Saturday, September 22, 2018

This very lovely song was written by Johnny Mandel, who is still living, in his 90s. He was a great musician, playing piano, trumpet, and trombone, and at a top level. He was a conductor and an arranger, And he was  a composer, his most famous song being The Shadow of Your Smile which won Best Original Song at the 1965 Oscars. And he wrote this very pretty song, I Wish I'd Met You, made famous by the great vocalist, Lena Horne.  The duet of Lena Horne and Sammy Davis Jr. singing it is magnificent.

Friday, September 21, 2018

Pete Hymans Marina was a scared woman (a stranger in a strange land with intimidating assholes questioning her and probably threatening to separate her from her kids and send her back to Russia). She "lied" out of a sense of survival. Lest we forget the KGB in the U.S.S.R. was oppressive and people knew how to craft their words and stay "safe." Marina's ability to leave Russia and her uncle's position are also large looming questions. Oswald probably never touched the Mannlicher Carcano attributed to him (while he was alive--that is).

LikeShow more reactions

Ralph Cinque I agree with that, Pete. I don't doubt that Marina was scared. But, I don't think it was as simple and straightforward as her "lying" as in consciously, knowingly lying. I think they worked on her. I think they manipulated her mind, using mind control techniques, that a cult might use or what were used in the MK Ultra program. And the result was that reality was blurred for her. Normally, when a person lies, reality isn't blurred. He or she lies while knowing the truth. But, in Marina's case, I really think they did things to separate her from her past with Oswald, and to replace her real memories with ones they wanted her to have. Exactly how effective it was, I can't say. I have to think that on some level, she really did know what she was doing. But, I suspect that they trained her to suppress that, to not only lie to the Warren Commission but to lie to herself, so that, to a great extent, she remained "in character" even when she was alone and behind closed doors. They created her character, and they taught her to live as that character.. But, no way could the conversion have been 100%, and the result is, I suspect, that Marina Oswald is a very troubled woman, demonized by what she knows deep inside. And if you look at her in latter interviews, she really seems like a battered woman. And it's interesting that in later years she did reverse herself and defend Oswald and condemn the Warren Commission, but the fact remains that she was their star witness. And she has never reckoned with that, certainly not publicly, and maybe not privately either

Thursday, September 20, 2018

This is a recent exchange between me and Tom Cahill, one of my favorites in the OIC. Tom is quite advanced in years. I don't know his exact age but probably late 80s. He is a U.S. military veteran and an active member of Veterans for Peace. He traveled to Iraq in 2003 to serve as a human shield to deter the bombing. He was one of many who did that, but of course, it didn't work. George W. Bush did his Shock and Awe and the atrocity/war crime known as Operation Iraqi Freedom ensued. But, this concerns the JFK assassination.  

Bonjour Ralph,

I like Roger Stone's encapsulation of LBJ's role in the JFK execution here, interviewed by Jesse Ventura's son Tyrell.  And Stone doesn't mince words about the CIA's involvement but doesn't go into detail like he does about LBJ.  

Might the CIA be throwing LBJ under the bus to protect itself from any more damage?


Hello, Tom. I have felt for a long time that the powers-that-be are preparing to throw LBJ to the wolves about JFK.  That is their escape route, should one become necessary- Johnson did it. They have given coverage to some of the books accusing Johnson, including Roger Stone's. They gave coverage to the Jackie tapes in which she said that she believed Johnson did it. I think they are very willing to sacrifice him and precisely because he is long dead, and he's not a very popular President anyway. He's just a step above Nixon, and they may throw in Nixon along with him, especially since Nixon is already perceived badly by the public.

But, it will basically just be another lie. They might end up saying that Johnson got Nixon to get Ruby to get Oswald to do it, which is a grotesque lie. It is lie piled upon lie.  Oswald, of course, was innocent, and that's the lie they just don't want to undo. They'll say that someone put Oswald up to it, which they don't mind saying, not at all  They really don't. They have offered it as an alternative story since 1979. But, it's ridiculous because anyone who wanted Kennedy dead, and his wife and the others in the limo unharmed, would never, in a million years, have wanted the gun to be in Oswald's hands. We understand in every avenue of life that whether you need surgery or legal advice or investment advice or a plumber, that you want to get somebody good, someone with vast knowledge and experience and a long history of proven success.  Wouldn't that be just as true when it came to assassinating the President of the United States? Why would anybody pick a guy who spent three years working at a radio factory in Russia and then worked various grunt labor jobs here in the U.S. at minimum wage but couldn't hold a single one of them?  Just because Oswald, who was never a combat Marine, did the minimal amount of target practice required by the Marines, that somehow made him an assassin? He couldn't hit a rabbit with a shotgun. And yet, he was the top pick to assassinate the President of the United States? The best of the best? It is just plain ridiculous. 

So, it's a bit of a circus, Tom. But, one thing is for sure: it's is going to end badly- for them. And by "them", I mean the government and media who have been lying about JFK's murder for over half a century. JFK truth and Oswald innocence are going to prevail, and here's hoping that we both live long enough to see it.  Con amore, mio amico. Ralph 
This is another article by Tim Cwiek from The Third Decade sent to me by my researcher friend, and it concerns something else I have written about: Marina's original statements about Oswald owning a rifle. 

Like me, Cwiek points out that Marina's earliest known statement referred to the rifle that Oswald owned in Russia, and she said nothing about him currently owning a rifle. 

This is the first sentence of her signed statement made on November 22. "When officers came to my house, they asked me if Lee had a rifle, and I told them that he used to have one to go hunting with in Russia."

Now, why would she say that?  Why would she bring up the Russian rifle (which was a shotgun) at all if there was a current rifle? Referring to the Russian rifle was her attempt to be helpful, to be able to talk about some rifle.  But, she wouldn't have needed it if she knew about a current rifle.  

Of course, Marina went on to tell elaborate stories about Oswald and his rifle, but that was months later, after intense FBI brainwashing and the helpful aid of a green poultice (money) which suddenly made her a rich woman. If I sound bitter and cynical, it's because I am. 

Cwiek points to the interesting fact that George DeMohrenschildt refused to say that he ever saw a rifle. His wife Jeanie said it, and she is the only one besides Marina who ever testified to seeing Oswald's rifle. 

Some of Marina's reported claims came from Ruth Paine (a suspicious source) and a White Russian from the Dallas community of White Russians, Ilya Manatov, who was not a police translator. He was just "some guy". So, why did they get him? And keep in mind what I have written before, that the Dallas community of White Russians were to Marina Oswald what the apartment dwellers were to Rosemary in Rosemary's Baby.  

Detective Guy Rose, who went to the Paine house on Friday, said that when first asked, Marina said that Oswald did not currently own a rifle; but later, she changed her story and said that he did. She took him out to the garage and pointed to the crumpled blanket on the floor, and Rose made it sound like it was hard to tell if there was a blanket in it or not. 

"She pointed to a blanket that was rolled up and leaning against the wall. At the time, I couldn't tell if there was one in there or not. There appeared to be. It was in sort-of an outline of a rifle." 

Are you buying that? Do you really think a rolled up empty blanket could look like it contained a rifle?

And Rose is the only policeman who claimed that Marina pointed to the garage or the blanket. Even Ruth Paine acknowledged that it was she, Ruth, who pointed Rose to the garage, not Marina. And Ruth went on to testify that when they opened the blanket, they saw a "portion" of the rifle. A portion of it? Well, that quickly got dropped from the official story. Officially, the blanket was empty, and Ruth Paine's statement about seeing a portion of it is "inoperative." 

Here is the last paragraph of what Cwiek wrote:

"Clearly, Marina's HQ statement was a sham, and most likely, Marina had no idea what she was signing. We can see from Mrs. Paine's and Mr. Manatov's statements that Marina said that Oswald owned a rifle back in Russia. But, the initial and sketchy HQ statement was the beginning of the unending exaggeration about LHO and his rifle. It is my hope that researchers will recognize the distortion and manipulation of Marina's first words about the rifle, even before she was placed in government custody, and that her husband (possibly) never owned a rifle in this country at all."

Well, I take exception of Cwiek's use of the word "possibly." Oswald definitely did not own a rifle in this country at all. John Armstrong has demonstrated unflinchingly that the paper trail to Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago was fabricated, and even the Post Office records prove that Oswald could not have received, at his alleged P.O. Box, a rifle addressed to A. Hidell.  And remember who you're reading: I'm the guy who denies that Oswald even had a P.O. Box. He never admitted having one. He was never asked if he had one, which is strange. He had no need for one. The claim that he was paying to have Russian newspapers mailed to him from Russia is preposterous. The P.O. Box claim is screaming out loud false. 

Lee Harvey Oswald did NOT own a rifle. He said he didn't, and he had no reason to lie about it. And he was also the first JFK assassination photo alterationist in telling investigators that the Backyard photos were faked. 

The things that Marina Oswald eventually said about Oswald and his rifle are among the scariest elements of the whole assassination saga- the very idea that they could get her to say those things in the murky, manipulated, mental state that she was in, the result of intense brainwashing, intense carrot waving (although a better analogy would be lettuce waving since that's the color of money) and even intense sex, according to some reports. Were drugs also involved? I bet they were. 

Here is the link to Cwiek's article:

Sunday, September 16, 2018

A prominent researcher, whom I shan't name, sent me the link to an article that was published in 1995 that has left me stunned. It turns out that much of what I have been saying about the very suspicious Bob Jackson photo of the Oswald shooting was observed and noted a generation ago by one Timothy Cwiek and published in The Third Decade, which was a skeptical journal of JFK assassination research published out of State University College in Fredonia, New York.  The Third Decade was also an activists organization with prominent members, including celebrities, such as Ed Asnor and Dick Gregory. 

The article is entitled, The "Oswald" Pulitzer Prize photo: Is it a fake? and the quotation marks around Oswald were Cwiek's doing.  I learned a lot from this article. Did you know that Robert Jackson was an active Texas Army National Guardsman at the time of the assassination?  It's a division of the U.S. Army, so Jackson was in the U.S. Military.  Did you know that? I did not. 

So, here is the link. It's on the Mary Ferrell Foundation website.  And it's a gem. I thank the researcher who sent it to me.

Wednesday, September 12, 2018

When You're Smiling is a great song from 1929, made famous by the great Louie Armstrong. It came along just in time to cheer people up after the stock market crash. After all: it was only money, right? Three guys actually wrote it in 1928: Larry Shay, Mark Fisher, and Joe Goodwin. All the greats sang it, male and female: Billie Holiday, Ella Fitzgerald, Judy Garland, Nat King Cole, Frank Sinatra, and more. This is my own arrangement of it in G Major.

Tuesday, September 4, 2018

Evidence against Oswald? What evidence? There is none. It is plainly and manifestly obvious that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent, that he did not kill President Kennedy. The claim that he did exists ONLY as a rote, spewed, state lie, and it is based on nothing but phony evidence. There is NO legitimate evidence against Oswald- only false, planted, fabricated evidence. 

Didn't he order the murder weapon? NO. He didn't. It's false documentation. Do you realize that his alleged money order reached Klein's in Chicago the day after he mailed it from Dallas? That's impossible. It's impossible today, even when computerization and automation have quickened mail delivery tremendously. But, in 1963? They didn't even offer overnight delivery as an option.  

Didn't he pose with the murder weapon? NO. He didn't. It's a fake photograph which can be proven fake. In his new book, The JFK Horsemen, Larry Rivera lays out the reasons why the Backyard photos are most certainly fake. Did you know that among them, Oswald's ring changes hands? What are the odds that Oswald would fiddle with his ring between shots? Of course, the big things are that the man is too short to be Oswald, and there is no continuity between the face and the body. It's exactly what Oswald said: that his face was put over the body of another man. The Backyard photos aren't just fakes; they are bad fakes. 

Weren't Oswald's prints found on the murder weapon? NO.  There are multiple reasons to reject the FBI claims that they were.  The evidence against Oswald is really evidence against the FBI for framing him, for fabricating false evidence, and every bit of it would have been exposed as such in court. That's why there couldn't be a trial. Why do you think they killed Oswald before he could speak to an attorney? If they waited until after he spoke to an attorney, then they would have had to kill the attorney. 

There are multiple dealbreakers which exonerate Oswald in one full swoop. One of them is the fact that he was standing in the doorway at the time of the shots, and we have a photograph of him there with conclusive identification of his person and his clothing.  

As if Oswald and Lovelady looked and dressed that much alike... Come on; it's absurd. 

But, even if we didn't have this, there are other things that absolutely rule out his guilt. There is the total lack of motive. If you stop thinking of it as the act of removing JFK from power, and start thinking of it as the act of installing LBJ in power, why would Oswald want to do that? For Oswald to have sought to kill Kennedy, he would have had to be completely and totally insane. But, was he? You know very well that he wasn't. Watch and listen to him at the Midnight Press Conference and ask yourself whether he sounds insane. He came across as the most sane and rational person in the room. It's why they had to add all that noisy racket- to diminish him.  

There is the complete absence of any evidence that Oswald knew that JFK would be passing the building that day. It has been speculated that he could have seen the motorcade route in the newspaper, but there is no evidence that he did. And there is evidence that he didn't because he asked James Jarman why people were gathering on the sidewalk. And he wasn't setting up an "ignorance alibi" for himself because if that was the case, he would have used it, and he didn't. We learned about it not from Oswald but from Jarman. Do you realize how damaging Jarman's testimony was to the official story? It torpedoed it.    

Oswald did not subscribe to a Dallas newspaper, and he was never known to buy one. He was known to read one on his lunch break- if one was available.  But, people don't read the newspaper, word for word. People browse newspapers; they flip through them, glancing at this and that; noting headlines; reading a paragraph or two and and then moving on.  So, even if there were solid proof that Oswald picked up a newspaper which featured the motorcade route- and there is no such evidence, let alone proof- it would still be highly presumptuous to conclude that he must, therefore, have seen and noted the motorcade route. 

What about the rifle? The rifle is highly suspect. Oswald denied owning it, ordering it, or ever seeing it. It made no sense for him to order such a rifle from Chicago when he could have gone into any K-Mart in Dallas and bought one- and with no more hassle than buying a blender.  A. Heidel wasn't even listed as an owner of the alleged P.O. Box.  So, why would they have turned the rifle over to Oswald at the counter? And did Oswald even have a P. O. Box? They said he used it to subscribe to Socialist and Russian newspapers, but consider how expensive it was (and is) to have newspapers mailed from Russia. You really think Oswald did that? Why would he do it? He wasn't living in Russia any more. And how could he spend money on that when he barely had enough money to feed his family? And there is no evidence that he read Russian newspapers even when he was in Russia. The idea that he would have done it from here is ridiculous. How would he even have the means of paying for it? Did he pay for that by money order too? Then let's see it. He also supposedly paid for Socialist newspapers, so let's see his money orders for them. And why would he bother getting a P.O. Box for that? Why not have the newspapers mailed to his home? Oswald supposedly started with the P.O. Box in his list of emergency instructions to Marina, in the event that he was killed or incarcerated, but since nothing of any interest or value to Marina was sent to that P.O. Box, why would he do that? Are you seeing the light? That the whole P.O.Box story is just another elaborate fraud? 

And let's think about the situation at the Paine house. Supposedly, Oswald dismantled the rifle in the garage. The rifle had to be stored intact, and no one has ever claimed otherwise. So, he would have had to disappear that evening and go out into the garage, find the rifle, dismantle it, and then pack and secure all the loose parts in the makeshift bag he supposedly made at the TSBD unobserved, and do all that without being missed or noticed by his wife or by Ruth Paine.  So, they didn't see him do all that; they didn't hear him do it; and they didn't miss him or notice his absence while he was doing all that, even though he was a visitor in that house and didn't live there. That is ridiculous. We are talking about two adults in a small house being oblivious to a third person. How is it for you when you have a guest or visitor in your home? Aren't you aware of where the person is all the time? How often does a guest disappear in your house? 

And then, the next morning, there was Frazier, who claimed to see a bag that was no longer than 2 feet, which was 11 inches too short to be the disassembled rifle. But, inherent in the official story is the idea that Frazier was wrong, that the bag was a foot longer. So, we are supposed to believe Frazier, as a State witness, but also not believe him. And, it's a bottleneck for the story. And, think about all that's missing from the story. Length isn't the only characteristic of a bag. Obviously, the objects in a paper bag will affect the shape and contour of the bag. So, did the 2 foot long bag that Frazier saw look like a rifle? Did he see something long and hard and wedge-shaped in the paper bag that looked like the butt of a rifle? He has never claimed that. He has never addressed it. And if Frazier saw the stuffed bag on Friday, how could he not see the empty bag on Thursday? The bottom line is: there are so many holes in Frazier's story, there is no reason to give it any credibility at all. 

And what about at the TSBD? Frazier is the only one who claimed to see the bag. It was a building full of people. Oswald and Frazier were late. Plenty of people were already there. Nobody in the building reported seeing Oswald carrying a long bag. Jack Dougherty saw Oswald right as he walked through the door, and he denied seeing it. And not even a hammering from Statist lawyer Joseph Ball could get Jack to budge. Jack was nice about it, but he was unyielding. Me, I wouldn't have been nice or yielding. 

There were already numerous men up on the 6th floor working, so how could Oswald have hidden the rifle up there unseen? And if you are going to claim that he took it to another floor to hide it, I will tell you that you can't do it; you can't say it; you can't go there. Even speculations have to be tied to known facts. This isn't Imagination Day at Kindergarten. 

There wasn't even a screwdriver found with which Oswald could have assembled the rifle. So, the story became that he must have used a dime to do it. But, when could he do it when Bonnie Ray Williams was eating fried chicken and drinking a Dr. Pepper on the 6th floor until shortly before the motorcade arrived? Is there any reason to doubt Bonnie Ray? 

Officer Marrion Baker's testimony completely exonerates Oswald because Baker saw Oswald enter the lunch room FROM THE OFFICE SIDE OF THE SECOND FLOOR. The anteroom, through which Baker saw Oswald, was a passageway containing three doors: a door to the office side, a door to the stairwell side where Baker was, and a door in-between to the lunch room. 

Baker was only able to see Oswald in the anteroom because Oswald entered it from the office side. And from that side, there was no access to the 6th floor. There was only one flight of stairs, which was from the first to the second floor. So, it was physically impossible for Oswald to have come down from the 6th floor, and not just because there was no time for him to do it but because there were no stairs. A bird couldn't have flown it never mind Oswald walked it. 

What about the shooting feat? Oswald nearly flunked his last shooting test as a Marine in 1959, assuming that was him, which I doubt, and the only shooting he did after that was to go rabbit-hunting with his friends in Russia- using a shotgun- and very ineptly at that, according to them. And that was definitely the Oswald of fame. He had NO experience as a sniper. The whole 6th floor setup was completely foreign to him. Only with added shims could the rifle be rendered functional for testing.  No marksman has ever duplicated Oswald's supposed shooting feat- and keep in mind that even if one did, the fact that the vast majority could not, renders the likelihood of Oswald doing it extremely remote. We are talking about expert marksmen, which Oswald was not.  Remember: Oswald was never a combat Marine. He was just a guy who did the minimal amount of shooting required by the Marines.  

What evidence is there against Oswald? A partial fingerprint and a palm print? The latter wasn't found until after Oswald was dead, and the former wasn't found until after the Dallas PD announced that there were no usable prints. So, you can be certain that Oswald's lawyers would have challenged and disputed that evidence, vigorously.

What else is there? Witnesses claiming to see Oswald in the 6th floor window? That's worth nothing. The Innocence Project has 351 post-conviction exonerations of men who were convicted on the basis of false eye witness testimonies. 

The fact is that there is no evidence against Oswald that is not highly contestable. The Backyard Photos? Oswald denied that was him, and if he was tried, his wife would have been on his side, and she never would have vouched for them either. 

And when first asked (on 11/22) Marina denied knowing anything about a rifle, referring only to the shotgun rifle that Oswald used to have in Russia. It was only afterwards that she changed her story and "remembered" the rifle, like the good little Stepford Wife of U.S. Intelligence that she became- the result of intense brainwashing and a heavy dosing of green money, and probably a pile of drugs too.  

And what about the phony trip to Mexico City? At trial, Oswald would surely have established what he actually did when he  supposedly went there. How hard would it have been for him to do that? Note that when first asked, Marina denied knowing anything about any trip to Mexico City. 

And I could keep going with more dealbreakers on why Lee Harvey Oswald could not possibly be guilty. And remember that it only takes one.  

But, I won't keep going because it's not really what I want to talk about. What I want to talk about is a country in which an impossible theory exists as the tale of the realm, in which a phenomenon of national denial is going on, in which all organs of officialdom support the lie, in which all organs of the corporate world support the lie, in which all organs of the educational system support the lie, and all organs of the media (except maverick ones) support the lie that Oswald killed Kennedy. And even though it is absolutely certain that Oswald didn't do it, all these societal factions cling tenaciously to the official JFK doctrine- as if for dear life- and the result is a national state of denial, delusion,  and blank-out.  This is the state of the nation concerning the JFK assassination:

There is no JFK debate except on the internet because none is allowed. On television, they just repeat the same refrain, that many Americans continue to doubt that Oswald acted alone- the implication being that no one doubts that he acted. Did he do it alone or within a conspiracy? That is how the debate is framed- cutting off at the knees the idea that Oswald was innocent, an idea that is unspeakable on television. 

Unless, of course, you are Vladimir Putin, who in his world-renowned interview with Megyn Kelly, said that "There is a theory that Kennedy's assassination was arranged by U.S. intelligence services. So, if this theory is correct, and it can't be ruled out..."   

Putin didn't say it with an aggressive tone, but the statement was very aggressive. It was one of the most aggressive things he could have said. And let's face it: if he was capable of saying that, he is capable of saying a great many things that are equally aggressive.  I don't think the U.S. corporate media is going to do any more live, unedited, un-time-delayed interviews of Vladimir Putin again after he dropped that bomb. 

It is plain as day that Oswald was innocent, but the U.S. corporate media fluctuates between a hard-line Warren Commission stance (by the networks)  and a more flexible stance in which Oswald did it, but he was up to something fishy in Mexico City, which is really ridiculous considering that Oswald didn't even go to Mexico City, and at the time he supposedly went there, he had no prospects or expectations of getting within a hundred miles of Kennedy. So, the idea that he conspired with someone in Mexico City to kill Kennedy is really just plain stupid, but it is a favorite theme of Fox News. Again and again, they have someone on with eye-popping revelations about Oswald's doings in Mexico City. "Who did he see there? Who did he talk to? What is the government hiding from us? We demand the truth!" It's enough to make you vomit. They don't want the truth.  They just want to tickle people's conspiracy bones. The truth is that Oswald was completely and totally innocent, and he did not go to Mexico City. The only place in Mexico he ever went was Tijuana. That's what he told investigators, and he had no reason to lie.  

So, what exists today is a fraud and a charade. JFK assassination discussion is on lock-down in the U.S. There is just the fiat that Oswald did it, but with the pressure relief valve of tolerating vague suspicions that others may have been involved, so long as you cloak it in mystery and wonderment and unanswered questions. So basically, you can go with Government Story #1 (WC) or with Government Story #2 (HSCA), and by offering both, the government tries to control both sides of the debate.

But, the evidence is clear and abundant that it is impossible for Oswald to have done it, and that evidence is not going to disappear. It's out there, and it can't be destroyed.  The country is on a collision course with the truth, and it is inevitable that Oswald's innocence will prevail. 

So, it is going to blow up, and when it does, the big question will be, not who killed Kennedy, but how a systematic, government/media cover-up was orchestrated lasting over a half a century. 

There won't be a soft landing for the JFK assassination. It seems they are prepared to throw LBJ to the wolves since the media has covered, to some extent, claims of his involvement. So, if they have to abandon ship, that's probably what they'll do: blame LBJ, and perhaps Nixon too.  

But, it's not going to work. The truth, that US intelligence services, particularly the CIA, were behind the assassination, with the FBI  managing the framing of Oswald, is going to emerge. And it's not going to be pretty.  



Wednesday, August 29, 2018

Fact: Oswald complained to the judge at the Tippit arraignment on Friday evening that he was being denied legal representation, and that was before he ever said a word about Abt. 

I don't doubt that Oswald mentioned Abt, but the whole idea that he turned away other legal representation needs to be examined. What do we really know? We know that Oswald repeatedly lamented his lack of a lawyer, and he did so publicly. It was the first thing he addressed at the Midnight Press Conference, and he also ended with it.  

So, the record does not support the notion that he would have rejected legal representation other than Abt. 

And it was the morning after the Midnight Press Conference that damage control set in. That's right, damage control: from the damage Oswald did the night before, telling the world that he was being denied a lawyer. And it's why they brought Attorney Louis Nichols in to visit Oswald and make a statement to reporters. 

First, the issue of whether Oswald was legally entitled to a court-appointed lawyer is, to my mind, clear; he was. The famous Gideon vs. Wainwright case was decided by the Supreme Court in March 1963, and they said that an indigent defendant, by virtue of the Sixth Amendment, is entitled to a court-appointed attorney. Last I checked, November comes after March on the calendar, and therefore Oswald's case fell within the scope of Gideon. They had to provide him a lawyer. 

Louis Nichols was a civil attorney, not a criminal one, and that point is always emphasized. But, he had to be privy enough to know that Oswald desperately needed a lawyer. He claimed to speak to Oswald and ask him if he wanted his help in getting a lawyer, and Oswald told him no, not at this time, but Nichols never claimed to weigh on Oswald that he should let him help him get a lawyer, that it was important, that it was crucial, that it was vital, and that it would be reckless and foolhardy for him to turn help down.  And surely even as a civil lawyer, Nichols had to know that. You didn't have to be a lawyer at all to know that. So, Nichols failed Oswald, even if the story he told is verbatim true. 

And look how easy it would have been for Nichols to say to Oswald, "You can pursue Abt, and you can pursue the ACLU, but until you get either of them, let me assign you a lawyer who can help you immediately, as in, today. You need a lawyer right now. You needed him yesterday." Now, that's what Nichols should have told Oswald. 

This is the video of Nichols' press conference on November 23.

You'll hear Nichols say that Oswald has not requested any legal representation. Did Nichols not attend or listen to the Midnight Press Conference the night before in which Oswald adamantly and repeatedly requested legal representation? Nichol's claims conflict directly with that. 

So, did Nichols visit with the real Oswald or not? I don't claim to know. Oswald never acknowledged such a meeting. He never spoke of it. It would be interesting to find out if Oswald publicly requested a lawyer on Saturday afternoon after his alleged meeting with Nichols. If he did, then don't you agree that what Nichols said must be a crock o' shit?

And let us not forget that the reported record of what Oswald said is bloated with things that he didn't say. Remember: the ONLY things we can be sure Oswald said are the things that we can hear him say with our own ears. That's it. Nothing else. This is the JFK assassination we are talking about. 

On Denis Morrissette's JFK investigators website, he claims this is an image of James Bookhout.  Previously, Denis had other images he claimed to be Bookhout, all of which he had to remove for being false. 
You see the man with the pipe in his mouth. Denis says that that's Bookhout and that he was smoking the pipe there in the office, but actually, there isn't any smoke, and pipes, when smoked, tend to be quite smoky. So, it's more likely that he was just holding the pipe in his mouth, that is, if he was there at all, which I doubt.  

But, what is the evidence that he is James Bookhout? What is the claim based on? Denis only mentions that the image came from Bart Kamp. Who is Bart Kamp?  He is a British guy, a Prayermanite. 

But, I looked it up, and what Kamp said is that he got the image from NARA: the National Archives and Records Administration, and THEY told him the guy is Bookhout. 

So, NARA claimed it? Bart Kamp is supposed to be a skeptic about all things official concerning the JFK assassination. So, why accept anything NARA says? NARA has been at the center of the JFK assassination cover-up. NARA has been displaying phony shirts for Oswald- for decades. This is the shirt they put on display in a national tour in 2005.  

 And this is what Oswald's shirt became in 2013.  

Which is the real shirt? Neither. 
Oswald's shirt had a soft collar, which folded over easily and laid flat like the lapel of a jacket, which is certainly not true of the very stiff collar of the 2015 shirt. And the 2003 shirt has a ridiculously small collar, and it is cinched up inexplicably and unrecognizably. They really went weird with it.

What the hell is that? It is not the securing of the button under the right collar because it wouldn't look like that.

You see the button, and you see the button loop. It certainly wouldn't look like this.

So, I don't know what the hell that is. They went weird with it. And it was NARA's doing. NARA has been at the center of the JFK coverup. It is their duty to protect the official story of the JFK assassination and to make sure the evidence conforms to it. 

So, if NARA said that guy is James Bookhout, that would be reason to doubt it, not believe it. 

James Bookhout followed Oswald around that whole weekend, and there should be images of him galore. But, there is only the one, and it didn't surface until 2017? You buying that, are you?  

So, Bart, why believe NARA? You don't believe them about Oswald shooting Kennedy, do you? Then, why believe them about an image supposedly of James Bookhout?  Furthermore, James Bookhout's son Jim Bookhout is alive and well and living in Dallas, Texas, working as a constable and operating an organization to honor fallen police officers. So, why not go to Jim Bookhout and ask him to confirm whether that is his father? And I mean do that BEFORE claiming that he's Bookhout. 

Well, I did it.  I went to Jim Bookhout. I sent him that image from NARA, and I asked him to confirm whether that is his father. And guess what? He refused to do it.  

Besides, you don't have to be a geneticist to realize that these two are not father and son. 

On the left, that ain't Jim's dear old dad. And, there is good reason to believe that James W. Bookhout was a short man. This is what his colleague James Hosty said about him.

So, Bookhout had to stand on a pedestal in order to see Hosty. Ipso facto, he must have been short.

Mr. STERN - Were you on duty on November 22? 
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Actually, I was on leave on that particular date. However, I had been requested to come to the office to handle some expedited dictation in a particular case. Having completed that, I left the office and proceeded to the Mercantile National Bank, where I transacted some personal business. Upon leaving the bank, it was momentarily expected that the President's motorcade would pass that area. I stood there for a few minutes, and as the motorcade passed I was actually unable to personally observe the President, due to the crowd on the sidewalk.

So, Bookhout couldn't see JFK because of the crowd? Well, unless the Harlem Globetrotters were standing in front of him, it means he was short. 

I categorically reject that this is James Bookhout, and I also categorically reject that it is a legitimate image. If it was legitimate, it wouldn't be so freaky.

Freaky hair, freaky glasses, freaky upturned piglet nose. What the hell did they do to this image? It looks as phony as a $3 bill. It only surfaced because I was clamoring about the complete lack of any images of James Bookhout, despite the fact that he followed Oswald around like his shadow that weekend. 

In the above picture, you can see that every single man is focused on Will Fritz, whose hat looks the whitest in the picture, due to the lighting, but with the one exception being the disputed figure, who is just standing there, detached from everyone else, in his own world, savoring his pipe. It's a weird thing to do under the circumstances, don't you think? And let's think about what Bookhout said:  

Mr. STERN - Were you present when he was brought in? 
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes. 
Mr. STERN - Can you describe his physical condition? 
Mr. BOOKHOUT - I can recall one of the officers that brought him in was Paul Bentley. He is a polygraph operator in the identification division of the Dallas Police Department, and Bentley was limping, and Oswald had one eye that was swollen and a scratch mark on his forehead. 
Mr. STERN - Did you observe any other bruises? 
Mr. BOOKHOUT - None. 
Mr. STERN - Was he handcuffed? 
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes. 
Mr. STERN - Was he walking by himself, or being held by police officers? 
Mr. BOOKHOUT - To my recollection there was an officer on each side of him that had ahold of his arms. 
Mr. STERN - Was he struggling? 
Mr. BOOKHOUT - No; just walking in, you know what I mean. 
Mr. STERN - Yes. 
Mr. BOOKHOUT - In a normal fashion. 
Mr. STERN - Then what occurred, that you observed? 
Mr. BOOKHOUT - I believe he was taken directly into Captain Fritz' office and the interview started at that time with Captain Fritz, and two homicide officers. 
Mr. STERN - Were you present? 
Mr. BOOKHOUT - I was not in the office at that time. I called our office, advised them he had been brought in, and that the interview was starting and shortly thereafter Mr. Shanklin, our SAC called back and said the Bureau wanted the agents present in the interview and that Hosty, James P. Hosty, I believe was ,to sit in on the interview, and I was to also be present with Hosty. So, at that time, we asked Captain Fritz to sit in on the interview, and that was approximately 3:15 p.m. 
Mr. STERN - How long had the interview gone on before you were present? 
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Very shortly. I would give a rough estimate of not more than 5 to 10 minutes at the most. 

So, Bookhout was actually there before Fritz because Fritz wasn't there when Oswald was brought in, and Bookhout was. But then, Bookhout said that he had to call the FBI office, and by the time he got off the phone, the interview had begun. And, he said he had to look for and find Hosty in the hall by standing on a pedestal, and then when he found him, the two of them hastened to the meeting- arriving late. And immediately after that first interrogation, Detectives Boyd and Sims and Hall took Oswald to his first lineup, and Bookhout followed them. We have a picture of that too.

So, this was immediately after the first interrogation. Boyd is leading Oswald by the arm. Behind Oswald is Hall. In the far back, we see the hat of Fritz. So, where is Bookhout? I believe that is him with the notebook. Ignore the tilted hat just right of center. That was put there to hide Bookhout's face- to take him out of the picture. It's bogus. There was a short man there with a notebook tucked under his arm: James Bookhout. You see the notebook, don't you? Bookhout had one. 

But, the point is, when could the picture below have been taken? It doesn't even apply to anything that Bookhout said he did. Bookhout went into the Homicide Bureau to attend Oswald interrogations. He attended every single one. He is the only person to do so besides Fritz himself.  And, it is preposterous to think that in a situation like this when Fritz is obviously talking and giving direction, that Bookhout would not be attentive, engaged, and listening. 

James Bookhout lived to the age of 95. He was born in 1914 and died in 2009.  95 and over is considered super-longevous. Chances are great that he didn't smoke at all, never mind smoke a pipe. 

Monday, August 27, 2018

With the death of John McCain, he is being praised by politicians and media pundits for being a "war hero", but it concerns his involvement in the Vietnam War, and the only heroes in that war, on the American side, were the service men and women who refused to deploy. It was an illegal war; a criminal war; a war of aggression by the United States.  What had Vietnam done to us?  But, worst of all: we attacked civilians; we poisoned the land; we poisoned the water; we wantonly destroyed civilian infrastructure. Still today, there is a frightful level of birth defects in Vietnam because of our use of chemical weapons there. 

Four decades after Agent Orange - heartbreaking pictures show even now babies in Vietnam are being born with horrific defects
  • Babies in Vietnam still being born with birth defects due to Agent Orange, despite 40 years since conflict with U.S.
  • Chemical was sprayed on crops, plants and trees by U.S. military to destroy cover for guerrilla fighters
  • The dioxin can cause a range of birth defects as well as cancer and reproductive abnormalities
  • Heartbreaking pictures were captured by British-born photographer Francis Wade on trip to Vietnam
  • Said he visited the Thi Nghe and Thien Phuoc orphanages to show the devastating effects still being felt

So, there were no heroes among the Americans who fought in Vietnam. Some of those Americans were forced by their own government to fight. Remember, we had a military draft back then.  I avoided it only because my birth date drew a high number in the draft lottery. Many of you are too young to know this, because you weren't around, but we had a death lottery back then. And really, it wasn't much different from the lottery in the famous 1948 short story, The Lottery, by Shirley Jackson, which you should read, if you haven't. 

Approximately 58,000 Americans died in the Vietnam War. How many Southeast Asians did we kill? About 3 million.

But, what was wrought from all those deaths? Absolutely nothing. As you know, today, Vietnam is a Communist country. It is also a peaceful country and not a threat to anyone.     

I was a young man at the time, and I swore that I would not fight in that war if I was drafted, and let me tell you: I meant it. But, after the war, I naively thought that Americans would never allow the politicians to drag us into such a war again. Man, was I wrong. 

Saturday, August 25, 2018

I just placed my order for OIC Chairman Larry Rivera's new book, The JFK Horsemen, which you can buy from the publisher, Moonrock Books, at

I know, of course, that Larry covered the fact that Oswald was standing in the doorway during the shooting, and that the Altgens photo was altered to cover up that fact. And although years have passed since we started talking about this, it still gives me the chills to realize that, while JFK's body was still warm, a team of experts was operating on a photograph to protect his killers and frame the designated patsy. It must have been a real crisis for them- that photographic proof existed that their whole story was a lie. The truth was, and is, that JFK's blood was on them- the national security wing of the federal government.  

And I know that Larry covered the fact that the Backyard photos are fakes, just as Oswald said they were fakes. And that makes Lee Harvey Oswald the first "photo alterationist" in the JFK world, that is, the first to advocate photo alteration. And, the fact that the Backyard Photos were not just altered, but entirely faked, should tell you that the process of altering and falsifying photos began even before the shots were fired. So, if they were doing it before the shots, how could they not have done it after the shots? YOU CAN'T BE AN OSWALD DEFENDER WITHOUT BEING A PHOTO ALTERATIONIST. Anyone who says that Oswald was innocent but that no photos or films were altered is an oxymoron and just plain a moron. 

Beyond that, Larry covers many things in this book of which I am not well versed, It is a 594 page book. I am putting up a blurb about it from the publisher, but know this: when you order this book, you are not only obtaining the most important book about the JFK assassination to come out since JFK and the Unspeakable by Jim Douglass, but you are taking a direct action to support JFK truth and the toppling of the "Big Lie" by government and media that Lee Harvey Oswald did it and did it alone. It is all a wicked lie. Oswald was innocent. Framed and innocent. And he has never had a better friend and advocate than Larry Rivera. 

The JFK Horsemen 
Framing Lee, Altering the Altgens6 and Resolving Other Mysteries

Thanks to Larry Rivera, we finally know how and why Altgens6 was altered
After recovering misplaced interviews of the four JFK Horsemen by Fred Newcomb, a first-generation student of JFK, Larry discovered not only that all four confirmed the limo stop but that Officer Hargis had parked his bike and had run between the Presidential Lincoln and the Secret Service Cadillac up toward the grassy knoll from which he believed shots had been fired. Officer Jackson motored his bike up the grassy knoll until it fell over and then proceeded on foot in search of the shooters.
At the same time, Clint Hill rushed forward and pushed Jackie back into the car from the trunk, where she had climbed after a chunk of JFK’s skull and brains. Five Secret Service agents surrounded the Lincoln, one taking a piece of skull from a little boy and tossing it into the back seat. These discoveries have thereby revolutionized our understanding of the extent to which the films of the assassination—especially the Zapruder and the Nix—have been edited to remove the limo stop.

Thursday, August 9, 2018

LikeShow more reactions
Ralph Cinque Thank you for acknowledging that this man was not Jack Ruby, Alex. Here is the entire frame, taken several minutes after the shooting on the 3rd floor of the PD. It's actually a frame from a film.