it's because he was Billy Lovelady, and they were going to claim that Doorman was Lovelady, and obviously, you can't have two Billy Loveladys in the same photo. And notice that they never tried to identify him as someone else. Oh no, they weren't interested. A guy is standing there as headless as the Headless Horseman, and they didn't give a good God-damn; the bastards. They spit on all of us when they did this.

It's over, People. The fraudulence of this is screaming out loud at you. Spread the word. The official story of the JFK assassination is an abomination. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, it's time to tear it down.  

This is unbelievable, and the U.S. media has the nerve to accuse others of reporting "fake news." 


Russia Will Celebrate Crimea Annexation Anniversary with Deer Races, Flash Mobs

 Jason Le Miere,Newsweek Fri, Mar 17 6:09 AM PDT