Monday, April 30, 2018

So, the Wizard has assembled his favorite images which he feels prove that not only was the Garage Shooter not Jack Ruby, but he was, in fact, FBI Agent James Bookhout. And keep in mind that there are absolutely no images of James Bookhout from the JFK assassination, even though he followed Oswald around like his shadow. A few months ago, a pack of liars, threw this picture into the blogosphere claiming it was Bookhout. But of course, it was never vetted by anyone in an authoritative position to vet it, such as Bookhout's son. And I sent it to his son and asked him if it was is father, and he never replied. Supposedly, it's the guy smoking the pipe. 


But, let's consider the "story" of this picture. That's Will Fritz in the white hat and dark suit talking to detectives, and supposedly, Bookhout wasn't even paying attention. he was too busy smoking his pipe. But, that doesn't make sense. Bookhout was the official FBI liaison to the Dallas PD. They had worked on many cases before. And, Fritz was allowing Bookhout to attend, not some, but every Oswald interrogation. So, what are the chances that Bookhout wouldn't be listening to what Fritz was saying? The chances are none. And what evidence is there that Bookhout smoked a pipe? There is none. It's not as though pipe-smoking was a common enough practice that we can just assume that he was a pipe-smoker. And remember, Bookhout being FBI, he was a guest there. This was the Homicide Bureau of the Dallas PD. So, what are the chances that he would light up a pipe? You realize that a pipe has to be packed first, right? So, he did that there in the office? He took the time to do that? Took out a pouch of tobacco and packed his pipe? Right there in the office? And then started smoking it? Are you aware that pipe tobacco produces a very aromatic smell? And that was an enclosed area. What are the chances that Bookhout would do such a thing? THEY ARE NONE!! Do you hear me, mudderruckers? 

The truth is that Bookhout wouldn't do it, and I doubt that anybody would. I'd be willing to bet that the image of that pipe-smoker is fake. That photograph probably existed without him in it. 


Look at the guy seated who is closest to us. Doesn't he appear to be looking at Fritz? But, how could he see him if that pipe guy was there? He can't see through him, can he? Notice that the whole focus of this image is the men looking at and listening to Fritz. Nobody seems to be aware of the pipe-smoker. He's like Lovelady in the squad room, where no one but no one seems to be aware of him- a fake, implanted image. I'd bet the same is true of this one. 

You see the man sitting at the desk. It's a standard size desk, isn't it? Do we have any reason to assume otherwise? I put a white k for where the pipe-smoker's knee is.



 His knee is higher than the desk. But that's ridiculous because a desk is higher than a man's knees. Stand next to one. The standard height of a desk is 30 inches. I just measured mine, and it's 30 inches. But, the distance from my knee to the ground is only 18 inches. So, my knee is well below the top of the desk. The top of the desk is much higher than my knee. That man is too high in relation to the desk. 

All the FBI agents wore dark suits. Here's Hosty. 


Here's Vincent Drain, carrying evidence in a bag.
Here's Nat Pinkston: dark suit

So, what are the chances that James Bookhout wore a suit this light? There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that he did.


But, think about it: the people foisted this false image of Bookhout, they would never have identified another man who was there as Bookhout. There would have been too big a chance of me finding out his real identity. If that guy was really there, then he would be identifiable. They weren't going to take a chance like that. It's a phony image. That guy was put into the image. And, who knows if he existed at all? Maybe he was computer-generated. And if that guy was really Bookhout, and it was as easy as that to capture his image, why wouldn't there be a lot of them. Did I mention that he followed Oswald around like his shadow? 

The stinking Prayermanite Bart Kamp suppoedly "found" this image. Found it, did he? Where'd he find it? And how come in 54 years, it wasn't found before? 

What a despicable thing to do, to concoct this image, and specifically I'm sure to combat me, the Wizard, and others who are shouting from the rooftops, that Jack Ruby was innocent, that he was NOT in the garage during the spectacle, and the short chubby guy wielding the gun was FBI Agent James Bookhout. 


This is a concise statement from the Wizard describing the evidentiary basis for James Bookhout being the Garage Shooter by the elevator with the three detectives. 

"With the pictures and overlays we can show that the young Bookhout photos are definitely Bookhout because they match his son in his younger days (in fact, the Impostor himself also matches the son and other Bookhout relatives.)"

"We can show that young Bookhout matches the Imposter, with a slow gif showing the eyes appearing in their sockets at the correct places in a quite sinister manner." 

"We can show that the Impostor does not match Ruby." 

"A fusion of the Young Bookhout photo and the less clear ROTC face shows that they are the same person. Again, those close-set Northern European eyes are helpfully distinctive." 

"The ROTC face matches that of the Imposter very well." 

"The young Bookhout face matches Bookhout's face in the basement, as he watches Oswald being carried out on the stretcher."

"It all links together."
The Wizard made this new gif of the Garage Shooter and Young Bookhout from his SMU days in Dallas. How appropriate that the SMU campus should be the home of the Presidential Library of that mass murderer, George W. Bush. 

But, this gif, the Wizard calls Bookhout Seamless, and it is just that. 

 So, let me get this straight: the dirty, rotten scoundrels think that Young Bookhout's face just happens to fit seamlessly over the face of Jack Ruby?

You know what bothers me more than anything else? Even when truth is staring these bastards in the face, they deny it. They just don't care. They just don't give a hoot. 

Sunday, April 29, 2018

It is obvious to anyone with common sense and an uncorrupted mind that these are different men wearing different clothes.



But, the official story has it that that's Lovelady on the left and then again on the right 15 minutes later. So, it means he would have had to button up his shirt, right? But then, 11 years after the image on the right appeared, they offered this image, supposedly of Lovelady.
So, does that look to be Gorilla Man all over again?


Why would anyone think that those two are the same guy? Their heads are a different shape. The guy on the left has got a sunken chest, while the guy on the right has got a burly chest. The guy on the right has got pocket-flap, while the guy on the left does not. And notice that the guy on the left has got cigarettes in the pocket, but the guy on the right not. Yet, the guy on the right was smoking. So, where'd he get the cigarette? Did he bum it off somebody? How about the lady in the curlers? The one in the scarf? 


Note that none of these TSBD celebrities could have been there at the time. All were, by their own admission, inside the building at the time. That's Lovelady, Williams, and Arce. 

But, getting back to the image at the PD, there is another version of it that did not appear until 2009. 


Who wants to claim that these two are the same man at the same moment, the same second in time?


Those two are the same guy? The guy on the left must have weighed 30 pounds more, at least. Maybe 40 pounds more. and Look how different his shirt is arranged. Look how different his hair is. He has it combed back like Robert DiNiro in The Deer Hunter. The other guy has a comb-over going on.

The evil of it all. That's what gets me. The willingness to endorse and force the preposterous out of nothing but thuggery. Oh, it is a wicked world, a wicked country, and a wicked JFK community populated by pinks and punks. But, the truth shall overcome. It shall smite them like the Cross to Dracula. But, I guarantee you that there shall never be forgiveness. There shall never be anything but bitter, lasting contempt- for these people.  
I would have thought they'd hire somebody smarter to do battle with me. An uneducated and unintelligent ex-soldier is not up to the task- and never will be. Case in point: He compares this image of Billy Lovelady, with his head flexed:


to this one with the phony hat, put in to hide the face of James Bookhout:
He claims to know that Billy was walking, but based on what? The story of the second picture tells us that the other guy was walking, but there is no basis to claim to know that Billy was walking. But, the Punk claims that they are both walking, and that they both have the same degree of head flexion. But that is ridiculous because we can see Billy's face, and we'd see it even if he had a hat on.

There is no correlation whatsoever between Billy and the bogus hat image, Idiot.

Then, he refers to blind people walking around not seeing. So, since they can do that, we should therefore assume that anyone can? 
Apparently, Raff* has no knowledge of blind people walking around every day.

So stupid. So incredibly stupid. 

Then, the Punk recycled a claim of Steve "Lance Uppercut" Haydon about bright light obscuring someone's hair. 


This guy was directly under bright light at a pool table. On the right, is what Haydon posted, and on the left is how it looked when I found it independently. But, it has no connection whatsoever to this, because Billy wasn't perched under a bright light.
There are no grounds whatsoever to assume that his hair above was anything but what it appears to be. That is: the hair that we see is the hair that he had. 

This guy is an actor. Shall we assume he has more hair than he appears to have?
It would be awfully stupid because there are plenty of images of him that show the exact same thing. That's his hair. There is no reason to claim any optical illusions. Again, it's stupid. 

Hey, you evil Punk!  Why don't you blame on Brownian motion? 

Then, the stupid Punk claims that it's only because Lovelady had his head bowed that his ears seem to protrude. But, bowing your head doesn't cause one's ears to protrude.



You're stupid, Punk. And no, I don't blame the peyote. You're just stupid. 

Then, the Punk made this statement:

Lovelady identified himself in a copy of Altgens 6 when the FBI questioned him within a day of the assassination.

Who said that Lovelady identified himself when the FBI questioned him within a day of the assassination? The FBI did. J. Edgar Hoover's FBI did. But, no intelligent person is going to take ANYTHING that J. Edgar Hoover's FBI said as gospel. They didn't sit Lovelady down in front of a sea of cameras and microphones to tell the world that he was Doorman. If they had done that, then one could say that Lovelady identified himself. But, without that, you have nothing. 

Look, I know you're an idiot, but try to grasp something: hearsay is not allowed in a court of law. Someone claiming that they heard someone say something doesn't count for shit. And that's all this FBI claim is: hearsay. 

And it makes sense that it would be prohibited. I talked to Jones Harris. I talked to him for about 2 hours. And he told me that Lovelady told him in May 1964 that he wore both shirts that day, that he wore the striped on and the checkered one. And that's hearsay too, I admit. But, it's showing you how easy lip-flapping is. Anybody can lip-flap anything. There's nothing bankable about either statement. But, in the case of the FBI, they were speaking for Lovelady at a time that he was alive and could have spoken for himself. This matter was important enough that a press conference should have been called for Billy Lovelady to tell the world that he was Doorman. 

What do I have to do to get through to this boneheaded Punk that there is nothing reliable in anything the FBI said? The FBI was the enemy. The FBI waerethe bad guys. The FBI was complicit in John F. Kennedy's murder. So, why would anyone accept anything they had to say about anything? 

And then quoting Roy Truly? Read William Weston, The Spider's Web: The TSBD and the Dallas Conspiracy. The TSBD was a CIA front company, and they moved into that building to kill Kennedy. Roy Truly was complicit in Kennedy's murder. Officer Marrion Baker was not. 

Even the Mary Ferrell Foundation published Weston's article.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=16259&relPageId=7

I have absolutely nothing to change or even bolster on the OIC site because of this tripe. This punkery is just laughably stupid. It really is pathetic. Granted, the punk is a moron, but he is also an evil bastard. And that is basically who they have fighting to preserve the JFK lie: evil bastards. 









Mees Baaijen, who is an OIC member, sent me this article about the murder of Thomas Merton in 1968. Thomas Merton was an American Trappist monk who wrote over 70 books. He had a huge following. He wrote about spirituality; religion; and not just Catholocism but world religions. And he wrote about pacifism. He was an anti-war activist. He was anti the Vietnam War. And that created a lot of enemies for him in high places. 

He died in Bangkok, Thailand on December 10, 1968. He had gone there to attend and speak at an international gathering of monks, both Christian and non-Christian. He gave his talk; then he went to his room; and shortly later he was found dead holding an electric fan in his hands. The claim was made that he died of electrocution because there was an electrical short. Oh, but also from heart failure. Like Clara Altgens, who died of a heart condition, but there was also some carbon monoxide involved. And don't forget she had the flu. And Jane Stanford; she died of heart failure. Or was it indigestion? Try strychnine poisoning. 

Multiple witnesses, who saw his body, said that Thomas Merton had an open wound in the back of his head. But, that never went into the official report.  The author claims that "the facts clearly prove that there was a concerted effort to make a crime look like an accident." This is Thomas Merton:


The year was 1968. It was an insane year of killing. It was the year that the CIA murdered both Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy. And, if you believe that James Earl Ray killed MLK and Sirhan Sirhan killed RFK, then you might as well believe that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK, and Jack Ruby killed Oswald. 

Here is the article now by Edward Curtin, and it's a book review of The Martyrdom of Thomas Merton by Hugh Turley and David Martin.


Speaking the Unspeakable: The Assassination and Martyrdom of Thomas Merton




“Killing a man who says ‘No!’ is a risky business,” the priest replied, “because even a corpse can go on whispering ‘No! No! No! with a persistence and obstinacy that only certain corpses are capable of.  And how can you silence a corpse?”  –  Ignazio Silone, Bread and Wine
Fifty years have elapsed since Thomas Merton died under mysterious circumstances in a cottage at a Red Cross Conference Center outside Bangkok, Thailand where he was attending an international inter-faith monastic conference.  The truth behind his death has been concealed until now through the lies and deceptions of a cast of characters, religious, secular, and U.S. governmental, whose actions chill one to the bone.  But he has finally found his voice through Hugh Turley and David Martin, who tell the suppressed truth of Merton’s last minutes on earth on December 10, 1968.
This is an extraordinary book in so many ways.  First, because the authors prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Trappist monk and anti-war writer Thomas Merton was assassinated and did not die in a fabricated accident, as has been claimed for all these years.
Second, because it is so meticulously researched, sourced, documented, and logically argued that it puts to shame and the lie to so many works, including academic ones, that purport to be profound but fall apart once carefully inspected, especially all those that have been written about Merton and his alleged accidental death. These false accounts of his death, obviously presented purposely by the key players – that he was electrocuted by a fan while wet from a shower – have been repeated ad nauseam over fifty years as if curiosity were reserved for cats and a writer’s job were to repeat commonplace absurdities. And of course the mainstream media, the prime organs of propaganda dissemination, have carried out their function by repeating these lies at every turn. The transparency of Turley and Martin’s presentation is greatly enhanced by the presence of footnotes, not end-notes, which allow readers to easily check sources as they read.  Most footnotes refer to primary documents – letters, police reports, etc. – that are reproduced in an appendix that is, however, in need of enlargement, but whose contents have, for some odd or not so odd reasons, escaped the thousands of writers who’ve penned words about Merton.
Third, because it greatly expands our understanding of that fateful year – 1968 – by adding the prophetic Merton’s name to the list of well-known anti-war leaders – MLK and RFK – who were slain that year by U.S. government operatives intent on crushing the growing opposition to their genocidal war waged on Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. The links between these assassinations are made manifest as one follows the authors’ brilliant analysis that allows an informed reader to see the template common to them all and one that clearly leads to intelligence agencies practiced in the arts of murder and cover-up.
Fourth, because it proves that in the long run the pen is mightier than the sword, and the spiritually powerful poetic words of a God-entranced man living in seclusion can rattle the cages of men who embrace the void of violence while rejecting the spiritual essence of all religions – that non-violence and love are the laws of existence.  Merton may be dead for his killers, but not for those who hear his voice whispering on every page: “The very thoughts of a person like me are crimes against the state.  All I have to do is think: and immediately I become guilty,” Merton wrote in “A Signed Confession of Crimes Against the State.”
Lastly, because The Martyrdom of Thomas Merton markedly forces the reader to face its harsh truths and examine one’s soul and complicity in evil as one learns of the perfidy and betrayal of Merton by friends, associates, and biographers whom a na├»ve person might assume are beyond reproach, until, that is, one reads this book.  It is a very hard lesson to accept and understand.  But Hugh Turley and David Martin sequentially force the reader to contemplate such matters; to conjecture why some have conspired and abetted in Merton’s murder and especially its fifty year cover-up.
Thomas Merton (Fr. Lewis) was a Catholic monk, poet, writer and theologian who became very well-known in 1948 with the publication of his autobiography, The Seven Story Mountain, which became a bestseller.  Over the next dozen or so years, he published many books on religious themes, mainly avoiding social or political subjects.  But although he lived in a monastery, and eventually by himself in a hermitage nearby, he corresponded widely and was tuned in to worldly events.  He became a friend and mentor to religious/political activists such as Martin Luther King, Fathers Philip and Daniel Berrigan, James Douglass, among many others.  He was a friend of Dorothy Day of the Catholic Worker.  He corresponded with Boris Pasternak and Ethel Kennedy; wrote about Albert Camus and Eugene Ionesco.  During the 1960s his writing turned more overtly political while remaining rooted in a deep mystical and contemplative spirituality.  He became a major inspiration for radical activists who opposed nuclear weapons, the Vietnam War, and the materialist way of life fostered by capitalism that relied on the spread of the American empire through world-wide violence.  Although living far away from the din and drama of day-to-day politics, his writing, encouragement, and influence were profound, and he became a major impediment to the propaganda and policies of the military-industrial-political-intelligence complex.  He was an inspiration whose spirit disturbed church and state in the most radical way. Turley and Martin say of him:
Merton saw clearly that devotion to truth could not help but bring a person into conflict with sinister special interests.  The effectiveness of the truth-seeker would, of course, be greater to the extent he could rally others to his cause, but ultimately, he said, the truth seeker’s strength lay in trust in God.
Merton died on the afternoon of December 10, 1968 when those sinister special interests snuck up on him.  He had just given a talk, had lunch, and returned to his cottage shortly before 2 P.M., accompanied by Fr. Francois de Grunne, O.S.B. (Order of Saint Benedict) from Belgium, who shared the cottage with Merton and two others, Fr. Celestine Say, O.S.B. from the Philippines, whose room was across from Merton’s on the first floor, and John Moffit, a journalist editor whose room was directly over Merton’s on the second floor adjacent to de Grunne’s. The walk from the dining hall to the cottage took 10-15 minutes.  Say and Moffit were walking a good distance behind Merton and de Grunne and arrived at the cottage about 5-7 minutes after them. When they entered the unlocked building, they did not see Merton and de Grunne and presumed they had gone to their respective rooms.
Shortly after de Grunne and Merton entered the cottage, Merton was killed.  The actions of de Grunne, a mysterious figure who, according to the authors, “seems to have fallen off the face of the earth” and whose “abbey will not even respond to our questions about him,” clearly make him a prime suspect in the crime.  His actions and story are not believable and are contradicted by the most reliable witness, Fr. Say, whose statements have been absolutely consistent.
Beyond speculation, however, are the facts gathered by the authors that clearly prove that from the start there was a concerted effort to make a crime look like an accident.  These efforts were initiated by de Grunne, who was the first to call it an “accident,” but ably assisted by many others, including the Thai police or their surrogates, whose police report was released by the U.S. Embassy seven months after Merton’s death and has no title, author, date, photographs, laboratory reports, or investigators’ memos, and omits the testimony of the first two witnesses on the scene, Fr. Say and Fr. Egbert Donovan, who viewed Merton lying in a position and dressed in shorts totally inconsistent with the accidental death scenario.  Most importantly, this “report” omits an autopsy report since no autopsy was conducted, a dead giveaway that a cover-up was underway.  When a person is found dead, the first assumption of a competent investigation is that a crime may have been committed, and when the victim is found with a sever gash on the back of his head, is lying in a position inconsistent with an accident, an autopsy becomes essential.  But none was performed in Thailand or when Merton’s body arrived back at the Abbey of Gethsemani.  That the United States Embassy, at the request of Most Reverend Dom Rembert Weakland, O.S.B., who was presiding over the conference, had the U.S Army take possession of Merton’s body shortly thereafter, embalm it, and five days later fly it back to the U.S. aboard a military plane together with the corpses of American casualties of the Vietnam War is not only supremely ironic but downright suspicious.
The first public report of Merton’s death was delivered on December 11, as Turley and Martin report:
On December 11, 1968, the Associated Press reported that Merton had been electrocuted when he touched a short in a cord while moving an electrical fan, according to anonymous[my emphasis] Catholic sources.  The initial news reports did not include any important details such as who found Merton, the names of any witnesses or officials at the scene, or who determined it was an accident.
The Thai doctor’s cause-of-death certificate and the official death certificate said Merton died of sudden cardiac failure, but failed to mention the bleeding rear head wound seen by witnesses.
Most importantly, when Say and Donovan first saw Merton lying on the floor on his back, his legs straight, and his arms straight down by his side with palms to the floor as if placed in a coffin, with a floor fan lying across a thigh to the opposite lower waist, Donovan urged Say to take photographs of Merton before the crime scene was subsequently disturbed.  They were very suspicious.  Through great detective work, Turley and Martin have acquired a copy of these two photos, but they have been prohibited by the current abbot of Gethsemani from publishing them or even an artist’s rendering of them.  The authors say:
The photographs taken by Say are the best available evidence of the actual scene of Merton’s death….The reason the monks took the photographs, as we have emphasized, was to document exactly how they found the body.  As we have seen, people whom they would hardly have ever suspected, have consistently done their best to suppress those images.  The photographs are an essential resource to anyone interested in knowing the truth about how Merton was killed.
But it is clear that many people would like to suppress that truth and have been hard at work doing so for half a century.  But since this is intentionally a quasi-review because one must read this book from beginning to end to grasp the intricacies of this murder mystery and the cast of characters that comprise it (no review can do justice to such a detailed and brilliant investigation, and, even so, attempting one would spoil the book), I will end with the authors’ words:
Contrary to the common view, there is really no mystery about how Merton died. The best evidence indicates beyond any serious doubt that Merton was murdered. It’s a simple fact that the average person is far more likely to be murdered than to be killed by an electric fan, and Merton was no average person.  The story that a fan killed Merton is so preposterous that a series of fantastic stories have had to be invented to make it believable….Who did it and why? The CIA had the motive and the means.
1968: It was a very dark year: MLK, RFK, and Thomas Merton – martyrs all.
If we want to see clearly and revive hope, the time has come to face the faces of the ghastly gallery of liars and deceivers guilty of these crimes.  Only then can we live the truths their victims suffered and died for.
Then we too can confess with Merton that we have thought “Crimes Against the State.”

Friday, April 27, 2018

One more time:

Tony Day Greg, I guess if someone wants it to look like Oswald then it's going to look like Oswald. I worked with the U-2 program where we looked at a lot of pictures looking for stuff and I just can't bring myself to see LHO in those pictures.
Manage
Reply11h
Ralph Cinque Tony Day Well, it could only be Oswald or Lovelady. So, you should look again and decide which one comes closer to matching Doorman, considering both the man and the clothing. How likely is it that both Oswald and Lovelady were decked out like this on 11/22/63? It's not like they had uniforms at the TSBD.


Here's a guy who made a critical comment to me on Facebook but wound up issuing a Like to my response. 
Gregory W. Moore IMHO, Neither one looks like the "classic Oswald"
Thoughts??
Manage


Reply3d
Ralph Cinque Thoughts? Well, how about doing some thinking? You want "classic Oswald", do you? How about on a silver platter? How come you don't ask whether he looks like "classic Lovelady"? And then, why don't you put up the image of classic Lovelady that makes it for you? Do you understand that there are only two human beings on Earth that Doorman could be? So, it's not a matter of looking like classic anybody, but rather, whether the preponderance of visual data leans towards Oswawld or Lovelady. And it leans towards Oswald by a country mile, and that's considering both the man and his clothing. Those are my thoughts. .
Manage


Reply1mEdited



Wednesday, April 25, 2018

In this image, we are seeing Hillary from the side, and it is a very acute angle. It's much more acute than Gorilla Man. The center line of the camera is going through her on a coronal plane.


Yet, we still can see that her jacket is open; it is splayed open. So, how could the guy on the right have his shirt splayed open like the guy on the left?
Contrary to Hillary, we can see some of the right side of his body. The line of the camera is not going through the coronal plane of his shoulders and dividing his body into anterior and posterior halves. Far from it. The line of the camera is going through him diagonally, and the camera is to his left. The camera is in front of him. It isn't directly in front of him, but it is in front of him.  Look how much the camera would have to swing around to duplicate Hillary's angle. If he had an open splay like Doorman, we would see it plainly and largely and abundantly. The idea that we are looking at the same guy there in the same shirt isn't just false; it is outrageously false; outlandishly false; and preposterously false.  And that's why I say to claim that these two are the same guy is downright evil. It is an attack on the mind- your mind. This isn't even close. It is an outrage that anyone would make this claim. 

The JFK assassination world is a Bizarro World. And it is a very evil world.  

Monday, April 23, 2018


Somebody actually claimed that the shooter can't be Bookhout because their chins don't match. But, the chin on the bottom right looks so irregular, you know it's got to be distorted. No one has a chin like that. It's a highly distorted image, and I have no doubt that it was deliberately distorted. 




So, you have to look past that. Those two bottom images match strikingly well. Look at how the whole head carriage and head balance is exactly the same. 



And, as a chiropractor, I can tell you that that is a very relaxed head balance. He's not tensing up there. But, if you look at Young Ruby above, he's got his head back and his chin up; it's a very stiff posture and very different from the relaxed posture of Bookhout. You see the same distance between the eyes and eye-brows between Bookhout and the Shooter. You get the same sense about the size and the shape of their eyes, and also the depth of their eyes. There is a big difference among people in how deep their eyes are, and Bookhout's eyes, in both images, are deeper than Ruby's. And look at the hair! Look how similar it is between them in every respect. This is Ruby at his trial which was in 1964, so just a few months after the assassination. 


Do you get it about how bald he was? And this picture just fell through the cracks. They mostly showed phony ones like this:


So, real:
fake:

real:


fake: 

Look at the hair of the two on the bottom:
It's the same guy. Stop fighting it. 
Did Jack Ruby work for Ricahrd Nixon?

No. And keep in mind that if he had, Ruby would have admitted it. Why not? He was taking the blame for shooting Oswald, so why lie about working for Nixon? Plus, Ruby was a blowhard. He loved to talk. He loved to brandish his connections. He would surely have admitted it. But, in the autobiography that he wrote with the help of that television scriptwriter, he said nothing about working for Nixon. 

This is from Jefferson Morley of JFK Facts:


Jean Davison noted that a “letter from Nixon mentioning a ‘Jack Rubenstein’” has been around for a long time. The document in question is not exactly a letter, nor is it “from Nixon.” Rather, it is sworn statement, dated Nov. 24, 1947, from a staffer (identified only as ‘LS”) who asserts that “Jack Rubenstein of Chicago” was “performing information functions” for Nixon’s staff and should not be called to testify in open hearings by the House Un-American Activities Committee.
Long ago, when Hoch was more conspiratorially minded than he is now, he wrote that he thought the letter was a forgery.
In 2006 Gary Buell posted a detailed commentary on questions about the document’s authenticity. One key point of dispute is the letterhead on the document that includes a five-digit Zip Code — a system not adopted until 1963.
“Even if it’s real,” Davison says, “the Jack Rubenstein mentioned is almost certainly a different person, a prominent member of the Young Communist League in the 1920s whose death was reported in the New York Times, July 8, 1989, p. 29. (“Jack Rubenstein, 81, Labor-union Official.”) This Jack Rubenstein helped organize a textile workers’ strike in New Jersey in 1926, when “our” Jack Ruby would’ve been 15. He later broke with the CP — which would explain why the Nixon letter says he was “a potential witness” for the HUAC.”
This letter is fake. They didn't even have 5 digit zip codes in 1947, which this letter has. 


I know it's illegible, but what could that say? To me, it looks like 80686. But, DC zip codes are all 200XX.




And, they didn't even have zip codes in 1947. 

So, do you know what this tells me? It tells me that the whole "Ruby worked for Nixon" claim is just a baiting, battering, and buttering up of the buffs thing. It's just more of the false and phony lure about Jack Ruby, the invented biography, that he was gangster, a pimp, a guy who threw people down the stairs, a gun runner, and an operative for Richard Nixon. In reality, he was just a nightclub operator in Dallas who got a thrill out of being friends with the Dallas Police. Most of what you hear about Jack Ruby is patently false, including that he shot Oswald.