Thursday, October 31, 2019

This is breathtaking. It is Anthony Summer's account of what Ruby did on Friday, and he says that he hung around the Dallas PD all afternoon, for about 5 hours.,+Oswald&source=bl&ots=CCj-bOcwe4&sig=ACfU3U2Q9KiDy6aQcME57SVZXNxpAOGODg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiG6bPD-8flAhUKjq0KHVkyCvkQ6AEwAHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=they%20told%20Ruby%20that%20someone%20ought%20to%20shoot%20that%20guy%2C%20Oswald&f=false

Then, in the evening, he had him leave there and go to the synagogue and then come back. 

But, this is Ruby's account, in which he gave detailed description of everything he did Friday afternoon and evening, and he said that he did not go to the PD until he went there to deliver sandwiches, and he didn't even get the sandwiches until 10:30 PM. So, according to Ruby, it was close to 11 PM that he got to the PD for the first time that day. 

You may have to cut and paste this: 


Now, who are you going to believe? Ruby had no reason to lie about this. And there is no evidence that Ruby lied about anything. 

So, why did this story surface about Ruby spending the afternoon at the police department? It was because they wanted to show that he was obsessed with Oswald and stalking Oswald. He wasn't. And the thought of hurting Oswald never entered his mind, not even as a passing thought. He never had so much as a notion about it. In fact, Jack Ruby said that it never occurred to him that anybody would try to hurt Oswald. He said that even he, Oswald, was entitled to his day in court and was "innocent until proven guilty." That's a deep-seated conviction, and if he had it, then the even the idea of him shooting Oswald impulsively fades away. 

Jack Ruby did not shoot Oswald. He was innocent. Framed and innocent.  And that is the new frontier of the JFK assassination. And if you realize that Oswald was innocent, that he did not shoot Kennedy or Tippit, (or shoot at Walker, for that matter), if you dispute the whole official story of the JFK assassination but you continue to support the official story of the Oswald assassination, then you are in the dark. You are under their thumb. You are doing their bidding. And there is no light in your world. The only way to understand what happened that weekend is to realize that Jack Ruby was tricked into thinking he shot Oswald- and the whole country was likewise tricked with a sleight of hand trick that was done in the garage to bamboozle everybody. Oh, but for the wickedness of it all, the mental manipulation and abuse that was heaped on Jack Ruby and on all of us! Don't you get it? We were all Pavlov dogs that weekend.   

Wednesday, October 30, 2019

Why did they ever hold the Midnight Press Conference? Name one other time in the history of law enforcement that a press conference was called to give an infamous prisoner a microphone. I can't think of any other time. They didn't give Timothy McVeigh or Jeffrey Epstein a press conference. So, why Lee Harvey Oswald?

And, Oswald did a lot of damage at that press conference. He got to profess his innocence, and he did it quite eloquently. He came across as as being as sane and stable and civilized as anyone in the room- nothing at all like a mad dog killer. They added a lot of background noise, including a guy yelling, "At ease"which sounds to me like a military command. What comes to mind is a firing squad: "Ready. Aim. Fire. At ease." 

Besides getting to profess his innocence, Oswald got to say that he was being denied an attorney. And that did so much damage, they had to remedy it Saturday evening by claiming that he was brought an attorney who offered him legal representation which he turned down. If you didn't know that I deny that H. Louis Nichols ever visited the real Lee Harvey Oswald, you know it now. 

But, what I am wondering now is: why did they hold that press conference?  And how did it even come up? Whose idea was it? 

Here is something else that is bad that came out at the press conference: Oswald got to say that police never questioned him about the JFK shooting or told him that he was being charged with it. And he wasn't lying. There is nothing in the Fritz Notes about it, nor about the Tippit shooting, although Oswald did say that he knew he was accused of killing a policeman. And obviously, they asked him where he was during the motorcade since it's in the notes that he said he was "out with Bill Shelley in front." But, they must have asked him that without accusing him of doing it. To this day, don't we all ask each other, where were you when Kennedy got shot? I was in my 7th grade classroom at Good Shepherd School in Uptown Manhatten. The principal, Brother Anthony, announced it on the loudspeaker. 

I think it gets back to what I have said before, that the one really in charge of the interrogations was James Bookhout. He must have told Fritz what to ask. Seriously: how could Will Fritz, whom they kept saying was the greatest and most renowned and revered homicide investigator in the country, not question Oswald about the JFK shooting and inform him that he was the one and only suspect?

The plotters knew that Oswald didn't do it, and therefore, they knew that no real interrogation was needed, that all that could come from it was his exoneration. So instead, they asked him about Russia and about the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. So, if they knew that he could say something damaging (to them) at the interrogations, they had to know that they were taking a big chance giving him a microphone to speak to the world. Yet, they did it. And it wasn't even on time delay. So, why did they do it? Why did they allow it? 

We know that Jack Ruby went to the MPP, but do we? We know that he went to the PD to deliver sandwiches to the detectives. And when Sims expressed no interest, he gave them to the radio crew. By the way, how did he transport all the sandwiches? Did he walk in carrying a big bag? I think it was a radio crew and not television. So, he supposedly just stumbled into the press conference. He definitely did not go to the DPD expecting to see Oswald that night, and the same was true Sunday morning.  

Ruby was at the PD at the time of the MPP, but was he in the room? This is a photo of Ruby in the hall at the MPP. For a long time, I suspected it was a Ruby double because we were told, and are still told, that it was from Friday afternoon, 2 PM, when Oswald was brought in, and Ruby definitely wasn't there then. There is ironclad evidence (phone records) that Ruby was at the Carousel Club then, making calls. It was Amy Joyce who noticed that that newspaper was the Saturday morning Dallas Morning News, which came out late Friday night/early Saturday morning and was certainly not available at 2 PM on Friday afternoon. 

So, that really is Ruby. Notice how bald he was. Look at the mane of hair Ruby had on Sunday. Fake. 

But, what about the Ruby at the Press Conference?

There are different versions of that image, including one in which he looks a lot younger.

Let's go with that one, since it exists.

How can those two be the same guy? Doesn't the guy on the left look older, a lot older? Isn't his suit much lighter? And what is that in the guy's pocket on the right? Don't tell me it's a press badge. Ruby wasn't a reporter. Is it supposed to be a handkerchief? But, that's the pocket in which Ruby kept his glasses on Sunday and right during the shooting. If he had the habit of keeping his glasses there, he wouldn't keep a handkerchief too. Ruby's left index finger was partially amputated. But, look at his left hand, which seems to be holding something. I don't see that index finger as being amputated, do you? 

And even if we use the older version of the guy on the right, it's still not a very good match. We're talking about the same day, same time. I don't see these two as being the same guy. 

He still looks a bit younger on the right. His hair is night vs day different. His head is different; it's shorter, squatter, and his face is puffier. He seems to be built heavier in his upper body. And look at the glasses, how weird they are. The frame on top has got clear plastic on top on our left. How did that happen?  

Look how small his ear is on our right. Ruby's ears weren't like that. 

But, let's go back to the original question: Why did they hold the Midnight Press Conference? It was the only time in the history of law enforcement that it's been done, and on the very night of the crime, no less. Timothy McVeigh was eventually interviewed by Ed Bradley of CBS, but that was months later. Sirhan Sirhan eventually started doing interviews from prison, but that was years later. 

They could not have done it for Oswald's sake. They didn't do anything for Oswald's sake. Did they do it for the press? Bull shit. That's just the excuse for doing it; not the reason. They had to have their own reason for doing it.

And after all that fanfare, look how short it was. From the time Oswald began talking until the time Hall started pulling him away it was almost exactly 1 minute. So, would someone actually plan a press conference for one minute? If so, it was not for the purpose of the press conference.

So, what reason could they have had to do it, and could it have involved Ruby? I am pondering this, and I am going to ask some respected associates to weigh-in on it before saying any more. 


Monday, October 28, 2019

The Taliban is claiming to have killed 4 Americans in the last two days. But, our media is not reporting it, and I hope it isn't true.

But, our media isn't reporting anything about Afghanistan. It's all gone quiet again. We're hearing as much about Afghanistan as we are about Jeffrey Epstein, which is to say, nothing. He died; the peace talks failed; and that's it. It's an eerie situation.

But, we really do have a cultural problem in this country. That's because most Americans don't realize the magnitude of the killing spree that their government went on following 9/11. But, even when you tell them about it, that millions have died in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, etc., many of them just shrug. They really don't care. But, how could they not care? 

And they may make excuses for it, such as citing 9/11.

I really believe that a major purpose of 9/11 was to provide a pretext to attack Afghanistan. There is no doubt that military preparations to attack Afghanistan started before 9/11.  But, the whole 9/11 excuse to attack Afghanistan is completely vacuous. There were no Afghans involved. Osama bin laden wasn't an Afghan, if you believe he did it. Of course, I do not. 

But, let's say he got the idea there in Afghanistan. So what? The next thing he had to do was call Mohammed Atta who was in Germany, who had to call his Saudi buddies in Saudi Arabia. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. I think there was an Egyptian or two in there, but there were no Afghans. That Osama bin laden was in Afghanistan when he hatched the idea, if you believe it, is irrelevant. He could have been anywhere. Afghanistan didn't lend anything to it except that he breathed Afghan air when he thought about it. And the idea that we need to monitor every square foot of Afghanistan in order to be safe is insane. There is nothing anybody in Afghanistan can do to hurt us except think about it and lip-flap it. It would be one thing if there was no place else in the world that they could do that. But, there are all kinds of other "stans" where they can do it. And, they can do it in countries that aren't "stans." Focusing on and fretting about Afghanistan just because of 9/11 is, as I keep saying, insane. And that would be true even if the official story of 9/11 was completely true, but, in fact, it is complete and total horse shit. 

So, when I hear people babbling about it, including the Babbler in Chief, that Afghanistan is the hotbed of terror, and we need to "keep a presence there" permanently, I am reminded of how insane, how totally mentally incompetent this country really is.  

Sunday, October 27, 2019

Here's a strange thing. This is Oswald in his distinctive t-shirt, which looks tattered and has the stretched sunken collar that was v-ish in shape.  It's just like the t-shirt he wore in the doorway. 

But, here he is at the first lineup. Notice how different the t-shirt is. It looks newer and has a perfectly round collar. 
So, what, did they make him change his t-shirt? Just for the lineup? Why? I could only speculate about that, but you can be sure it was because they thought it would serve him being picked. 

Saturday, October 26, 2019

You've got to see this: Roger Waters, who is surely one of the greatest rock musicians of all time, speaking out about what is being done to Julian Assange, being held in solitary confinement in England, heading towards extradition to the US, even though the extradition treaty that the UK has with the US excludes political crimes. Roger says that he is now ashamed to be an Englishman. Please watch it.

Notice that Boyd, on the left, and Hall on the right have clear eyes. But, Bookhout, in the center, has stripes for eyes, and Sims, in back, has no eyes. 
It's not that his eyes are closed; it's that he doesn't have any. 
What you are seeing there is that somebody took a Sharpie and drew an exaggerated eyebrow and then his eye was obliterated. Actually, if you look very, very closely, you do see an eyeball, but it is obscured. What follows involves some filtering:

You can see that they went too far with the Sharpie. It is exceeding the side of his head. 
So, they got carried away doing that. Obviously, he didn't have eyebrows like that. You can see that that is not hair. That is paint. 

So, why did they do that to him? It was to justify what they did to Bookhout, converting his eyes to stripes. 

They were trying to imply that Hall and Boyd were closer to the camera, and so were in focus, but "Ruby" and Sims were farther away, and so got compromised. But, it is ridiculous. You can make your desired object, in the center of the photo, in focus and leave the periphery in blur, if you adjust the camera accordingly. But, you can't have the periphery on right and left focused and then have the center object blurred. No camera can do that, and no photographer would want to do it. You point the camera at the thing you want to capture. Moreover, it's not so much that Bookhout is blurred; it's that his eyes are stripes. And it's photographically ridiculous and impossible. 

On the left, they really got carried away with the Sharpie. It's like a sea of black. It's really a disc of black, blacking out the whole eye. On the right, it's more like a stripe. There is also black right above the bridge of his nose. Sharpie, Sharpie, Sharpie, Sharpie. It was just hiding the fact that he was James Bookhout. No one, except the bloodied, can claim that that is an unaltered image.  
A message from THE WIZARD:

On Sunday, 24, Hall was missing his hat and seemed to have a good head of short cropped hair. This can be seen in photos as he and Boyd march Ruby up and down that corridor and into the elevator vestibule. Hall was the one who tended to put the keys in the lock. He was also bare-headed in the infamous footage of him, Boyd, Sims and Bookhout standing by the elevator. Boyd and Hall lunge at the cameraman at the same time. 

Sims stays in the background in the Ruby photos, as he knew Ruby too well. 

As I have said before, when you look at that Bookhout/Boyd/Sims/Hall image, you are looking at Lyndon Johnson's DPD 1960 security team (or part thereof) plus Bookhout. 

Some people think that the Adolphus Hotel Incident swung Texas and, therefore, the 1960 election, so these boys were at the turning point of history twice. I doubt that the fact that these particular officers handled Oswald is a co-incidence. This was done on the orders of Johnson and/or Cliff Carter, and probably well in advance. 

Friday, October 25, 2019

The Wizard made a gif of the overlay of William Colby with the figure next to Oswald at the Midnight Press Conference.

We are not making any definitive claim about this, at this time, but it is intriguing, especially since Colby was CIA Station Chief in Vietnam from 1959 to 1962, so part of that time, he was working for John Kennedy. 

I found an interesting quote by William Colby.  

"The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media" - William Colby

 I certainly believe that, and I regard it as institutional. We essentially have a fascist system, where media corporations are practically arms of the government. Look: it was bad in 1963, when the media fell right in line spewing the government's tale about Oswald killing Kennedy. But, it's much worse today. 

By the way, in Colby's country home on the river, his dinner of steamed clams was only partially eaten and his wine glass was half full. So apparently, in the middle of his meal, Colby got the idea to abandon everything and go canoeing on the river in the dark night. 

Skepticism about Colby's death is VERY high, at least from what I can tell online. 

I learned that recently, Google purged about half a million videos from Youtube. either being hate-mongering, anti-Semetic, or misinformation. The first two are pretty clear-cut, but the last one, misinformation, that's in the eye of the beholder. 

Last night, we were discussing the possibility that William Colby was at the Midnight Press Conference of Oswald. There was a guy there who definitely looked like him. The Wizard did an overlay that is very striking. He sent it around as an avi file which I can't put up here. If he ever makes a gif out of it, I'll put it up.

But, I have long believed that William Colby was murdered. I'm not claiming that it had anything to do with the JFK assassination. Colby went on to become CIA Chief until he was fired by Gerald Ford at the behest of Henry Kissinger. 

I located a Youtube video about Colby having been murdered, but this is what I found when I sent to it:

They're saying that the whole account of the make of it was terminated. So, I'm thinking they probably terminated it over something else.  At least, I hope that's the case because believing that Colby was murdered does not make you a hatemonger, an anti-Semite, and if you're going to say it's misinformation, then it means there is no freedom of thought and expression. 

But, the circumstances were that Colby went to his country home on Wicimico River in Maryland to spend a solo weekend of boating and yard work and relaxing. After going boating, he came back and was watering trees and such. Then, he had a rather long ineraction with a neighbor. Then he called his wife. Then he fixed his dinner, some fish, I think. And he had told his wife that he was going to eat and then go to bed.  But supposedly, he decided around 9 PM, well after dark, that he was going to go back out on the river in the canoe. 

Well, I'm not buying that. Are you? Why would he do such a thing? Nobody would. He told his wife that he was tired and was going to go to bed. 

Colby's son Carl made a film in which he claimed that Colby committed suicide. But, all others in the Colby family, including Colby's wife who was Carl's stepmother, say that Carl is full of it. Carl thinks his father was racked with guilt for the things he did and had done in Vietnam. Well, everything the United States did in Vietnam should have provoked guilt in everyone who was involved. The whole war was an atrocity. But, this was 1996, and the Vietnam War ended for the U.S. in 1973. So no, I am not buying that at all. I think he was murdered. He was set to testify to Congress again soon, and it was his Congressional testimony in 1975 that led to Ford firing him as CIA Chief. 

The coroner said that Colby died of a heart attack, but his body was in the water for 9 days before it was found. So, I'd like to know what the medical evidence was for him having a heart attack. 

And I notice that there is a lot of speculation that Colby was murdered. Not as much as that Jeffrey Epstein was murdered, but that may top the list of suspected murders that were reported as suicides. 

But, the bottom line is that there is absolutely nothing about the circumstances that suggests suicide, and it is incongruous that he would go out canoeing in the dark. 

Have you noticed that the whole Jeffrey Epstein case has fallen off the edge of the Earth? Colby's case got sewed up pretty fast too. I think they were both murdered. 

Wednesday, October 23, 2019

A while ago, I mailed a deposit to my online bank, and I figured it would just take  a few days to get there and be processed. Well, a week passed, and nothing. So, I called the bank, and they said it typically takes 10 days for deposits to register in your account. I was afraid it was lost in the mail or stolen, but they said, just give it more time. So, I did, and it registered on the 11th day. 

I don't know how much was due to delay in delivery and how much was due to delay in processing, but I figure some of both.  

Now, that's in 2019. Almost 2020. But, back in 1963, Oswald, supposedly, mailed a money order by depositing it in a postal box in Dallas, and it not only arrived in Chicago the very next morning, but it got processed by Klein's Sporting Goods that morning, where they stamped it on the back with their name and the date. All that overnight. And it was before the US Postal Service offered overnight delivery at any price. And it was before they had computers and robotics and digital scanners and all the things that make mail move fast today. Overnight. From Dallas. In 1963. 

Are you buying that, are you? Do you really think that Oswald mail-ordered a rifle from Dallas that he could have bought anonymously, with no background checks, or paperwork of any kind, from any K-Mart in Dallas? 

Are you aware of just how dead the official story of the JFK assassination really is? How much longer can this chicken with its head cut off keep running around? 

The Wizard has graced us with another striking image tonight. This is from 1964 when the Warren Commission came calling on the Dallas Police, so there is Fritz and Curry talking to Attorney David Belin, supposedly around Oswald's blood spot in the garage. 

 What a crock of horse shit. There was no blood in the garage at the time, and reporters said there was no blood. Robert Jackson, himself, said there was no blood. But, it is preposterous to think that if there was blood that they would have left it there. This was a place of business. Life went on at City Hall after the Oswald was killed. People continued parking in that garage and making their way in and out of the building. They wouldn't just leave a blood  stain there. It was a civilized, organized, dignified place of city business and law enforcement, but not a war zone. They wouldn't just leave a blood stain there. Do you think it's still there today? Of course not. Do you think it finally dawned on them to get rid of it? What dawned on them was to put it there to dramatize the event and create phony evidence. What a farce. 

Tuesday, October 22, 2019

This really is a huge find by the Wizard tonight. That's because thru most of the footage, you don't see Bookhout's ear that well. Previously, I tried to make a collage, but I wound up with this. 

They obviously blunted that ear on the left. But, the Wizard obviously found a frame in which they forgot to do it. It fell through the cracks. And it's a spot-on match to the Garage Shooter. 

This is an historic day. You've heard of the smoking gun? Well, this is the smoking ear. 
Very clear version of the KRLD film was discovered. You can see the figures in the ambulance. 

So, that's the Bieb in the middle right. Dhority is to our left, and then in the far back to our left is Leavelle. Note that Oswald's stretcher runs the length of the ambulance up to Hardin on the left side. So, there was no room for Graves.

There he is in his derby hat. That's Graves, following the ambulance, although somehow he was ahead of it leading it when they arrived Parkland. That is definitely Graves. After all, who else could it be? The only other one of Fritz' men who wore a derby hat was Dhority, and he was in the ambulance. 

Great find by the Wizard. He starts by noting that the Garage Shooter, as seen in many images including the Jackson photo, has narrow ears, meaning that the cartilaginous ring known as the helix is pretty light. It isn't as thick as on some people.

Now look at Corridor Bookhout, when Oswald went up to ask him what he had against Broby.
That's the same slender helix, the same distinct outward curve of the ear. It's the same ear. 

How sweet it is. You did good, Wizard. Beautiful. 

And this collage shows that Jack Ruby had a heavier, thicker, wider helix.

Yup, slender helix on the right, and wider, meatier helix in the center and right, both of whom are Ruby. 

And then there's something I have been thinking about for a while now but haven't mentioned until now. 

That dense blackness at the bottom of his hairline, and the distinct bars of blackness going across ahove it, they painted that in. Why? To mimic the long, thick hair in back on the Garage Shooter,   especially in the Jackson photo. Think about it. Why should it look like that? It shouldn't. It couldn't. It wouldn't. Just more flim flam. 
I am honored that Dr. David Mantik asked to me participate in a survey of JFK assassination researchers concerning the medical evidence in the case. It concerned the JFK autopsy report, what the Parkland doctors said, the anatomical origin of the Harper fragment, and more. It also included questions about whether you believed that autopsy photos and x-rays were altered. He also asked if you thought the Zapruder film was altered, and more than just removing frames to hide the slowing and stopping of the vehicle. 

And it made me realize something, that Dr. Mantik and I have something in common: we both believe very strongly in image alteration in the JFK assassination. His focus has been on autopsy photos and x-rays, while mine has been on press and spectator images, and we both believe strongly in Zapruder film alteration. 

Consider how learned Dr. Mantik is. He has a PhD in medical physics. He has an MD with a specialty in Radiology, being Board-certified in both Diagnostic radiology and Therapeutic radiology. And he has taught these subjects in medical school. It is fair to say that he is uber-educated. And yet, he finds time to dispute the official story of the JFK assassination, especially the medical claims. 

But, with a guy like him on the side of the JFK truth, what chance does JFK Officialdom have? And guess what? I got to introduce Dr. Mantik to the case for Jack Ruby innocence. Sweet.   
Pete Hymans Amazing what can be discovered 57-years after an event.
I wonder if Ruby knew he was to be sacrificed in this Big Event as collateral damage.
  • Ralph Cinque Thank you, Pete. I think Ruby was mentally gone. His memory was fine. But, his ability to figure anything out was hopeless. And I consider him the most abused man in history. At least Oswald had his wits about him and could fight back those last two days of his life. And he championed his innocence quite well. He came across very well at the Midnight Press Conference. But, Ruby never vouched for himself. Twice that I know of he tried to say that it was 10:15 that he went to the WU office, but he was correctly corrected that, no, it was 11:15, and he just accepted it. Even though he had no memory of shooting Oswald and no intent to do so, he just couldn't stand up to them. They told him he did it, and he just accepted it.

I found a website that gathers daily reports on what is happening in Libya. For a long time, I have been following one that does the same thing for Afghanistan. But, the one for Libya shows that it is still a war-ravaged hell-hole. Take a look at what is happening there:

This the result of our "liberating" the country and saving the Libyans from that ruthless dictator Muammar Gaddafi who provided them free apartments and cheap gas and free education and free medical care. Yes, he was a dictator but probably one of the  most benevolent who ever lived.  

This is what we have wrought. Thanks a lot, Obama. You too Hillary.   

I was asked whether there is anything wrong with Ruby's index finger in this image, if the tip of the index is missing. And it's not. It's there. Notice how long the segment in the middle is. That's two bones, the first and second digits. And the one beyond is the third. 

But, this is an important image of Ruby. He's at a Dallas Parade the year is 1960. So, 3 years before the assassination. He has taken off his hat to comb his hair. And what you see him do is comb the right side and then comb the left side, and he never runs the comb over the top. Obviously, he knew he didn't have enough hair up there to bother with. And if you look closely at what we're seeing, it is ridiculous. If he had a thick tuft of hair right in the front and was bald all behind it (which would be an extremely unusual way to go bald) why would he wear it so short? And why wouldn't he comb it? So that was probably added. But, you can see how bald he was in 1960. And you know that age-related, male pattern baldness is progressive. It only goes in one direction, towards losing more hair. There are temporary hair losses: such as those resulting from high temperature infections, from chemotherapy,  or from severe nutritional deficiencies which then get corrected. But, male pattern baldness only goes one way. So, if he was that bald in 1960, how could he have all the hair we see on him in his post-assassination photos? And what gives it away is that it doesn't include all of them. There are a few which show the true bald state of his head, and it makes the others look ridiculous and demonstrably evil. 
Do you get it that even this is a smoking gun that Ruby was framed? 

Monday, October 21, 2019

Ricardo Fernandez Sierra Look at the shooters pointy ear same as Ruby’s. Who knows!