Sunday, February 18, 2018

Karen Mitchell is coming back tomorrow, Monday, and she will be singing and recording some songs, and because of that, Paul Popa decided to come too, and he's already here. So, to warm up for our endeavors with Karen, he and I recorded this song, Manha De Carnaval, which is classic Bossa Nova, of which Paul and I are big fans. The English version is called A Day In The  Life Of A Fool

It was written by Luiz Bonfa as the theme song and musical score for the 1959 Brazilian movie, Black Orpheus.  Throughout the movie, the song is sung, hummed, and played instrumentally. And after that it became a jazz standard and one of the most popular Bossa Nova songs of all time. What a rhythm. It's hypnotic! Gotta love this song. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19zKzKZI_yY&feature=youtu.be




We know that Jack Ruby definitely went to the DPD late Friday night. He went there to distribute sandwiches, which he bought for his precious detectives. But, when they didn't want them, he sought out the KGIF news crew to give the sandwiches to them since they were "working the case." But, how entrenched was he in the Midnight Press Conference? Amy, I, and the Wizard are starting to wonder. And Amy noticed something that in the most famous image of Jack Ruby at the MPC, he doesn't move. At least compared to the others, he doesn't.  Is the image real? Here's Amy:

Amy Joyce:

I stumbled across these pictures today.  Look closely and you will see that they are all slightly different.  

Like the alleged film of Ruby from the same night, notice how little Ruby moves (his mouth/smile/hands all seem the same) compared to the others.  


RC: It doesn't seem like a pose that one would hold very long, with the arm flexed like that.

Amy Joyce (cont.)

The third photo appears identical to the second but it's different.  The main difference can be seen by the position of the man's head at the far bottom left. Both the 2nd and the third were marked as exhibit 2424 from the WC.


RC: The above is the one in which Ruby looks decidedly younger. He also looks thinner. It may be because they altered the aspect ratio.




Amy Joyce cont. 

From Mark Lane's Rush to Judgement, at 1:08:10 there is an alleged clip of the film.  Again Ruby is not in motion while others are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FP2j05gRj14



RC: Wait. They flipped it. They left-to-right flipped it. So, the photo we have been looking at all these years is a mirror image. 


I tell you, the JFK assassination must be the most left-to-right flipped event in the history of Man. 

Why'd they flip it? I don't know. But, I don't assume it was an accident. 


Here he is a few seconds later, still holding that pose. What is that in his hands? Is it a pencil or pen? What's he holding it for? Was he going to write something down? On what?



Later in the video, it features Sergeant Patrick Dean, who said that he was waiting at the armored truck to take Oswald to the County Jail. But, everyone else conceded afterwards that the armored truck was just a ruse, that Oswald was to ride in the car that Dhority was backing up. 



I don't see how Dean could have been up by the armored car, which was at the top of the ramp, and that's because he was embroiled in the melee immediately. He was the one cop in uniform among the penguins. Plus, he lied. He wasn't up by the armored truck. If you watch the KRLD film, he reaches the melee 4 seconds after the shot, but he came from the Main Street side. In the image below, he was went from our right to our left. That's the Main Street side, not the Commerce Street side where the armored truck was.  


Here he is a half second before. And you can see that he came from our right. 



After that, it goes to an interview of Jim Leavelle, in which he told his famous lies about seeing Ruby, recognizing him as Ruby, seeing the gun, etc.



But, something just occurred to me. Bill Lord asked Leavelle if Oswald was unconscious as soon as he hit the floor, and Leavelle said that either he was unconscious or if not, he was nearly unconscious. But, I want you to think about what it means, how serious it rendered the situation. It's not normal for an abdominal gunshot victim to lose consciousness immediately. If Oswald's lights went out immediately, it means that he was really devastated internally. And that's because the abdomen is a long way from the brain, which provides consciousness, and the only thing that could cause the brain to shut down would be a lack of blood. And of course, the story is that Oswald was devastated, that his major blood vessels were cut, and he was bleeding like a fountain inside. But, my point is that if it really happened that way in the garage, then how did Oswald live long enough to reach Parkland alive? If his brain was deprived of blood instantly in that garage, I don't see how he could have lived from 11:20 to 11:30 to reach Parkland alive. 

It is my thesis that Oswald was shot in the jail office, and that's because Dr. Fred Bieberdorf did report seeing Oswald on the floor, with his shirt pulled up, and his entrance wound exposed, bloodless, and Oswald showed no signs of life. The Bieb really thought he was dead. But, I find it difficult to believe that the Bieb flat-out lied about that. So, I do think Oswald was shot in the jail office. But, according to the Bieb's testimony, he wasn't allowed into the jail office for at least 2 minutes after the shooting. It may have been closer to 3 minutes. So, if they were working lightening fast to get Oswald shot and placed on the floor, it means that the clock didn't start ticking for Oswald for at least 2 minutes longer.  And that would have helped a lot. 

This is the first glimpse that we get of Oswald post-shooting.


 We heard Bill Lord say as they were wheeling him out of the jail office that it was 11:24. If Oswald was shot at 11:20, that would make it 4 minutes later. Notice how white and waxen his right hand looks. That I consider to be fake. His left hand doesn't look like that. And look how much smaller his left hand is. I have no idea what that white thing is over Oswald, and that may be fake too, as in trick photography. Nobody claimed to put a dressing or other covering over Oswald. I assume Oswald was really shot here, and again, it's because of the Bieb's testimony. Nevertheless, it is a highly manipulated image. Most likely, Oswald's right arm was not resting on his chest like that. It would have been terribly wrong to do that to an abdominal gunshot victim. Oswald could not have done it himself since he was unconscious. So, who lifted Oswald's arm and placed it over his chest? Doesn't it seem like we would have heard if somebody did that? So, I think that's fake. Oswald's right arm was probably at his side.  

Below is the Wizard's response to Amy's write-up. He noticed the mirror image too. 

Wizard:


Thanks. It is very limited movement again on the part of Ruby, as you say, and another very short clip.

Both photos were designated 'Exhibit 2424'?

In these versions the wall looks a bit papery, like the set of an early 60s Doctor WHO story. Do you remember what Sam Pate said about 'partitions' at the trial after failing to ID Ruby in 2424?  (I wonder which 2424 photo they showed Sam. The judge would not let the defense see it.) I'm beginning to wonder if they staged Sassa, Jim Davidson and a few other 'ops' against a partition and either had a Ruby lookalike or just pasted him into that corner. I am even wondering if the Henry Wade/'Free Cuba Committee'/'Fair Play for Cuba Committee' cross-talk act was part of the performance.

I mentioned it before, but note that the assembly room footage in the Mark Lane film is a mirror image. 


Just in passing, check out the scrawny neck on the Ruby figure in the photos. His shirt collar looks loose. This is something of a contrast to the garage shooter's bull neck. 



RC: Good point, Wizard. Obviously, the neck of the Garage Shooter was very bull-like compared to Ruby's neck. 

Saturday, February 17, 2018

This video was sent to me by OIC member Tom Cahill, and it is magnificent. It features two people: John F. Kennedy and Muammar Gadaffi. 

You realize that both of these men were killed by the U.S. government. And what we did to Gadaffi was every bit as bad as what we did to Kennedy. We attacked Gadaffi even though, at the time, Libya, under Gadaffi, had the highest standard of living in all Africa, and by a pretty wide margin. Of course, it wasn't a democracy. Gaddafi was obviously a strong-man dictator. But, you might say he was a benevolent strong-man dictator. Everything was covered for Libyans, from cradle to grave. Education, from K to college, including medical school and any other graduate program, was free.  Medical care: free. And if you needed help with housing or food, you got it. Living standards for average Libyans today aren't nearly as good since we "liberated" them in our atrocious war, that was based on lies and the usual bogus intelligence.  

But, what this video features is John F. Kennedy talking about the very real existence of the Deep State, the Shadow Government- call it what you will. And then it is followed by Gadaffi talking about Kennedy's murder, and the role played by Israel, which was spurred by JFK's demand to monitor the Dimona nuclear facility. And, it is all highly documented: JFK's dispute with Israel over their getting nuclear weapons, and how after his death, with Johnson's help, they got them.  It's not anti-Semitism, which I abhor. It is a fact.

So, please take a look at this video, which almost brought me to tears. 

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

  




I have been dwelling on Jack Ruby's innocence for so long that my starting thesis, that Oswald was standing in the doorway during the shooting, seems old hat. It seems like it's been so well established and so well covered that it's as secure as any accepted element of the case. There is no doubt that among Oswald defenders- those who say he was innocent of shooting anyone- that more of them place him in the doorway at 12:30 than anywhere else. 

So, why didn't those goofy lawyers, Schnapf and Simpleton, use it in Houston? The short answer is that within the "community" there is respectable way to be an Oswald defender. And when I say respectable, I mean that you are treated well, even by the other side.  It's considered civilized if you just harp on disputing the Single Bullet Theory and stuff like that and don't try to give Oswald an alibi and certainly don't place him in the doorway, which is considered uncivilized. An example of a civilized Oswald defender would be Tink Thompson, who got help from CBS when he wrote his book, and who gets featured on programs with lone-nutters, in which they all get along fine. Another example is Attorney Robert Tannenbaum, and, Tink Thompson was advising him at the mock trial- like his coach- and Tannenbaum announced it at the trial. And it's weird, don't you think? Because, usually you have a lawyer advising a non-lawyer, but there, it was opposite. But, Tannenbaum has been opposed to Oswald in the doorway for a very long time. He denounced it in his 1967 book in which he said that CBS talked to Lovelady, and they assured him that Lovelady said he was the Man in the doorway. But, that was at the same time that CBS was doing its legendary 4 hour television special on the JFK assassination, in which they had a whole segment devoted to the Doorman controversy. But, after paying to get Lovelady there and photographing him, and doing a lot else, they decided to ditch the whole thing: lock, stock, and barrel.   

And note that Tannenbaum isn't really an Oswald defender at all, and he admits it. He doesn't even like Oswald. He's really just a JFK disputer. But, he and Tink are considered to be respectable opposition. So, even though there were 3 lawyers there supposedly defending Oswald, none of them put forward his alibi for the murder, which was that he was standing in the doorway at the time of the shots. And there is no place else he could have been. 

But even though in mainstream circles and in what are considered to be polite, respectable debates, Oswald in the doorway is still considered persona non grata, nevertheless, among the rank and file Oswald defenders, it now has the most support, and no other location comes close. So, enormous progress has been made, despite the lingering aura of it being politically incorrect.

And, it is absolutely certain now that it will never recede into obscurity again. The whole timeworn argument that "it was settled back in the 60s and 70s in two government investigations" means nothing because one of those investigations was the Warren Commission, and the other was the HSCA, which was every bit as corrupt and bad. And, the operative word in that statement is "government." Government investigations protect the government: first, last, and always. And, since the corollary to Oswald being in the doorway, is that THE GOVERNMENT KILLED KENNEDY, it's no wonder that a government investigation will always decide against Oswald in the doorway. 

So, Oswald's innocence based on his presence in the doorway is now well-established - despite the fact that it still is considered unsuitable for polite company. But, just think about who tells you that it's unsuitable for polite company, and you'll realize that it's no one you respect, and you're better off with the impolite company. 

But, in contrast, Jack Ruby's innocence based on the fact that he was not in the garage during the televised spectacle, that that was another man, is admittedly not well-established and it is beyond impolite. But, I maintain that the fact of Jack Ruby's innocence is now just as well established- by the evidence- as the fact of Lee Harvey Oswald's innocence. And both are supported by strong photographic evidence and many other things. 

And I admit that there are many Oswald defenders who are at the same time Jack Ruby accusers. And there were some great men among these Oswald defenders who unfortunately passed on before they acquired even an inkling of awareness that Jack Ruby was innocent. And they got help to think that way from mainstream sources that have continually spread untrue rumors about Jack Ruby: that he was a drug pusher (he was a drug taker but not a pusher), a pimp, a gun runner, a Mafia hit man, etc. About as many lies have been told about Jack Ruby as have been told about Oswald. I heard one about Oswald the other day that floored me. It quoted Oswald as saying "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take." That wasn't said by Lee Harvey Oswald. It was said by Wayne Gretsky, the hockey player, and he was talking about hockey. The very notion that Oswald would have said such a thing is preposterous. 

So, until quite recently, the Establishment has a safety valve to protect the truth about Jack Ruby from being exposed, and that is the stories that he was in deep with the Mob, that his killing of Oswald was Mob hit, that he was ordered to do it- or else. And many continue to brandish the claim that Jack Ruby was a participant in the JFK assassination. BUT, PEOPLE NEED TO REALIZE THAT FALSE RUBY SIGHTINGS ARE JUST AS NUMEROUS AND WIDESPREAD AS FALSE OSWALD SIGHTINGS. 

But, the point is that we are a lot farther back with Ruby than we are with Oswald- and I admit that. But, on the other hand, the realization that Jack Ruby was innocent carries an even heavier payload. What it does is cast the whole assassination plot in an even darker more evil,  more Machiavellian, and satanic light than the JFK assassination has by itself. In a way, the JFK assassination is very straight-forward, in comparison to the Oswald assassination. As frightful as the JFK assassination is, with them blowing up JFK's head right while he sat next to his wife in the car, it's not nearly as scary and disturbing as what they did to Oswald and what they did to Jack Ruby. It's like a whole magnitude higher in terms of the depth of the lies and the depth of the photographic manipulations. And it involved real protracted acting, particularly by Dallas detectives who became actors.  

It's ironic that after framing poor, hapless, confused Jack Ruby and convincing him that he shot Oswald, that they proceeded to order their student doctor to perform a rectal exam on him. I am reminded of the dialogue in No Country For Old Men when the store clerk, whose chit-chat irritated the sociopath, Anton Chigurh. And when the clerk said, "I don't know how to take that" Chigugh responded with, "Yes, you do, and you've been taking it your whole life." 

Well, I can't say that Jack Ruby took it his whole life, and I don't know the exact point in his life that he became a sacrificial lamb. But, what I do know is that they set him up because they were 100% positive that if Dallas Police told him that he shot Oswald that he would believe them- even though he didn't do it. How deranged do you have to be to put someone else's declarations ahead of your own experience and memory when it comes to whether you shot somebody? What they did to Jack Ruby they could not do to the vast majority of people, and I mean well over 99.99%. It's awfully damn hard to convince a person that he shot someone if he didn't. But, they NEVER would have done it the way they did without knowing that Jack Ruby's mind was in their control. Jack Ruby WAS the Manchurian candidate subject, but not as an assassin, rather as the non-assassin willing to take the blame. Jack Ruby was deranged- his lawyers weren't wrong about that. And the Dallas Police knew that he was deranged, and that THEY were his Queen of Hearts. Do you really think this deranged man outsmarted them? That he prevailed over all their unprecedented high security to protect Oswald? That he got the better of them? That he made fools of them? That he made a fool of Officer Roy Vaughan? You believe that, do you? Or conversely, do you believe that the Dallas Police were working WITH Jack Ruby, that they were colluding, and that as messed up as Ruby was mentally, that they were content for him to have and use a loaded gun and shoot it within inches of them? You think that they, the Dallas Police, were going to trust Jack Ruby to shoot a gun in a crowded, cop-filled cubbyhole? What could possibly go wrong, eh?    





Wednesday, February 14, 2018

The story of Jack Ruby shooting Oswald never had any credibility. So, why did virtually everyone accept it? The reasons were: (1) Ruby's veritable acceptance of it. Even though he had no memory of doing it, no intention of doing it, and no awareness of doing it, he was still willing to accept that he did it. And that tipped the scale for just about everybody. (2) the lack of any alternative. The idea that the Dallas Police committed the murder was not on anyone's radar. And that left no one but Jack Ruby. 

But today, there is no excuse for believing it. Anyone who recognizes that the official story of JFK's murder is a lie should be willing to accept that the official story of Oswald's murder is also a lie. And there is no longer any reason or any excuse why anyone should be enamored with the Dallas Police and be unwilling to see them for what they were in this case: the murderers of Lee Harvey Oswald.  

But even at the time, people should have had grave doubts and especially Ruby's lawyers. When they heard Ruby say that he had no memory of shooting Oswald, that all he could remember was going to the bottom of the ramp and then being jumped on by police, they should have accepted that at face value. They should have considered that his memory was crafted like that because the truth was crafted like that- that that is all that happened when he went down there.

But, the story of him shooting Oswald had no credibility as to motive. The idea that he did it out of grief about JFK does not stand up. He wasn't THAT absorbed in the grief. If you study Ruby's movements and activities the two days between JFK's murder and Oswald's,  most of it had to do with his business. And when he went to the DPD on Friday night, it was to distribute sandwiches. The whole time, Ruby never gave any thought to killing Oswald. He, himself, pointed out that when he wound up at the Midnight Press Conference, he never had the slightest compunction to shoot Oswald, even though he had a gun in his pocket. We know now that the motive that was given afterwards, that he did it to spare Jackie another trip to Dallas, was invented by his lawyer, Tom Howard. Moreover, Oswald was in the custody of the Dallas Police, who were Ruby's heroes.  The fact is that he had a very unnatural and excessive admiration for and worship of them. It wasn't anything sexual. It was more like they were his superheroes. But, the point is that his "feeling" for them was much stronger than his "feeling" for Oswald- as different and opposite as those feelings were. So, the idea that he would have disrupted and interfered with their operation is preposterous. He supported them. It was a very big, established value in his life- something that he treasured- his special relationship with the Dallas PD. He would not have endangered it for anything in the world.  

However, those who support the official story of the JFK killing are going to automatically support the official story of the Oswald killing; it's a matter of necessity and default for them.  And, it's really a waste of time to engage them because they are never going to know better.  But, the people who know that the JFK story is a lie, a bold-faced lie, they are the ones who should know better about Ruby. They are the ones who have no excuse for not embracing the truth: that Jack Ruby was innocent.

But, here's what we have among that group, and I really don't know what numbers to assign percentage-wise to each.: 

1) there are those who accept the official story of the Oswald shooting as-is, that Ruby did it; he did it alone; and he did it because of his grief over Kennedy

2) there are those who think Ruby did it because he was involved in the plot to kill Kennedy, and he needed to silence Oswald. 

3) there are those who think Ruby did it because he was threatened, that either he or his loved ones would be killed unless he killed Oswald. "Kill Oswald or your sister gets it." That sounds like something from a gangster movie.

But, none of these reasons make any sense. The first doesn't make sense because Ruby was not that preoccupied with Oswald, and he wasn't that grief-stricken over Kennedy. He told a joke on Friday night, saying to a guy he knew whom he ran into at the PD, "Have they arrested you yet?" That says a lot about his state of mind that he wasn't THAT grief-stricken. 

The idea that Ruby was involved in the plot to kill Kennedy, that he was delivering guns and shooters to Dealey Plaza is ridiculous, despite the witnesses. Why would the plotters go to Jack Ruby for that? He was a night club owner. Furthermore, he was famous for being a blabbermouth, a braggart, and show-off. So, how could they trust a guy like him? Why would Allen Dulles, Lyndon Baines Johnson, and J. Edgar Hoover have any need to resort to Jack Ruby to get JFK killed? It's ridiculous on the face of it. And what would be the point of "silencing" Oswald after he already underwent 13 hours of interrogation? If Oswald was going to say anything, to expose anything, don't you think he'd do it in 13 hours? If you were going to silence him, you'd have to do it before he talked to police, right? Not after 13 hours of interrogation. 

And that brings us to the last one, that he did it because of threats- to himself or even more likely, to members of his family. And so, they think he killed Oswald for that reason. But, it makes no sense. Nobody would do that. Would you? If someone threatened to kill your sister unless you killed someone, would you commit the murder? Of course not. What would you do? What would Jack Ruby do? Well first, he would seek to protect his sister. Remember, he didn't lack resources. He handled a lot of money. He walked around with thousands on him. And that was 1963. If he had two thousand on him, it was worth about $12,000 today. Maybe a little more. And I don't think it's physically possible for a person to carry that much cash. So, Jack Ruby typically walked around with more cash on him (in terms of purchasing power) than anybody walks around with today, not even billionaires. So, he first could have sought to protect his sister by secretly moving her to a new location that was out of reach. He could have sent her far away from Dallas, to another part of the country or even abroad. Swifted her out in the dead of night. Then, he could have gone to the police and told them about the threats. Remember, he had connections with the Dallas Police. He could have gone to his friends in the media and told them about the threats. Don't you think if the threats were published in the newspaper that it would make it awfully hard for the Mafia or the CIA to go through with it? He could have gone to his lawyer. He could have gone to his congressman. He could have gone to his senator. He could have gone to his governor. That's what I did when I was threatened, and I received a very concerned reply in writing from Governor Greg Abbott which I have to this day. He could have gone to the FBI, and likewise, I have gone to them. There is so much that he could have done. The idea that he had no choice but to go through with the murder they wanted is ridiculous. And again: nobody would do that. I wouldn't. You wouldn't. And neither would anyone else we know. Just going off and murdering somebody? It's not something that any sane person does. Most of us are living our lives knowing that we are never going to murder anybody, that it's out of the question. And of course, killing in self-defense or the defense of another is not murder: it is justifiable homicide, and the law says so. 

And if the threat was that they would kill Ruby himself if he didn't do it, so what? Wouldn't it be better to be killed than to go through what Jack Ruby went through the last three years of his life? If I had to choose between one or the other, I'd sooner die than be a cold-blooded murderer. Wouldn't you? 

So, none of these alternate stories about how Ruby came to shoot Oswald make any sense. 

It's time. It's time for the community of Oswald defenders to embrace Ruby innocence the way they do Oswald innocence. And there is no excuse not to. We have the evidence, including the photographic evidence that the Garage Shooter is incompatible with Jack Ruby. Concomitant with that, we have the photographic evidence and other evidence that the Garage Shooter was FBI Agent James Bookhout. We have the evidence that the whole spectacle was a hoax, that Oswald was killed later. We have the evidence that Jack Ruby reported seeing things at the ramp entrance that did not occur when Officer Roy Vaughan was there. We have the many lies told by the Dallas cops, which have been cited and collected by Amy Joyce. And we have all the strange behaviors, such as stripping Ruby to his underwear and keeping like that; we have the strange claim that they replaced his underwear, that he killed a man and the first thing they did was give him regulation underwear; we have the strange order for Dr. Fred Bieberdorf to perform a rectal exam on Ruby to make sure he didn't have a gun stuffed up his butt- as if there was any possibility of that or that they did such a thing with other gun-toting offenders; and we have the weird photographic anomalies concerning the microphone, the A/C duct, and all the freaky things in the Jackson photo showing inappropriate responses to a gun shot by virtually everyone in the photo. 

There is just no reason to believe any of it any more. The official story of the JFK shooting is a grotesque lie, and likewise, the official story of the Oswald shooting is a grotesque lie.  In fact, I believe it is even more grotesque.        
   

Tuesday, February 13, 2018

The Wizard overlayed the microphone from Beers into the Jackson photo, which has no microphone. It's weird that it has no microphone, but not as as weird as the Beers photo having one. Why would there be one there when it was supposed to be a 30 foot walk to a car; where the guy gets in and is driven away? How does a microphone fit into that? First, they announced in advance that you couldn't ask Oswald any questions, and second, you wouldn't hang a microphone from the ceiling for that anyway. Would you? And who hung it? Was it the media? Which media? And, it wasn't their garage: it was the police garage. So, why would the police allow them to do it? Or, was it supposedly hung by police as part of the security? It was supposed to save Oswald's life, was it? The mic?



So, the microphone is like a turd sitting in the picture, in my opinion. But, that's not what I want to talk about. What I want to talk about is the Jackson photo because this happens to be the sharpest version of it I have seen. I want you to notice how non-responsive everyone is to the gun blast that just went off and to the shooter still pointing the gun prepared to shoot. "Ruby" has already fired there, and Oswald is reacting. But, from what we are seeing, why can't "Ruby" just pull the trigger again? So, how do you explain this?


That man, Detective Lowery, is relaxed. he is clasping his hands in front, which he was doing before the shot and is still doing. He is looking right at "Ruby" but he is unphased. And from looking at him, I can see that he hasn't moved a muscle. He is not launching himself to take action. He is planted there, like he is going nowhere. And this is after the shot. How could he possibly behave like that after a shot? And what about this guy?



He looks like a statue. He looks frozen. He looks like he's fixated on the camera, that he is looking right at the lens of the camera. He is looking through Oswald, not at him. He is looking presumably at Robert Jackson with the camera. But, how could he do that if a shot just went off, and there is a commotion going on? And remember that the sound included Oswald screaming. And what about Fritz?


Perhaps you think that his hands being outstretched represents a credible reaction to the shot, but it is not. If you know anything at all about the startle response, you know that it starts with a tightening of the neck muscles. So, it would be more like a flinch where the head goes back and the shoulders go up. 


Then, the next thing would be to turn around and see what is going on behind you.  What we see Fritz doing is a fake startle reaction. He didn't want to turn around because he wanted to be able to say afterwards that he didn't see a thing. He eventually turned around but way too late for it to be real. And what about Tom Pettit?


That is not a normal reaction either. There is no startle there. Remember that we are talking about .6 second after the Beers photo, which means what? .3 second after the shot? He hasn't even flinched. And what about this guy?


That is supposed to be Detective Blackie Harrison, who apparently responded to the blast by taking a puff from his cigar. His hand with the cigar was down when the Beers photo was taken .6 second before.


Who responds to a gunshot by taking a drag off his cigar?

And, what about Jim Leavelle? Now surely there is someone who is reacting properly to the shot. But, Leavelle said that he saw Ruby coming in advance and recognized him as Jack Ruby. He said that he reacted by turning Oswald in an effort to pull him behind him, and with his left hand, he shoved on Ruby's shoulder. 



You can see that his right hand isn't doing that. But, what about his left hand? If he had pulled on Oswald with his left hand, that hand would have led the way. You can't actually apply a rotary force with your hand. You can only pull in a linear direction, and your hand is going to lead it. Your hand is the engine, and the engine goes first on the train. So, he hasn't pulled Oswald anywhere. His engine hasn't left the station. But, notice that he is leaning away from "Ruby". He is leaning back and to his right, our left. "Ruby" is the other direction. Wouldn't you expect a police officer to move towards the assailant? So, the lean that Leavelle is doing in the Jackson photo is all wrong as a response to what happened. 

And what about Oswald himself? Slapping his arm to his chest in response to being shot? First, we don't see him doing that in any of the films; only here. But second, nobody would do that. Nobody would respond to being shot in the rib cage by slapping his arm to his chest. Maybe a child playing make-believe would do it, but that's about it. 

So, the bottom line is that there is not a single person in the Jackson photo who is reacting appropriately to what supposedly just happened. Not one. The whole thing is unreal, and it is surreal. And I, like the Wizard and Amy Joyce, believe that it was taken apart from the televised spectacle because we don't see the Jackson photo in the televised spectacle. There is the one UPI Newsreel which has a Jackson lookalike, but it's fake. What they did is cram a still image up against a moving film. The film does not continue after the Jackson lookalike image, and there is no reason to think that it's part of the film or came from the film. It's just more fakery. 

So, this Pulitzer Prize winning photograph is a lie and a fraud, and that is plainly visible to see.



So, why didn't people see it? It's because they didn't want to see it. They didn't want to question the veracity of it. And I mean nobody. Not even Ruby's lawyers. Nobody wanted to question the fundamental story. And that's because nobody could step out of the "America" delusion.  Seriously, that is the crux of it: it has to be real because otherwise, do you know what it means? 





Monday, February 12, 2018

Amy Joyce found this FBI statement in which it says that Francois Pelou, the French reporter, claims to have seen Jack Ruby distributing sandwiches at the DPD on Saturday afternoon.

That is ridiculous because it was on Friday night that Ruby went to the DPD to distribute sandwiches to the detectives, and since they weren't interested, he settled for giving them to a news crew. There is NO CHANCE that Ruby was passing out sandwiches on Saturday afternoon. But, this is probably Saturday afternoon since it shows a guy reading the Saturday edition of the Dallas Morning News.

And remember that it's from a film, and in the film, you do see Pelou walk past this guy and glance at him. Of course, there were no sandwiches involved, so that was flat-out wrong. And the guy is not Jack Ruby. Jack Ruby was not there on Saturday afternoon. 

Sunday, February 11, 2018

Read this testimony by Lt. Rio "Sam" Pierce:

Mr. HUBERT. Did you, yourself, do any of the inspection work, or the searching out work?
Lt. PIERCE. No, sir; Sergeant Dean made the assignment of the men, and approximately an hour later, I guess maybe 10:15.


So, Sergeant Dean must have assigned Roy Vaughan to guard the Main Street ramp. But, look at the time: 10:15. The transfer was scheduled for 10, so how could they wait until 10:15 to search and inspect? 

Reportedly, Fritz and some of his men, plus some feds, plus Postal Inspector Harry Holmes were sequestered in Fritz' office interrogating Oswald- again. What the hell could they have been interrogating him about at that point? They had already interrogated him for 12 hours. But, nobody knew what time they were going to finish. It started at 9:30. If it went the usual hour, they would have been done at 10:30. So, how could they wait until 10:15 to secure the basement? I'll tell you why: IT'S BECAUSE THEY HAD TO REMOVE THE REAL JACK RUBY FROM THE SCENE BEFORE THEY DID IT. THEY WERE WAITING ON HIM, NOT THAT HE KNEW IT.

Mr. HUBERT. When you got to the top of the basement, were there any guards there on the Main Street entrance?
Lieutenant PIERCE. Patrolman Vaughn was stationed at the top of the ramp.
Mr. HUBERT. YOU knew him prior to that time?
Lieutenant PIERCE. Yes, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. What happened then?
Lieutenant PIERCE. Well, actually, nothing happened outside of the fact that he had to move out of the way to let us out.
Mr. HUBERT. Which way did he move?
Lieutenant PIERCE. He moved toward the street.
Mr. HUBERT. I mean on which side of you?
Lieutenant PIERCE. He moved to my right.
Mr. HUBERT. And toward the street?
Lieutenant PIERCE. And towards the street; yes, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. What way was he facing then during the period that you were moving by him? 
Lieutenant PIERCE. He was facing me, as well as I remember.
Mr. HUBERT. That is---
Lieutenant PIERCE. Momentarily, anyway.
Mr. HUBERT. In fact, he would have been looking from where he was standing toward the Main Street entrance?
Lieutenant PIERCE. Yes, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. Did you see him turn his head any at all?
Lieutenant PIERCE. No, sir; I couldn't see him for just a matter of a second there when I pulled out. That ramp is steep and a little bit difficult to get out there.
Mr. HUBERT. Did he step out in the street at all?
Lieutenant PIERCE. Not to my knowledge. 


So, Pierce too never claimed that he stopped at the head of the ramp and that Vaughan leaned in to talk to him. Never happened. And he said that Vaughan moved to his (Pierce's) right which would mean towards Pearl Street. But, Ruby was coming from Harwood, and he said that the officer leaned in to talk to Pierce with his back to him. So, that officer must have been on the Harwood side. And it makes sense. It was earlier, and Pierce stopped at the head of the ramp because he was waiting to make sure Ruby went down the ramp. The officer on foot had his back to Ruby because if he was facing Ruby, then how could he deny seeing Ruby? Also, Ruby would have seen his face. I can just imagine the conversation:

Pierce: "Alright, here he comes. He's right behind you. Don't turn around." (Pierce starts looking in his rear view mirror) "Alright, he's going down the ramp." (Commotion at the bottom of the ramp; Ruby gets swifted away) 

Then, Pierce may have just backed down the ramp and parked the car, as haste was made for the televised spectacle. And, we know that garage was cleared of reporters and everybody, including Dr. Bieberdorf, at 9:45. They were cleared out so that the apprehension of Jack Ruby could take place with only insiders present. And afterwards, reporters were let back in. And, we have that from multiple witnesses. I suspect that Ruby was at Western Union a little after 10:00, and it was close to 10:15 that the snatching of him took place. The claim that he went to Dealey Plaza to see the wreaths was probably a lie- just to fill in the time. Ruby definitely did that on Saturday, so why would he do it again on Sunday? He didn't live that far away, so if he went directly from his apartment to Western Union, he could have left at 9:45. He said he got up early that morning. So, he had plenty of time to eat breakfast and read the newspaper (in which his copy had a mysterious "Dear Carolyn" letter which wasn't really published because if it was, we'd have it). And besides taking twice his usual dose of amphetamines, he took 5 or 6 other pills. What were they? How did he come to take them? Did somebody put him up to taking them? Did he even know what they were? Karen Carlin would have had to call earlier than claimed, more like 9 or 9:15. And in her testimony, she sounded nervous in citing the time of the call.  



   

Did you listen to the way Roy Vaughan said it? Because, if you haven't listened to the way he said it, you need to listen to it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WePowzq1nmE&feature=youtu.be

He says it with conviction, like he knows it to the core of his being that Jack Ruby did not come down that ramp. 

"I'll go to my grave saying Jack Ruby did not come down that ramp." 

Roy Vaughan indeed went to his grave saying Jack Ruby didn't come down that ramp, and he was right, not wrong. He just left out an implied part of the statement: "on my watch." Jack Ruby did not come down that ramp on Roy Vaughan's watch.

But, there is no reason to doubt Jack Ruby that he went down the ramp because he's just as believable as Roy Vaughan. 

Jack Ruby: "I noticed a police squad car at the head of the ramp and an officer leaning over talking to him with his back to me."

That would mean that the officer leaning into the car was on the west side of the ramp, which was Ruby's side, not the east side (the Pearl Street side) which was the side Vaughan went to get out of the car's way.

And that means it was a different officer and a different time. Look at this map:



So, Ruby walked east on Main Street, crossing Harwood, to get to the ramp. He said the squad car was at the head of the ramp, and an officer on foot was leaning into the car with his back to him. It means the officer must have been leaning into the driver's side of the car, which is the only way his back could have been to Ruby. But, Roy Vaughan said many times and every time that he got out of the way by moving to the Pearl Street side. Today, it's the Pearl Expressway, but then it was just Pearl Street. Vaughan said nothing about leaning into the car to talk to Pierce. He said that his response to the car coming up the ramp was to step towards the street, but not into the street, to check for traffic and then to wave it on. There was no delay. There was no chit-chat. The car didn't stop at the head of the ramp as Ruby described. It just kept going. It must have been a different time that the car stopped at the head of the ramp with an officer on the other side, the Harwood Street side, from which Ruby was coming, where the officer was leaning in talking to Pierce and with his back to Ruby. 

So, we are talking about two entirely different situations. Pierce must have made two exits; one earlier when Ruby was there, and one just a minute before the shooting when Ruby was not there. Vaughan was there for the second exit but not the first. Vaughan did not begin his watch until after the first exit had happened.  

What's the alternative? That Vaughan lied or was negligent and mistaken? Bull Shit! There are no grounds to go there, and the good Friar Occum will go for your throat if you try. That Ruby lied? Why would he lie about that if he was willing to accept that he shot Oswald? You think he lied to protect somebody who helped him get in another way? Why would he do that? Where is there the slightest evidence that Jack Ruby lied about anything? He was a man pleading to take lie detector tests or even swallow truth serum. Ruby didn't lie about anything. 

The solution to this is that Ruby got there early. He walked down the ramp, got jumped and swifted up to the 5th floor. And then they proceeded with the televised spectacle using James Bookhout as his surrogate.  Bingo. That is what happened. 












Saturday, February 10, 2018

Chris Venesile  This is one area of research that needs mining. I could never explain this part, about Ruby being innocent, to my non-conspiracy friends...
Manage


LikeShow more reactions
Reply9m
Ralph Cinque Chris, there are plenty of people even on the conspiracy side who just refuse to believe that Jack Ruby was innocent. It's like they have a psychological need for him to be guilty. But, he wasn't guilty. He was just a pathetic, hapless, deranged man whom they could walk all over precisely because of his mental handicap. They convinced him- and the whole world- that he shot Oswald. But, he didn't. Their story is bogus; their films and photos are highly manipulated and falsified; and it is actually a very scary thing what they did. It was mind-control for the masses: the whole damn world. 
Ralph Cinque How could the Dallas Police be complicit WITH Ruby? They testified against him. They sought to put him in the electric chair. How could they assume that he would forever keep his mouth shut and protect them? How could they assume that his lawyer could never get Ruby to reveal what really happened? How could they sleep at night knowing that they were depending on Jack Ruby's silence, to keep his mouth shut about their complicity in the crime, as they called him a deviant, a homosexual, and a murderer? How could any two people conspire to do something together in which one was going to take all the blame and forfeit his freedom and his entire life while the other became a hero? Just try to talk it out: "Look, Jack: you kill Oswald; we'll help you do it. And then we'll arrest you, prosecute you, testify against you, and send you to the electric chair. You'll lose everything, including your life, and we'll become heroes. Sound good? Who is going to take that deal? Yes, the Dallas Police were involved, and they did conspire, but not WITH Jack Ruby. They conspired AGAINST Jack Ruby. That's the only thing that makes sense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WePowzq1nmE&feature=youtu.beRalph Cinque Thank you, Mark E. Bennett for providing that link of Roy Vaughan. How could anybody watch it and not believe him? Ruby did not go down that ramp WHEN ROY VAUGHN WAS THERE. But, Ruby said he went down the ramp, and he had no reason to lie, and he even told us that Roy Vaughan wasn't there at the time. He said that an officer he didn't know was there. But, Ruby knew Roy Vaughan. They had met multiple times, and one of them involved Vaughan forgiving a traffic violation for Ruby- as a courtesy since he was a friend of the department. So, Ruby must have gotten there BEFORE Roy Vaughan was assigned to guard the ramp. Don't you get it? Ruby got there early, and they disposed of him before the whole spectacle began. But, Vaughan wasn't in on it. Vaughan, like Ruby, was a patsy.

What is the official story of the Oswald shooting?  We know what the official story of the JFK shooting is, that Oswald did it alone, that he went to Irving on Thursday night with Frazier to get the rifle he had stored at Ruth Paine's house. And, he returned with it the next morning in a self-made bag, and he assembled it with a dime and shot Kennedy 3x, hitting him twice. 

But, the official story of the Oswald shooting is not so cut and dry. Of course, it says that Ruby shot Oswald, but did he intend to? Did he go there to shoot Oswald? 

According to Ruby, he certainly didn't. Ruby said that he wondered down the ramp, for no particular reason and mostly out of curiosity, but with no expectation of seeing Oswald, let alone shooting him, and he must have impulsively and compulsively done it, but he wasn't aware of it at the time, not until Dallas Police told him afterwards that he did it.

So, that was his story, and his lawyers ran with it to defend him, except that they gave it a fancy diagnosis: psychomotor epilepsy. 

But, what does officialdom say? Well, let's start with Henry Wade's prosecution of Ruby. Wade made it that Ruby planned to shoot Oswald, that it was premeditated murder. And Ruby got the death penalty, right? So, I guess the jury believed Wade. 

And the corporate media has gone along with that, often showing images, supposedly of Ruby at the DPD and refer to it as Ruby "stalking" Oswald: stalking him with the intent to kill him. 

And they go farther than that. The sometimes report the claims of certain individuals that Ruby said, in advance, that he was going to shoot Oswald.  One such person who supposedly heard Ruby say it was his roommate George Senator. However, if you read Senator's testimony to the Warren Commission, he never said it; rather, he denied it. He stated emphatically that he did not think Ruby had any intention of shooting Oswald, and he would never have brought his dog Sheba along if he did. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Are you saying now as you think about this further, the fact that he had the dog with him is not an overriding fact in deciding whether Jack had any plan to shoot Oswald before he went down there?
Mr. SENATOR. To my knowledge I would say that he had definitely no plans.


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

So, how did the rumor start that George Senator said that he heard it from Ruby that he was going to shoot Oswald? I don't know, but surely if it were true, he would have said so in his testimony to the Warren Commission. Right? So, either the rumor is false, or George Senator can't be trusted about anything. 

And there are other reports of people claiming to have heard Ruby say he was going to shoot Oswald. But, those were either Dallas cops or people closely tied to the DPD. So, consider the source. 

Jack Ruby emphatically denied telling anyone that he intended to shoot Oswald, and he denied ever having the intention to shoot him. At times, the official story seems to accept it, but at other times, it brandishes his premeditation. 

But, there are unsolvable problems with the pre-meditation story. There is the oft-quoted fact of him bringing his beloved dog Sheba along, and leaving her in the car, which he never would have done if he knew he was never coming back. There is the fact that the thing he did right before going to the garage was send a $25 money order to an employee. How could he do that if he was then going to shoot Oswald? That act was work-related. Karen Carlin worked for him. They were not having an affair; she was married. And he expected her to report to work the very next night, and he wanted her to because he needed her to entertain. The business had been closed for 3 nights, and he was starting up again. But, why would he care about the business if he was going away forever? 

The wiring of the money right before killing Oswald just doesn't make sense. They just don't go together. It would be like having a shopping list, a to-do list, which read: 1) buy groceries 2) mail package 3) pick up dry cleaning 4) send money order 5) kill Oswald.   

It makes no sense. Ruby shooting Oswald meant ending Oswald's life- and his own. In a way, it was like suicide. He lost everything. So, how could Ruby go from one to the other? 

If Ruby had any plan of shooting Oswald, he had to know that it meant instant capture; therefore, he would have made arrangements for everything, and particularly, his beloved dogs. The fact that he didn't tells you that he had no intention of shooting Oswald. 

But, the corporate media is all over the place on this. At times, they seem to accept Ruby's story of a sudden, unplanned impulse, a "moment of madness" as Ruby's attorney Elmer Gertz put it. An example is the 1978 tv movie, Ruby and Oswald, which included Jim Leavelle as actor and adviser, which portrayed Ruby's story of doing it with complete oblivion. They had Dallas Police on the elevator informing him that he did it, followed by his complete surprise and bewilderment. But, at other times, they pose Ruby as having foreknowledge, not only of the Oswald shooting, but the JFK shooting too, as in the ridiculous "fireworks" story. 

Then, there is the problem of Officer Roy Vaughan, who adamantly denied that Ruby went down the ramp on his watch. But, that is definitely part of the official story. But, who are you going to believe? It was a narrow ramp, and you know very well that even an 80 year old Walmart greeter could have kept Ruby out. So, how could a robust 29 year old cop fail to do it? But, that is the official story: that Vaughan was looking the other way, and Ruby got past him. Too bad. Shame. Shit happens.

So, the official story has it that Vaughan never saw Ruby. But, neither did anyone else. Lt. Rio "Sam" Pierce was there at the same time that Vaughan failed to see Ruby, plus two other officers riding in his car, but none of them got cited for dereliction of duty: just Vaughan. And what about all the officers at the bottom of the ramp? Most claimed not to see Ruby at all prior to the shot. Jim Leavelle said he did, and he claimed to take evasive action, but it's totally in conflict with what the films show. 

So, it's obvious that Roy Vaughan was just a scapegoat. But, why should the Dallas Police be believed at all? Is everyone enamored with them the way Ruby was?

So, why does the corporate media oscillate back and forth between the oblivion story and the pre-mediation story? I think it's because 
neither one is credible. How could Ruby remember everything he did that weekend, everyone he spoke to, every call he made, and there were many, and not remember shooting Oswald? And yet, how could he have planned to shoot Oswald without making arrangements for his dogs, etc.? Neither one makes sense.

Then, the story that someone put him up to shooting Oswald is the wackiest of all. Remember: his entire weekend is detailed, minute by minute:

http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Jack_Ruby/Timeline_of_Ruby.html  

There isn't even a time that someone (the Mafia or the CIA, presumably) could have threatened him. They didn't do it over the phone, did they? "Kill Oswald, or we're going to kill your sister, Jack." Click. And the truth is that nobody would do that. He would take action to protect his sister. He would report the threat to the police. And in Ruby's case, he had friends not only in the police department but in the newspaper business, and he could have gone to them with the threat. The idea that he would shoot Oswald on order from somebody, completely destroying his own life in the process, is ridiculous. It's absurd. Nobody would do that. You hear me? I said nobody.  

So, the Media swings back and forth between accepting Ruby's oblivion story and brandishing the premeditation story, and sometimes they spice it up by giving him foreknowledge of the JFK assassination and making him a conspirator in it. But, the latter they do just to bait the buffs and keep them occupied with tomfoolery. 


The point, the ultimate point, is that none of the media stories are true. The truth is unspoken. The is unspeakable. The truth is unmentionable. The truth is that Jack Ruby was innocent. Completely and totally innocent. The truth is that he was framed for killing Oswald by people who knew that he was mentally incompetent and took out an insurance policy on his mental incompetence by giving him drugs that guaranteed it. Remember what Ruby said in his published autobiography; that besides taking twice his usual dose of amphetamines, he took 5 or 6 other tablets that Sunday morning. What were those other tablets, and how did he come to take them? 

What it really comes down to is contradiction. It is a contradiction for Ruby to go off to shoot Oswald and bring his dog along. It is a contradiction for Ruby to combine the mundane act of sending a $25 money order to an employee with the life-changing and life-destroying (referring to Ruby's life) act of shooting Oswald.

And what did Ayn Rand tell us to do when facing a contradiction? She said to check your premises. And in this case, it means checking your premise that Ruby shot Oswald.