Wednesday, August 29, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, August 27, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saturday, August 25, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, August 9, 2018

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

Tuesday, August 7, 2018

Oswald: shot in the abdomen but not one drop of blood. No blood in the garage. No reports of blood in the jail office. You realize that a doctor, Fred Bieberdorf, said that the entry wound was clean and bloodless. They later presented this image of blood on the floor where Oswald was lying, but tell me: if the wound was bloodless, how could this be a blood stain?
There are no images of Oswald until he is rolled out of the jail office. But, if he was lying on the floor inside, presumably, he was lying on his back, right? They didn't put him down face down, did they? And they didn't put him down on his left side where he was shot, did they? So, presumably, they put him down on his back, and if he was turned at all, he must have been turned to his right, with the inflicted side, his left side, up, right? 

Well, in that case, how could such a blood stain get beneath him? He wasn't shot through the back. If blood traveled from the wound to the floor, it didn't fly there.  And that would have been a long way to go. So, how could this be blood? 

But continuing, there was no blood in getting Oswald to the ambulance in the garage. No blood was ever seen in the ambulance itself or on the stretcher sheets, which remained lily white. And there was no blood on Oswald or anywhere else in any of the Parkland hospital footage. So, this:
 is the only evidence of blood from a man who essentially bled to death. They say that the bleeding was mostly internal, but it would have taken a lot of external bleeding to produce a blood stain underneath him- unless the violated part was placed directly in contact with the ground.  And we know that is not the case because Dr. Bieberdorf said he saw Oswald on his back with the wound up and visible and exposed and not bleeding.  So, it makes no sense for this to be a blood stain beneath Oswald. 
So, the reality is that there are no reports of any blood and no images of any blood, any time, any place, any where, any how, except for this, and this is not legitimate. This is not real. The shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald in the basement of the Dallas PD was a hoax. 

Monday, August 6, 2018

Dave Perry wrote a short piece defending Roy Vaughn from the idiot Robert Groden, who accused Vaughn of complicity, implying that he was lying when he said he didn't see Ruby, where actually he let Ruby in.

You really should read what Perry wrote because it's a case of one idiot calling another idiot, an idiot. 

So, how did Perry defend Vaughn? By pointing out that Vaughn must have been telling the truth when he said he didn't see Ruby enter because THREE OTHER OFFICERS DIDN'T SEE HIM EITHER. Those officers were Lt. Pierce, Sergeant Putnam, and Sergeant Maxie.  

But, Dave! Think! You dumb mudderpluck. How likely is it that Ruby got past FOUR police officers without being seen? And actually, you could make it five because there was another former officer there who was unofficially helping Vaughn. None of them saw Ruby. And supposedly they were all on high alert, knowing the grave danger that Oswald was in. Pierce was involved in securing the basement from the very beginning. Pierce is the one who called Vaughn at his earlier location and told him to report to City Hall. 

Perry cited Pierce's testimony, but what about Ruby's? Ruby recalled seeing Pierce talking to an officer on foot, but he said nothing about seeing Putnam and Maxie. How could he not see them? Coming from the direction of the WU office, Ruby would have had to look through Putnam to see Pierce. What I mean is that Ruby was on the passenger side of Pierce's car, and Putnam was sitting in the passenger seat. So, how could Ruby see the driver, and the guy the driver was talking to on the driver's side without seeing that there was someone sitting on the passenger side when he, himself, Ruby, was on the passenger side? RUBY REPEATEDLY SAID THAT HE SAW ONLY PIERCE AND THE OFFICER ON FOOT. Furthermore, Ruby said that he did not recognize the officer on foot, but RUBY KNEW ROY VAUGHN. I'll say it again: RUBY KNEW VAUGHN.  RUBY KNEW VAUGHN.  RUBY KNEW VAUGHN.

Perry's piece is supposed to be a defense of Roy Vaughn. It's called the clearing of Roy Vaughn. But is it? Perry still maintains that Vaughn incompetently and negligently let Ruby pass- NOT ON PURPOSE- but just out of incompetence, stupidity, and failure.  His claim is that, by accident, Vaughn let Ruby pass, as did three other officers, and as I said, really it was four. But, why stop there? What about the spectators? THEY, SUPPOSEDLY, WATCHED RUBY WALK DOWN THE RAMP, AND SECONDS LATER HEARD THE SOUND OF HIM SHOOTING OSWALD, YET, NOT ONE OF THEM CAME FORWARD AFTERWARDS TO RECOUNT IT?

"I saw this guy sneak past the officer. I didn't know what to make of it. Seconds later, the shot went off." 

Not one such person came forward and said that. So, what we really have is the invisible Jack Ruby, who wasn't seen by five police officers nor any of the spectators. Nobody but nobody saw him enter and walk down that ramp. 

Now, how credible is that? And Ruby didn't even claim to do it stealthily. He said he just walked down the ramp in broad daylight not trying to evade anyone from seeing him.  He wasn't hiding. He wasn't sneaking. He wasn't trying to avoid being seen. 

So, how is it possible that all those people didn't see him? 

The truth can only be this: that Ruby did it just as he said he did, but it was at an earlier time, when it was just Pierce and another officer on foot (not Vaughn) and the spectators at the ramp. And, they were all in on it  Vaughn was placed there after that. Vaughn was the other patsy that day. Vaughn was set up. He was young. He was a low-ranking officer. He was chosen to be the fall guy, to take the blame for, incompetently, letting Ruby in, where Ruby just got past him, doggone it.  VAUGHN SWORE TO HIS DYING BREATH THAT IT DID NOT HAPPEN THAT WAY; THAT IT DID NOT HAPPEN ON HIS WATCH; THAT RUBY DID NOT GET PAST HIM.

You should believe Roy Vaughn. I do. Ruby did NOT get past him. Ruby got in at a different time, a time when another officer was there, one, who like Pierce, was in on it. 

You should believe Ruby and Vaughn but not believe the others. You know very well that it's impossible for five officers to be at an 8 foot wide ramp and for someone to get by them unseen. That's lunacy. That is insanity.  If you are going to believe that, then you drank the whole damn pitcher of Kool-Aid. I am talking to you, Dave Perry. 

Thursday, August 2, 2018

Alice Gold Richard Hooke Look at the evidence and you will see Ruby was innocent too. Drop this nonsense of Jackie being in on it.

LikeShow more reactions
Ralph Cinque Thank you for putting that up, Alice. Until people realize that, like Oswald, Jack Ruby was innocent, they are stumbling around in the dark. They are just not getting what happened that weekend. The really frightening thing is that, in advance, the plotters wrote not just the fake story, but the alternate story, the one that their foes would adopt to fight them. That's the one where Ruby was a big Mafioso who pimped and killed and threw people down the stairs, and knew everyone from Richard Nixon to Jimmy Hoffa. It's all false. It's all a created, crafted identity for Ruby. Jack Ruby was witless, hapless, and hopeless. He was MK-ULTRA. He was definitely drugged, and he may also have been hypnotized. The whole damn story is 10X scarier than people ever thought. That's the sad truth. The depth of the evil is 10X greater than most people are aware. 
Show more reactions