This is weird. When Marina was entering the room to view her dead husband's body, her little girl age 1 year and 9 months in tow, you can see how her hair was. But, look how different her hair was when she came out.

That's supposed to be the same day, like 20 minutes apart. On the left, her hair is down in front, practically in her eyes, and on the right, it's pulled back.  And look how high her ponytail is on the right. It's much higher than on the left. On the left, her left ear is completely covered up; the right, her left ear is completely exposed. And before you suggest that she altered her hair at the hospital, don't you dare. Remember who you are dealing with. She was there to view her dead husband's body. Who fiddles with her hair at such a time? And I as pointed out before, her daughter doubled in size.  These are obviously different occasions which they tacked together. What a rotten, miserable thing to do. 

I mentioned the other night that the 30 second talking point on the JFK assassination is that Oswald was framed and innocent, and that he was standing in the doorway at the time of the shots, and we have a photograph of him there. But, what is the 30 second talking point for 9/11? I can give you that one too. It is that:

Over 3000 architects and engineers say that the towers could not have collapsed because of fires, as claimed by NIST, that explosive demolition must have been involved. And, there is no corresponding group of architects and engineers who claim that the towers did collapse from fires. 

Why is that the best talking point for 9/11? It's because architects and engineers are highly educated and scientifically trained people, and their statement is based upon their scientific training. And, it is a huge number of them.  

Just today, an MSNBC reporter by the name of Joy Reid is under fire because of years-old blogs endorsing 9/11 truth. Specifically, she had praised the documentary movie Loose Change. So far, I don't believe Joy has responded to this, but it would be refreshing and exhilarating if she responded with:

"That's right. I and over 3000 architects and engineers do not believe the government's story about 9/11."

You've got an army behind you, Joy. So, use them. 

But, is Joy going to do it? I  don't know, but what's the alternative? To make an obsequious retraction? To bow at the feet of Leviathan? How is that going to help her credibility? I don't see any good coming out of that for her. I don't see anyone having respect for her after that. And let's get something crystal clear here: we are not talking about a racist tweet. The fact is that Joy has absolutely NOTHING whatsoever to apologize for. And if she were to apologize, it would just be a capitulation. Who wants to see that in a reporter? 

Stand up to them, Joy. Oh, please do. 

The Official Theory Survives Due to a Conspiracy of Silence: Our Mission Is to End It

A Message from the AE911Truth Board of Directors

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

In the weeks, months, and years after 9/11, those of us in the architecture and engineering professions were betrayed by the people and institutions in our field assigned to investigate the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers.

Instead of following the scientific method, these so-called investigators and the entities they represented followed the dictates of the official 9/11 narrative, which suppressed the awful truth that several thousand people had been horrifically murdered by way of explosive demolition, leaving no trace of the bodies of nearly half of these victims.

In the wake of that atrocity and that betrayal arose a conspiracy of silence that has, to this day, prevented countless members of our professions from speaking openly and criticizing the government’s account. 

Rather than participating in this conspiracy of silence, we and 3,000 of our fellow architects and engineers have publicly raised our voices in opposition. But we must educate and mobilize many times that number.

For when enough architects and engineers have been emboldened to join our cause, the institutions that betrayed us will have no choice but to follow our lead in calling for a new investigation. At that point, the public’s unstoppable demand for a new investigation will quickly follow.

By becoming a sustaining member of AE911Truth, you can help us end the conspiracy of silence and bring the truth to people everywhere. And with that truth we will have the power to change the world.

Ralph Cinque: This is very true, and it is also very well written. However, I have reservations about the call for a new investigation. Because: if it's a government investigation, it is only going to generate more of what we've seen. 

Look what happened in the 1970s. The showing of the Zapruder film on television caused a public uproar which led to the formation of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, commonly known as the HSCA. And, the HSCA was every bit as corrupt and dishonest as the Warren Commission. The HSCA shrewdly made sure that they didn't endorse every last tenet of the Warren Report. But, at the end, they preserved Oswald's guilt and the innocence of all persons and entities of government. Instead, they vaguely referred to the Mafia putting Oswald up to shooting Kennedy- but without providing a smidgen of evidence relating to contact, payout, or anything else- without beginning to explain why the Mafia would choose Oswald - a guy who had recently spent 3 years working at a radio factory in Russia and then worked various odd jobs doing grunt labor at things which had nothing to do with killing - to kill Kennedy. OR, what motive Oswald could possibly have to kill Kennedy for the Mafia- and not even for any pay. 

The conclusion of the HSCA was truly an INSULT to the intelligence of all Americans. That's what we got from a SECOND government investigation of the JFK assassination. 

So, what do you think we'd get if there were a second government investigation of 9/11? You know what happened the first time. Lifelong political hacks, like Thomas Kean and Bob Kerry, filled the whole commission! There were no scientists. There were no forensic experts. There were aviation experts or demolition experts. Just political hacks!  And they just hacked and spewed their way to endorse the Bush administration's story. 

And let's remember that there have been more government JFK investigations than the WC and HSCA. There was the Church Committee. There was the ARRB. Not one of them got anywhere near the truth, that Oswald was framed and innocent. 

Government always protects itself, and government will sacrifice the truth, in a heartbeat, to do it.

So yes, there needs to be a new 9/11 investigation, but it needs to be independent of government. It can'y include ANY political hacks. Non-government experts is what it needs. 

I have been thinking lately about what is the most essential truth of the JFK assassination. And the most essential truth is that Oswald was innocent, that he was standing in the doorway at the time of the shots, and we have a photo of him there. 

That's it. That's the 30 second talking point. Of course, it's the 30 second talking point that would never be allowed on television. On television, there are only two things that are allowed: the official story that Oswald did it alone as the lone gunman, and the alternate story that he did it as the lone gunman but that he collaborated with people in Mexico City. And, the irony is, of course, that he didn't even go to Mexico City. So, how could he collaborate with anyone there?

Plus, it's really stupid on the face of it. Oswald supposedly found out about the opportunity to kill Kennedy just a couple days before. But, in September, he had to know nothing about any opportunity to kill Kennedy. So, why would he discuss it with anyone?

As an analogy, let's say I hated the King of Sweden. (And I don't. I'm sure he's a very nice man.) Let's say I hated him enough to want to see him dead. (Again, I don't. I hope he lives to 120.)  Why would I waste time talking about it with anybody- in Mexico City or anywhere else? In other words, if there is a complete lack of opportunity, then what is there to talk about?

As far as I know, it's just Fox News that likes to put on these ridiculous programs about Oswald being in Mexico City meeting with Cubans, etc. It's all very stupid because Oswald definitely did not go to Mexico City.  But, that is the only deviation from the official story that is allowed and only on cable. ABC, NBC, and CBS are all hardliners about sticking to the official story. 

And whenever they talk about challenges to the official story, it is always in the context that many Americans still don't accept that Oswald acted alone. It is simply forbidden to give voice to Oswald innocence in the established US media. 

And realizing, as I do, that it wasn't always that way, that in the past, there were televised debates between Oswald accusers and Oswald defenders, it makes me realize the great extent to which independent thought is stifled and not tolerated in the US media.

The exception, of course, is online, including places like Youtube. And of course, Youtube is part of corporate America too, and so it makes me wonder why it's tolerated. And, I wonder how much longer it will be tolerated. 

But regardless, Oswald was definitely innocent and standing in the doorway during the shooting, and the fact of that is never going to get buried again. 

Walt BrownWalt and 15 others manage the membership, moderators, settings, and posts for Association for John Kennedy Ambush Truth. I am sure you are aware, as you seem to be with regard to everything, that Ruby was receiving hair treatments in the 1960s Closer examination of the "shooting" photo suggests that the hair visible on the back may be store-bought, as it curls under as a hairpiece would. I never cease to be amazed how an unclear image (left) can allow someone to wholly deny a known event (right). Or do you believe that nobody shot LHO in the DPD and that the cops shot him in the ambulance? It seems like the fakers find the most fakery, and you should either consider a hobby or real research. The photos of Ruby in custody do not remotely equate to that ugly photo from WFAA

1

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 3d

Helen Smith I also believe these "It's not Ruby" conspiracists are either nutz or CIA. For 1 thing balding men frequently have hair everywhere else except on top. so just because Ruby was balding up top doesn't mean he didn't have hair in back. Interesting point about the curling inward, however.

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 3d

Ralph CinqueYou and 15 others manage the membership, moderators, settings, and posts for Association for John Kennedy Ambush Truth. Walt, you are amazing. First, you point out something I noticed as well, that the shooter appears to be wearing a toupee'. Is there any reason to think that Jack Ruby wore a toupee'. Of course, he didn't. If he did, it would have been inventoried. And don't bring up hair treatments because you would be hard-pressed today to establish that any hair treatments work to reverse balding, but to assume that they worked in the 1960s is preposterous. There is simply no doubt that that are false images galore of Ruby's hair. But, you're right: that hair curling up at the bottom on the shooter looks very much like a toupee' and I can understand why James Bookhout would have worn one because he was an FBI agent, and they were all clean-cut and close-cropped, and he wore the toupee' to distract from that. It's pathetic for people like you and Helen Smith to have such fixed, rigid, inflexible minds. Meanwhile, there isn't a smidgen of doubt that Jack Ruby was innocent. The reason he protested when Dallas Police pounced on him in the garage is because he hadn't done anything. And note that the Garage Shooter at the televised spectacle doesn't protest at all. He doesn't say anything. The real Jack Ruby had his event in the garage earlier. But, he was impaired mentally. Jack Ruby was out of it mentally. And that's the first thing you need to know about him, that he was not mentally competent.

This is the video of Walter Cronkite presenting the Altgens6 photo on national television for the first time. CBS did NOT show it earlier. Now, if they had it since 1:00, don't you think they would have shown it right away? They wouldn't have said, "This is great, but let's save it for the 6:00 News." And, the reason is that they could have just showed it again at 6:00, and it wouldn't have hurt anything. THE FACT THAT CBS DIDN'T SHOW THE ALTGENS PHOTO UNTIL 6:30 PM EASTERN PROVES THAT IT WASN'T AVAILABLE UNTIL THEN. Why wasn't it available until then? Because they (the CIA photo-altering team) was busy altering it. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o60QslhWcwU&feature=youtu.be

Notice that the quality of the Altgens photo he shows is very poor. It is an extremely low-resolution rendering of it, and I don't think that was an accident. Do you?

Second, Walter Cronkite said that the Secret Service agents were turned to their right rear, where the shots came from. That's the reason the Altgens6 photo wasn't destroyed when they saw Oswald in it; they didn't want to throw away those Secret Service agents peering back at the TSBD.  That was gold. That's what made it all worthwhile to do all that frantic photo-altering.   

Cronkite said some flat\-out falsehoods. For instance, he said that JFK was clutching Mrs. Kennedy but he was clutching his own neck- and not really clutching it; his clutched hands just went there. Then, Cronkite said that a moment later, she placed his bleeding head in her lap, and that's not what happened. JFK's violent movement towards her involved him and the impact of the bullet and nothing else.  

Finally, when he showed LBJ's swearing-in photo, Cronkite described Mrs. Kennedy as "looking on." Don't you get it? The whole idea was that Jackie was a surrogate for her husband, that through her, JFK was casting his blessings on the proceedings. That's why they wouldn't start it without her. They literally did wait for her. They were ready to go, but they wouldn't begin without her. She had to be coaxed away from JFK's casket.  

Chad Michael DuncanChad and 3 others manage the membership, moderators, settings, and posts for The Kennedy Assassinations. I don't see why beating this topic to death has any relevance. Its called the Kennedy assassinations. Not the goofy Oswald and Ruby hour.

Manage

LikeShow more reactions

 · Reply · 2h

Ralph Cinque What is wrong with you, Chad? What is wrong with your mind? We are talking about the killing of the alleged killer of Kennedy. So, how is that not relevant to the Kennedy assassination?

Manage

LikeShow more reactions

 · Reply · 2h · Edited

Chad Michael DuncanChad and 3 others manage the membership, moderators, settings, and posts for The Kennedy Assassinations. He's dead. Has been. Its a conspiracy within a conspiracy. 
But you're the only person on the planet that is beating it to death. 
Explains why I was conveniently removed from your page without warning. 

This poor kid was a sitting duck. Probably looked up to Ruby. But he had to go. 
Cover why the FED was involved, the Military Industrial Complex...David Ferrie....use that vicious passion on a stronger point in the mix. I'd love to read that! 
Even the lay person knows Oswald was a sacrificial lamb. Ruby a wannabe.

Manage

LikeShow more reactions

 · Reply · 2h

Ralph Cinque Ruby had NOTHING to do with it. You hear me? Absolutely nothing. He NEVER ever met Oswald. Ruby didn't know that he supposedly shot Oswald until police told him up on the 5th floor. Why don't you think about the fact that when Ruby was pounced upon in the garage, he started saying, "What are you doing? I'm Jack Ruby. You know me. You know I'm not a criminal." Why would he say that if he knew he just shot a man? Didn't Jack Ruby know that police frown on that? And then think about the fact that the shooter in the garage didn't say anything. We can see with our own eyes and hear with our own hears that he didn't say anything. And no reporter ever said that he said anything. And yet Ruby and the detectives all said that he was talking up a storm. IT WAS AT A DIFFERENT TIME! I expelled you? Well, I don't remember it specifically, but it was a good move. No apology forthcoming.

Manage

LikeShow more reactions

 · Reply · 1m · Edited

Here's another comparison. It was 1960 which was pre-Beatles, and Jack Ruby was a clean-cut guy. He certainly didn't have long hair in back. You can see that he didn't have a thick mane in back like the Garage Shooter on the right. 

The footage of Jack Ruby at the Dallas parade in 1960 really is a find. He had an unusual pattern of baldness

And we can see how he combed his hair. He combed it straight back, and not just on top, but on the sides as well. And when his hair was that thin on top, you know it couldn't be very thick in back. 

It is ridiculous to think that that thick mane went with Jack Ruby.

The Garage Shooter was NOT Jack Ruby. I am telling you with 1000% certainty. 

This is Michael Hardin, the ambulance driver. Where's his assistant, Harold Wolfe? How is it that Wolfe disappeared? We saw him extracting Oswald's stretcher from the ambulance and start to push it, but that's the last we saw of him. 

So, Hardin is outside the hospital, and he's removing the soiled sheets from the stretcher. But note that there was no blood visible. But, why is he removing the sheets? He worked for the ONeal Funeral Home. It was their ambulance. They are the ones who provisioned it. And they undoubtedly were the ones who washed the sheets. So, why remove the sheets at the hospital?

Now, here he is putting fresh sheets on the bed, but where did he get them? He was at the hospital, but he didn't work for the hospital, and it wasn't a hospital stretcher. 

And why was it necessary to re-sheet the stretcher? Was he going somewhere to pick up another trauma victim?  How? This was 1963 and there were no cell phones. 

By the way, Hardin also specified the seating arrangement in the ambulance, and the way he put it was that there were 2 or 3 detectives in the back with Oswald (there were 2) then the doctor in the middle compartment (true) and then he and Harold in the front seat. 

Look, you just have to watch the video to see that it was Leavelle and Dhority who exited the back of the ambulance, while Graves was already on the ground. 

So, they opened the tailgate, and first Leavelle got it, whom you see above, and then Dhority got out, but Graves was already on the ground. That's him on the far right. He did not get out of that ambulance. He is the one who drove the squad car which followed the ambulance from the PD but led it upon its arrival at Parkland.

So, if we go back to what Michael Hardin told the Warren Commission, it was only 2 detectives in back: Leavelle and Dhority.  This was the arrangement in the ambulance.

So, in this strange clip of Hardin, we have the absence of his partner, Harold Wolfe. We have the lack of any blood. We have him stripping the sheet from the stretcher, and then, somehow, having a fresh sheet to put on it. And none of it makes a lick of sense. 

This is the police car that followed the ambulance out of the Commerce Street exit. Look at the driver. Notice that he's wearing a dark suit and dark hat. Now, he wasn't a cop in uniform. They had white hats, and they weren't shaped like that. And most of Fritz' men wore the signature white Stetson hat. The two that didn't were Dhority and Graves, but Dhority was definitely in the ambulance. We saw him get in, and we saw him get out. And that means that this has to be LC Graves. 

But, Graves lied! He said that he rode in the ambulance. And, he's not the only one who lied. Dr. Bieberdorf made up a story that Leavelle rode with him in the middle compartment of the ambulance, and that the other two detectives rode in the back. WE SAW LEAVELLE CLIMB IN BACK, AND WE SAW HIM GET OUT THE BACK. We still have the images. So, why'd the Bieb lie? Someone must have put him up to it. Was he covering for Graves? 

Why were they so hell-bent on hiding the fact that Graves drove separately? 

Are you starting to realize that I am not wrong, that the story of what happened that day is not what really happened? 

This is Marina Oswald (with Marguerite behind her), brought to Parkland Hospital to gaze at Lee's dead body. Who brings a 2 year old to gaze at the body of her dead father? 

Wouldn't they spare her that? And what do you say when you get in there? "There's Daddy, Junie. He's just sleeping. He's going to be sleeping a LONG time." And if you watch it all, neither Marina nor Marguerite (and forget about the latter because she wasn't even Oswald's mother) show any emotion. Supposedly, Marina just found out that her husband was shot to death. Shouldn't she be in shock? In grief? In agony? In despair? She's not the least bit disturbed. I've heard that Russians are stoic, but this is ridiculous. 

And look at Marina when she gets out of the car. Her right hand is full of stuff. 

 But then, shortly later, her right hand is holding June's. 

So, what happened to the stuff? Marguerite doesn't have it because she's carrying Rachel. And notice that the stuff includes a baby bottle. She was going to feed the baby while gazing at Lee's dead body?

And notice that among the stuff is also her purse. So, you can't tell me that she handed all her stuff to a Secret Service agent. "Here, you hold my purse while I take Junie."

And here they are leaving. Poor Junie fell asleep. I'm the same way. Gazing at the dead bodies of my loved ones knocks me out. 

But, what is going on here?  June Oswald was 1 year and 9 months old. She was born in February 1962, and this was November 1963. Do the Math. How do you take that to be a 1 year, 9 month old? Look at her size. Did I mention she was only 1 year 9 months old?  At that age, one is barely a toddler. One is practically still an infant. How do you figure that kid to be 1 year and 9 months old? 

This is sickening. This is disgusting. This is pure Stalinist propaganda in the USSA. It's a Nazi propaganda film. And it is chilling.