A few days ago, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was on the Alec Baldwin Show, and he said that he does not believe that Sirhan Sirhan shot his father, and he thinks he knows who did, and he wants the case reopened. 

I do not understand RFK Jr. He has been treading on the edge of assassination truth for years and probably decades. He'll make comments like this- about his father's murder or his uncle's- and then he does nothing. He goes silent. Months or years may pass before he says another word about it. 

If you really believe what you said, Robert, then why aren't you at the forefront of the JFK and RFK truther movement? Why isn't it a dogged, relentless, and uninterrupted obsession for you? Why aren't you eat, drink, sleeping it 24 hours a day? We're talking about the murder of your father and your uncle. 

I am reminded of the movie Princess Bride, in which there was a Spaniard, Inigo Montoya, whose life ambition was to revenge the murder of his father. He was constantly looking for the man who did it, and he was all prepared for what he would say to him: "My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."

I'm not saying that RFK Jr. should go all Charles Bronson vigilante. Besides, who's left?  But, he has got a lot of money, which means that he can easily devote as much time to this as he wants to. And frankly, I think that for him to surface twice a year or less to make a terse statement about assassination truth and then crawl back under his shell, that it does more harm than good. I regard it as mocking the assassination truth movement.  And that's because he is flesh and blood with these guys, JFK and RFK. And if he's not willing to dive into the truth movement, assertively and aggressively, and lead it, then he is just paying lip service is all he's doing. 

And in general, the Kennedys have sold out. Not for money, of course, but rather, for social respectability. Look at the JFK Library giving a Profiles in Courage award to George HW Bush, whom many people, including me, think was involved, not just in the plot to kill JFK, but in the operation of doing it. He was really just one step away from being a shooter. And I mean that both figuratively and literally because many researchers, including John Hankey, believe that Bush's role was to supervise the Dal-Tex shooters. 

I have been to the LBJ Library in Austin many times because it's a place you take visitors when they come to Austin. And of course, they have an exhibit there about the JFK assassination that includes images, video, and audio, and all of it espousing and asserting the official story. 

That's sickening enough, knowing LBJ's role in the murder as explained by numerous authors, most recently Roger Stone- again.  But, my fear is that they have something much like it at the JFK Library, and that I could not stand. I would have to run away from it.  I just couldn't take it. 

My message to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is: this is an either/or situation. If you are going to get into the assassination truth movement, you've got into it- completely. Because otherwise: you are going to trivialize it. If those two men, your father and your uncle, were worth loving, then they are worth fighting for- with everything you've got. 

You know how short the famous Marguerite Oswald was. She had to be less than 5 feet tall. Here she is sitting next to the judge of the Jack Ruby trial, and notice that she's smiling and beaming. The distraught mother who put pictures of her battered son up on the wall? I guess it's true what they say: you can't mourn forever. 

And notice that the judge is slumping to get down to her level. It's like he is talking to a child. But, here is Marguerite Oswald on her wedding day. 

She is actually sitting slightly higher than her husband, Edward Eckdal. So, how could that be the Marguerite of fame? Eckdal wasn't a midget. So, are you getting it now that she was NOT the same woman? That there were two Marguerites? That just as the Oswald of fame was a Lee Harvey Oswald impostor, which was his real connection to the U.S. Intelligence community, the Marguerite of fame was also part of the same scam?  In other words, John Armstrong is right; there were two Oswalds. Not just Oswald doubles- and there were plenty of those too. But, there were two young men living their lives as Lee Harvey Oswald - the same Lee Harvey Oswald. 

This is supposed to be a childhood picture of the Lee Harvey Oswald of fame. Look at his teeth.

 Wow. That 's incredible. Now, here's the famous Oswald's teeth.

Once more, child:

adult:

So, that kid was NOT the Lee Harvey Oswald of fame.  But, there are so many false images of Oswald, that if you put aside the images that were taken November 22 to November 24, 1963, there are far more false images of him than true ones. 

And some of the images of him are so obviously not him, what the hell is wrong with people that it doesn't jump out at them right away? This is what comes from everyone going to government schools. 

The case against Oswald is so blatantly and nakedly false, that one has to either be extremely stupid or just malevolent, Machiavellian evil like, say, John McAdams, to keep saying that he did it. The Oswald of fame was standing in the doorway of the Book Depository during the shooting, and we have a photograph of him there, in which we can recognize him and his clothing. 

We are talking about evil; the evil then, and the evil now. It doesn't get any worse than this. 

I see a lot of chatter on the internet that the U.S. is going to get out of Afghanistan in 2019, that plans are in works right now. I wish it were true, but I don't believe it.  I hope I'm wrong, but I fear I'm not. 

Just think about it: What, at this point, would be the greatest concern of the United States? It would be to save face. To leave in a manner that that they could claim success, if not victory. 

Look what happened in Vietnam. We finally got out in 1973. Some Senator urged Nixon to "declare victory and leave." Then, in less than 2 years, the Viet Cong overran our puppet government in South Vietnam and unified the country under Communism.  And that persists to this day, as you know. 

So, we lost the Vietnam War, and anyone who thinks otherwise is, in the words of the vernacular, a fucking idiot. 

So, are we going to lose yet another war? Well, we have lost the war. Today, the Taliban controls as much territory in Afghanistan as they did in 2001. In vast parts of the country, they are the defacto government. The Kabul administration controls Kabul and that's about it.  And without us, they would fall faster than Custer. But, the question is: are we going to openly admit that we lost another war and leave with our tail between our legs? And that's what we don't want to do. 

Because, we are the world's only super-power, right? We are the world's 800 pound gorilla, are we not? So, how could we lose an 18 year war against an impoverished Third World country?

But, let's be crystal clear about what the options are, and there are only two: Either we get out, OR the war goes on forever. I'll say it again: Either we get out, or the war goes on forever. But, the problem is that our political and military leaders would rather keep fighting forever than admit that we lost.  In other words, they will keep the war going, with all the killing and suffering, just to save face. 

But, there's a difference between Vietnam and Afghanistan. We waded into Vietnam. One of the reasons they killed JFK was to prevent him from starting his planned withdrawal from Vietnam. And with JFK dead, Lyndon Johnson was able to do the opposite and escalate. 

But, in Afghanistan, we went in with guns ablazing from the very beginning. We started with "Shock and Awe". We bombed them back to the Stone Age.  Remember? So, after all that fire power, for us to sheepishly retreat after 18 years, it does make us look like the ultimate losers. And it's not that I care. I don't care about winning.  I'm not the least bit interested in it. I'm only interested in ending the war. 

Are the Taliban terrorists? Well, if they are, they sure are unusual because today, they provide humanitarian relief over vast regions of the country- to ordinary Afghans. You've probably heard that the Taliban conducts attacks on civilians, but have you ever confirmed whether it's true, or whether it's just another U.S. lie? But, regardless of what you believe about the Taliban, the fact is that of the hundreds of thousands of Afghans killed since the war began in 2001, most of them, the vast majority were killed by us and our minions. And that isn't even in dispute. 

The sad fact is that the War on Terror has been a War of Terror. 

In response to the killing of 3000 Americans at the World Trade Center (and never forget what the Architects and Engineers tell us about that) the U.S. response to it has been to go out into the world and kill over 1 million people. 

Now, how could anyone, with the slightest bit of intelligence, not regard that as a war of terror? 

A million people is the population of Austin, Texas, in which I live. 

And the amazing thing is that the guy who started this War of Terror, George W. Bush, is still walking around a free man. How many people do you have kill before the law catches up with you in this country? The killing of civilians in war is murder, and I thought murder was a crime in this country.  

I found an article I agree with, written by Paul Szoldra, entitled,
"We are never leaving Afghanistan". It was written in June of this year. 

https://taskandpurpose.com/us-military-never-leaving-afghanistan/

I think he's right, but I have to qualify it: We are never going to voluntarily get out of Afghanistan.  However, if things get so bad financially and economically in this country that we simply don't have the money to fight any longer, that would force us out. But, I am talking about something bordering on chaos and collapse, where money-printing doesn't work any more. And if that happens, there is going to be pain and suffering everywhere. But hey, it's Christmas, so Merry Christmas.  

This is a Christmas song. At least, it's from a Christmas movie, a beloved Christmas movie, White Christmas, with music by Irving Berlin. It was sung as a duet between Bing Crosby and Rosemary Clooney. Her character complains to his about having trouble sleeping, and he tells her what to do. The irony is that Irving Berlin suffered with a severe sleep disorder his whole adult life. The song is called: Count Your Blessings Instead Of Sheep. In an interview, Rosemary Clooney said it was her favorite song from the movie. Mine too. Here's hoping you like it, and Merry Christmas.  

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

Highlighted comment

Dana Rowe15 minutes ago

It's A Fact That When Lee Harvey Oswald Was Arrested Billy Lovelady Was Also In Custody. Why? The Warren Commission Should Be Placed In The Fiction Section Of Every Library In The United States Of America. Dana Rowe

Ralph Cinque4 minutes ago

Thank you, Dana. You're right that Billy Lovelady was at the Dallas PD when Oswald was brought in. Lovelady was supposedly there to make a statement about what he saw. And then in the late 70s, a film emerged which supposedly showed Lovelady sitting at a desk in the squad room when Oswald was brought in. But, it's fake. I'm certain of it. And they did it only for one reason: to display Lovelady in a long-sleeved plaid shirt which he did NOT wear on 11/22/63. He actually wore a short-sleeved vertically striped shirt. And then they faked it all over again years later for a version that appeared in the History channel documentary Three Shots That Changed America. The Lovelady scam has been a dirty, sordid affair from the very beginning, and it's very likely that they killed him in 1979. They heart-attacked him out, and they have drugs that can do it. And of course, he's not the only one. You know about the long list of mysterious deaths following the JFK assassination. Such evil in our midst, but it shall all be brought to light.

Show less

REPLY

If you haven't watched this presentation by Dr. Grover Proctor about Oswald's attempt to call intelligence agent John Hurt in North Carolina the night of Saturday November 23, then you should. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsItiPfnzLI&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR1uLfigJ5JQDplPV9Vr2hZTgdfipzKtJ2xTNbTdzu2H8Rqwc2iGszjX4wM&app=desktop

Dr. Proctor presents written and testimonial evidence that it happened, that Oswald tried to make that call through the Dallas PD switchboard. And the way Officialdom has tried to spin it is to claim, utterly falsely, that it was an incoming call, from Hurt, and that he was drunk, and he tried to call Oswald as a drunken prank. Well, if you believe that, you might as well believe that burning furniture and computers caused the WTC towers to collapse. 

But, what I really want to talk about are the implications of it. We can presume that Oswald told his captors about Hurt, that he was going to try to reach him, to get him to vouch for him. And I believe it confirms something I have suspected for a long time, that the interrogations of Oswald had reached a strange and unusual rapport. I've pointed out many times that we have video evidence that Oswald went up to James Bookhout in the hallway to continue a conversation that must have started behind closed doors. I want you to think about how rare it is for a defendant to do that, to go up to and initiate a conversation with an interrogator. What it tells me is that a very atypical rapport must have developed between Oswald and at least some of his interrogators. And if you watch this video, you'll see that there was a strange informality going on. Remember: Oswald was supposed to be a lone, mad-dog killer, right? Well, no one is acting like he was that. It's weird. It's strange. Everyone is acting like he's harmless. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04aL80prg7U

Oswald underwent 13 hours of interrogation, and the things that were written down and reported about it could have been said in 2 hours, at most.  So, what was said during the rest of the time? It's anybody's guess, but I suspect Oswald talked about his intelligence connections, and nobody wrote down a word about Oswald's "fingerprints of intelligence" because they didn't want to. They didn't want to because it raised serious doubt about his guilt. 

Now, let's talk about Oswald's intelligence connections because there is far too great a tendency for JFKers to exaggerate Oswald's intelligence connections. Oswald was not an "agent" per se. He was not on salary. There are claims that Oswald was paid $200/month by the FBI, but where's the proof? $200/month was about all he made when he worked, so if he had that income plus the money he earned working, he would have been in great shape financially and not struggling. But, we know that he was struggling- all the time. I don't believe there is any truth to the story. 

Was Oswald sent to Russia as a spy for U.S. intelligence? Not really. Yes, they got him to go there. It was all part of a plan of theirs, and part of the "Oswald Project" in which he assumed the identity of Lee Harvey Oswald as a boy, precisely because he spoke Russian and could be sent to the USSR as a defector. But, what did the CIA hope to get out of Oswald's defection to Russia? Nothing important really. I think they just wanted to distract the Soviets with it. They wanted to see how the Soviets would react to it. But, there is no reason to think it involved them telling Oswald, "when you are in Russia, find out all you can about xxxxx. Spy on this. Spy on that." There is no evidence Oswald did any spying in Russia. He worked at a radio factory in Minsk, and when he wasn't working, he hung out with his friends and chased girls. That was it. He was not doing any espionage. And if he had been doing espionage, well, that's a job for which one gets paid. Consider all the back pay they would have owed him for 3 years of espionage in Russia. But, Oswald didn't get a red cent. He even had to pay back the money he borrowed from the State Department to pay for transportation to get him and Marina back here. 

So, Oswald was really more of an intelligence buff than an intelligence agent. He was not on the payroll. He was not given any specific assignments in Russia.  He was probably there mostly as a decoy. And since he didn't do anything important, he reportedly underwent only two short "debriefings" when he got back, and with the FBI, not the CIA. When did he report to the CIA? Reportedly, never. Dr. Proctor reported sightings of Oswald with David Atlee Phillips and others, but he can't claim to know that that was the real Oswald of fame. That could very easily have been and probably was the other Oswald, the one who was actually born in New Orleans, as per John Armstrong. As far as "sightings" go, I will remind that this is the JFK assassination we are talking about, the most lied-about event in the history of Man.  Look at the lies about Jack Ruby, that he was a gun-runner, a Mafioso, an aide to Richard Nixon, a hit man, a pimp, etc., with sightings galore. I put very little stock in lip-flapping, especially in this case. 

It's very unlikely that Oswald had any recent contact with John Hurt, especially since Hurt was more a former intelligence agent than a current one. His health was poor. He had severe psoriatic arthritis, and believe me, you don't want to get that. I know from my own experience with sufferers that it's bad. His case was so bad that he had to have fingers amputated. Plus, he had mental problems too. He was debilitated. Dr. Proctor suggested that Hurt may have been Oswald's "cut-out." He explained that it was common for operatives, if they got in trouble, to have a contact person called a "cut-out" who was basically just a middle man who would pass messages along to those who were really managing the operative. So, Hurt may have been Oswald's "cut-out." However, we should think about the fact that Oswald knew his number from memory. Most of us memorize phone numbers by calling them repeatedly. But, since it's highly unlikely that Oswald was calling John Hurt repeatedly, it may have been a number he made a point to memorize, like an emergency number. 

But, the most important thing about all this, to me, is that Oswald must have been saying a lot more to his interrogators than has ever been revealed, including things that must have been extremely exonerating. And the result of it was that weird Saturday evening video capture in which all the air of "double murderer" had been let out of the balloon, and you'd think Oswald had been brought in because of a delinquent parking ticket. Nobody but nobody was acting like there was a double murderer in their midst.  You've got Oswald stopping to gab with a guy, and he even seems to be smiling. Does that look like a smile to you? 

And it reinforces what I have long believed, that it must have reached the point where they told Oswald, "OK, Lee. We believe you. Now, we have to get you out of this by faking your death." And the next morning, they used him to take iconic photos of him being shot by "Jack Ruby". Then, they replaced him with someone else in the theatrical performance on national television. But, Oswald is the one they shot, off-camera, and they never did show us what he looked like when he arrived at Parkland Hospital, and probably because of how bad he looked. All the images of Oswald at Parkland Hospital are fakes. The Machiavellian twists in this case are truly breathtaking, in scope and number, as is the magnitude of the evil.  



  

This 1931 song by Finnish-American composer Einar Swan is very sultry and beautiful with gorgeous chords. He was a very talented musician who played many instruments but primarily saxophone. He was also an excellent arranger. But, this song is his piece de resistance and was covered by all the great vocalists. And, it's difficult to sing; at least, for me it is.  But, I had to do it because it is so beautiful. Frank Sinatra included it among his "Songs of the Century." Paul Popa did a very stirring guitar solo.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pcMouQVV3A&feature=youtu.be 

I want you to think about the fact that, in response to the 9/11 attacks in which 3000 Americans were killed, the U.S. government has gone on a war-spree that has killed hundreds of thousands of people. Called the War on Terror, it has actually been a War of Terror.  

A recent report out of Brown University claims that the death toll is half a million, but they admit that that only includes the direct deaths, not the indirect ones. 

https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2018/11/11/study-post-9-11-war-terror-killed-half-million-including-7000-u-s-troops/

This report, out of the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, came out only last month, November 2018, and it is receiving wide publicity. I went to their website and found more specific numbers:

So, they claim that over twice as many civilians have been killed as combatants. But, we should recognize that when Iraqi soldiers were killed, they weren't terrorists. They were mostly young men, serving in the military of their nation, just as our young men (and women) do here. There is no reason to consider them terrorists. After all, WE crossed an ocean to attack them, not vice versa. So, their deaths are just as wrong, just as victimized, as those of civilians. They did not deserve to die. 

Fortunately, this Brown report is getting a lot of attention, but is it because their numbers are so low? 

The Physicians for Social Responsibility claim that U.S. wars in response to 9/11 have killed at least 1.3 million, and they think the number could be over 2 million. And, they claim that the U.S. (and its allies) have killed 4 million Muslims since 1990. 

https://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/unworthy-victims-western-wars-have-killed-four-million-muslims-1990-39149394

And, they claim that this does not include over 500,000 dead in Syria from the war in which U.S. has been aiding and abetting the rebels fighting the Assad government. 

Our government has committed genocide, and what I want to know is: What are Americans going to do about it? 

I received this very interesting communication from OIC member Dr. Thomas Halle.

Hello, Ralph!!

Thought I might mention a few issues noted by Dr. Charles Crenshaw, after turning to his book once again.

Pres. Kennedy’s actual “time of death” was 12:52, not 1:00 p.m.

The two tubes placed in the president’s chest (which I had thought had been inserted to remove fluid, and I think mentioned in that light by other witnesses)--according to Crenshaw--were actually to provide “negative pressure” to the thoracic cavity (which suggests a collapsed lung). Perhaps from the back shot (which ACTUALLY did penetrate the chest cavity)? Or from a front shot? Or possibly, the throat shot bullet impacted the C-spine, and was deflected down to the right lung (with the autopsy prosectors reporting damage to the hilus of that lung)?

Crenshaw was very explicit about the large tangential wound on the right side of the head (with pretty much all of the brain on that side (right hemisphere) missing)(and has been good enough to insist (like many of us) that the photos of an intact rear head do NOT represent what he saw on that terrible day (in Trauma Room One)).

A forehead “plug” was observed by SS Agent Kellerman (though the side was not specified).

There has been a rumor that Father Huber who performed “last rites” on JFK provided only a limited remission of sins. Apparently this was merely an ugly rumor: Crenshaw’s report specifically mentions Huber’s words, which contain the word “plenary,” meaning the remission was COMPLETE, not partial.

A medical student who happened to be outside the emergency entrance—Avalea Glanges--very definitely observed a “through and through” hole in the windshield, just before a SS agent drove the automobile away, in great haste.

Yes, the neck would was DEFINITELY an entry wound.

It's interesting that Roger Stone has a unique ability to get his work into the mainstream. His new book on LBJ's role in killing JFK is available in book stores. 

Book stores, generally, are part of the mainstream media. Jim Douglass's JFK and the Unspeakable never got into book stores, nor did Phil Nelson's LBJ: Mastermind of the JFK Assassination, both of which are excellent books. But, I'm glad for Roger, and I'm glad somebody can do it. I met him once. It was the day I went to Alex Jones' production studio, and I spent just about the whole day there doing two shows. And in-between, I just watched the action, and it included a segment with Alex and Roger. 

We are used to hearing about media scandals. We are just hearing that CBS is going to refuse paying severance of $120 million to Les Moonves, their disgraced and embattled former CEO. Do you know what the real crime is? It's that he was ever promised $120 million. That is a crime.  The idea that he should have been promised so much money is a mortal sin in my book. For what? Harassing women? That's generally something men will do for free. And don't tell me his value to the company was great enough to warrant that. I mean honestly; he's just a fucking human being, and in this case, I mean it literally. 

But, what I'm telling you is that this is going to seem like nothing once the scandal about CBS' coverage of the JFK assassination breaks. That's going to be the real crime. In that, they, CBS, were accomplices to murder, the murder of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. They were, and are, accessories after the fact, and they have been for 55 years.  And, it's going to do them a lot more damage than the loss of $120 million. And it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch. 

There has been a breakthrough in the 9/11 truth movement. The Lawyers for 9/11 Inquiry filed a petition with the U.S. Justice Department to open a grand jury investigation of 9/11, and they got back this response:

That sounds cooperative but in a vague, curt, and non-committal way.  But, what a strange world we live in. Here, the 9/11 truth movement is huge and growing, with all kinds of professionals organized to support it: architects and engineers, lawyers, doctors and nurses, firefighters, demolition experts...it seems that there is a 9/11 truth group for everything... yet, the government and the media blissfully go on talking about the events of 9/11 as if no one disputes the official story. 

But, let's not kid ourselves. Government is government; and government first, last, and always, protects itself. Prosecutors, and more importantly, judges, work for the government. Government is who issues their paychecks. And it's the judge you have to worry about, whether on the basis of some technicality, he or she is going to dismiss the whole thing. 

But, let's consider what is at stake. It isn't just 9/11. It's the whole basis, rationale, and justification for the wars we've been fighting, especially the war in Afghanistan, which, after 17 years, is still raging- and with no end in sight. 

The War in Afghanistan was started because of 9/11. The whole basis on which we attacked that country was 9/11. So, if the official story of 9/11 is false, then the whole justification for launching that war on Afghanistan, which started with its own "Shock and Awe" campaign of aerial terror, was bogus, which means that, from the very beginning, that war was an atrocity, a war crime, a criminal act of vast, unspeakable proportions. Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed in Afghanistan, and most of them were regular, ordinary people, that is, civilians. 

But, it's even worse than that because when we approached the Taliban government and demanded that they turn over Osama in laden to us, their response was NOT to tell us to go to Hell. Their response was to ask us to show them the evidence against bin laden. Our response  to that was to tell them to go to Hell. Then, instead of telling us that we could go to Hell, they offered to extradite bin laden to a third and neutral country for trial. 

Now, why wasn't that good enough for us? If bin laden was put in custody and sent to another country, he would have been contained, right? And whatever evidence we had against him (and no evidence has ever been presented against him, and no arrest warrant was ever issued for him) could have been given to prosecutors in that country. 

So, why wasn't that good enough? Wasn't it better than having a war? Did I mention that hundreds of thousands of people, mostly Afghans and Pakistanis, have been killed in that war.  What gave us the right to kill all those people? Why wasn't what the Taliban offered good enough?

Of course, I don't think there is any chance that Osama bin laden did 9/11, and I don't think there is any chance that the George W. Bush administration didn't know that. I think that, from the start, 9/11 was just one of the "ruses for war" that Professor John Quigley likes to talk about. 

So, even if the official 9/11 story were true, launching the war on Afghanistan was completely and totally unnecessary and unjustified. In a word, it was illegal according to international law. It was criminal. And the magnitude of the evil involved with it, is comparable to only very few things in history.  

So, what do I expect in this case? I expect a fight. And if the judge involved has to make an outrageous decision in order to squash it, I assume he or she will make it. Of course, the lawyers could appeal it, and the worldwide phenomenon of 9/11 truth will go on regardless, and it is probably the largest, widest, and most dispersed challenge to U.S. government authority that has ever occurred. It is already of historic proportions. 

Is this the thing that is going to push the official 9/11 story over the edge? We shall see. 



  

As far as I know, this swinging torch song is the only song that Bing Crosby got writing credit for, as lyricist. The melody was written by Victor Young, and Bing first recorded it in 1932. But, it went on to become a perennial jazz standard recorded by many of the greats. There is fabulous recording of it by Linda Ronstadt, in collaboration with the great arranger Nelson Riddle, and I believe it was his last project before he died. This rendition includes the nifty guitar stylings of my good friend Paul Popa. It's called: I Don't Stand A Ghost Of A Chance With You. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aZww79Z3Xs&feature=youtu.be

Now I can prove to you that Jack Ruby's hair was doctored to make him seem like he had more hair than he did. This is one of the most widely circulated images of him from 11/24 after his arrest. 

Whoever was wielding the paint brush (and that's how they did it in those days) got carried away. He's got hair sticking out way beyond Ruby's head. Unless, it's a doctored film frame that got distorted. But, one thing is for sure: Ruby's hair wasn't like that, and he did not have as much hair as that. He did not have nearly as much hair as that. Here he is in 1960.

So, that's 1960, and here's 1963:

1960 again: and note how weird it looks. If he really had a tuft of hair in front like that, why would he wear it so short? Furthermore, that is NOT how men go bald. It ix extremely unusual for a man to retain a tuft of hair right in front with so much baldness behind. Baldness tends to advance the opposite way. So, this image below, and it is definitely a film frame, is probably doctored as well. 

But again: there is no chance that Ruby had hair like this:

So, why'd they do it? It's because the Garage Shooter seems to have such long, thick hair.

That's from the Jackson photo- by far, the most famous image of the Oswald shooting.  Jack Ruby didn't have hair like that, and neither did James Bookhout. Bookhout must have been wearing a toupee'. And you have to admit: it looks like one. It looks like a rug. 

But, the scary thing is that there are so many images of Ruby with his hair agencies that it shows the extent to which the U.S. Intelligence agencies controlled the media. And I have no doubt that it's much worse today. Today, the uniformity of the media is frightening- it's officialdom 24/7. The U.S. media doesn't dispute anything: not JFK, not 9/11, not global warming, not vaccinations, not anything except things like Kavanaugh. Here, the United States is still mired in a war in Afghanistan, and they don't discuss it or debate it. They don't even report on it. Apparently, the CIA must have told them, "Shut the fuck up about Afghanistan."  

Michelle Gussow Also, it always struck me that it was claimed he shot Kennedy to make a political statement yet he denied it which is not what I see from those who are trying to make a political statement. They are usually owing if not bragging about their actions. So the scenario they painted just does not work for me.

• Like
•  · Reply
•  · Message
•  · 1d

• 

  Oswald Innocence Campaign That's a good point, Michelle. And similar to that is that he absolutely liked and admired John Kennedy. So, why would he shoot him? He read his book. He read other books just because he knew John Kennedy liked them. He defended Kennedy to Marina's family in Russia. To shoot somebody you like- that's insane. And Oswald was clearly not insane.

  • 
    

Staffan H Westerberg Yes, I said this several years ago. ”A policeman hit me” is also a clear indication that LHO did not start any altercation at the Texas Theatre. 

• Like
•  · Reply
•  · Message
•  · 24m

• 

  Oswald Innocence Campaign Staffan, I have been saying that I don't believe that the real Oswald ever met with Attorney Louis Nichols. It is inconceivable to me that after complaining over and over for 30 hours that he wanted a lawyer, that the real Oswald would turn one down. I don't presume Nichols was lying because he wasn't an actor either. Rather, I think they must have had an Oswald double there to meet with Nichols.

  • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 1m
  •  · Edited