They finally released the terms of the peace deal, and it's just what I thought.  

All U.S. troops to leave Afghanistan in 14 months if Taliban meets commitments of peace deal signed today

So, apparently, they spent a year and a half thinking they could convince the Taliban to accept some U.S. troops in that country. I'm glad they finally got it that they all have to leave. 

But now, the question is: how long will it take them to realize that Ghani has to step down? The Taliban will NEVER accept him as President. He is the face of puppetry to them. Maybe there is someone who is acceptable to both them and us to lead the country, but it definitely isn't Ghani. 

We're not going to let this deal fall apart by insisting on keeping Ghani in power, are we? Tell me we're not going to do that.  

I am very pleased that My Stretch of Texas Ground has won 3 awards at the Creation International Film Festival in Los Angeles. Junes Zahdi has won for Best Actor; Brian Villalobos has won for Best Supporting Actor; and director Erich Kemp and I have won for Best Crime Drama.

It's ironic to me receiving these awards today, on the threshold of the signing of a peace agreement between the U.S. and the Taliban in Afghanistan, since that war features so prominently in the film. After 19 years of hellish war, please may that agreement hold and last.

Former Afghan President Hamid Karzai, the first to follow the U.S. invasion in 2001, who is still the most widely recognized face from Afghanistan, has issued a statement welcoming the peace prospects that are now looming but also chastising the U.S. for killing so many Afghans. 

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/w/former-afghan-leader-hits-out-at-us-for-bringing-immense-suffering-to-the-people

However, there is something that is going unstated and ignored, and that is that the U.S. and Afghan governments assume that the Taliban is now going to work with Ghani, the current President, while they have said all along that he is a puppet, and they will not work with him or even talk to him. Here is a candid article about it that skips the syrupy hoopla. The fact is that Taliban has agreed to talks with other Afghans, including ones from the current government, but not in their capacity as government officials, and they reserve the right to exclude any individuals whom they oppose. 

https://thediplomat.com/2020/02/the-rocky-road-from-doha-to-intra-afghan-talks/


So, what happens if after the treaty is signed with the U.S. that the Taliban says that Ghani can't come to the talks? I'm sure the U.S. hopes to butter-up the Taliban with promises of lots of money, but still, the chance that they are going to accept Ghani as the ongoing President of Afghanistan, I rate at zero. 

But, there is a bigger issue that is also being completely, totally ignored by everybody, that is, we would not be doing this at all, making peace with them, if we really believed that the Taliban was involved in attacking the U.S. on 9/11. WE KNOW DAMN WELL THAT THEY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, and that's why we're doing what we're doing. And that makes our entire war against them completely and totally illegitimate.  

Mark, please consider two things about the arrest of Shooter. First, Dallas police did not handcuff him immediately. They hustled him into the jail office without handcuffing him, and that is outrageous. Police always handcuff a violent offender before taking him anywhere. There are no exceptions, except this one. Then, they claimed to handcuff him as soon as they got him inside, but did they? Who knows? We don't see it. And why didn't they handcuff him in the garage? They never said. 

Second, how did that cluster of police know what the plan was? How did they know that the plan was to take him inside through the narrow door in the corner? No one said anything. No one gave any direction or issued any order. So, how did they all know what to do? Plus, they could have gone through the wide double doors and reached the same place, the jail office, and it would have been much easier. So, why didn't they do that? And how is it that none of them got the idea to do that?

How did they even manage to get in using that corner door because at a minimum, there had to be one cop on his left side, restraining his left arm, and one cop on his right side, restraining his right arm. It would have been impossible for such a threesome to negotiate that narrow entrance together. 

It should be obvious from the above that the Dallas Police were in on it, and they were. But, they weren't in on it with Ruby. There was no conspiracy between them and Ruby. That's impossible because they went on to testify against him in a death penalty case.  If they conspired with him, they would have to trust him to keep his mouth shut- forever, but how could they trust him if they were trying to put him to death? Wouldn't they fear that he would tell his lawyers that the Dallas Police were in on it with him? If that were the case, they would have had to kill him right away. It would have been too risky not to. 

There is so much wrong with what the Dallas Police did: not cuffing the Shooter in the garage; knowing exactly what to do without getting or needing direction; telling inconsistent stores, for instance, most said that Oswald never regained consciousness, but Combest said that he did, and he was able to communicate with him, that he asked Oswald whether he had anything to say, and Oswald shook his head no. Combest also said that he, Leavelle, and Graves carried Oswald into the jail office, but Graves definitely had nothing to do with it. Leavelle's story was that he and another officer carried Oswald inside, and he couldn't remember who that officer was. And it was that very afternoon, just a few hours later, that he couldn't remember. Graves denied carrying Oswald. All these officers said that Oswald's hands were cuffed, and then he had another cuff installed to link him to Leavelle. But, in the Jackson photo, you'll see that Oswald's hands were not cuffed. There is no cuff at all on his left wrist.  Then there is the fact that Graves said he rode in the ambulance to the hospital, when he clearly did not; he drove his own squad car. Then there is the fact that they turned left on Commerce when all they had to do was turn right and then right again on Hardin, and it would have been a straight shot to Parkland Hospital. Going down to the Pearl Expressway and then back on Main was making a circle. Who does that when  a man is bleeding to death?

You can't ignore these behaviors, and you can't explain them either. They are the smoking gun.  There was a conspiracy, and it involved the Dallas Police and the FBI. Ruby was just the target of it. He didn't know anything, and he didn't do anything. He was out of it mentally.  If he knew anything, they would have had to kill him, not let him live 3 years. 

The CIA under Dulles spent all that money in the 1950s developing the MK-ULTRA program so that they would have mind control subjects to use for their nefarious purposes, and I'm saying that Jack Ruby was one. We know that the program relied on drugs, particularly amphetamines, and Ruby was taking amphetamines. He was getting them from some Dallas doctor. How come we don't know who that doctor was?  

Phil Jermakian Watch the Oswald assassination. Plays like kids playing cops and robbers.

• Like
•  · Reply
•  · 7m

• 

  Ralph Cinque I agree, Phil. There is nothing real about it. And here are two facts that should really impact you: 1. The cops don't handcuff him on the spot. They take him inside first. Cops don't do that. They have never done that, except in this instance. The first thing they do with a violent offender is get him cuffed. 2. How did all the cops know that they were dragging him inside through that narrow corner door? There were large double doors right behind them that they could have used, going to the same place. How did they all intuitively know what to do? There was no boss. There was no one shouting orders. They all just did it like they were all told ahead of time what to do. They were! 

I know it seems extreme to some, the idea that Jack Ruby was innocent, but it is not extreme, and it isn't even unique. All I'm saying is that Jack Ruby was the kind of assassin that Sirhan Sirhan was, as well as Mark David Chapman, the patsy in the John Lennon assassination. And there have been others, including James Earl Ray and John Hinckley. What do they all have in common, including Jack Ruby? It is that they were not right in the head; they were all deranged. Oswald stands out in contrast because he was right in the head. He was lucid; he was sound; and he fought back- effectively. And if he had spoken to a lawyer, forget about it; it would have all come crashing down on the perpetrators. And they most certainly knew that which is why they wouldn't allow him to speak to a lawyer. 

Think about it: Jack Ruby supposedly shoots Oswald, and we hear Will Fritz tell reporters that "Of course, Ruby is consulting with his lawyer, which is his right." Oh really? Then why wasn't it Oswald's right 24 hours before? 

So, they let Ruby see a lawyer but not Oswald. Why? It was because Ruby was deranged. He was too deranged to help himself even with a lawyer. But, Oswald was not deranged, and with a lawyer's help, he would have crushed the plotters, like they were bugs.  

And I am going to remind you that that whole bit about Attorney H. Louis Nichols visiting Oswald, and Oswald turning down his offer to get him a lawyer is bull. It never happened. Nichols saw the Oswald double, and they had a very good one on hand.

The plotters had set in motion the plan to use Oswald as patsy in 1961. They probably brought him back from Russia precisely for that reason. If we assume that the plot to kill Kennedy emerged right after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, when Kennedy fired Dulles as well as the brother of Dallas Mayor Earle Cabell, that was April 1961. So, they had plenty of time to choose Oswald and get him back here by June 1962, a little over a year later. But, after that, somebody high-up realized, "Hey! We're going about this the wrong way. We're making it harder than it has to be. We shouldn't pick guys who are mentally competent who are going to fight back like dogs. We need to go with mental cases- guys who are totally out of it. And if they need help getting totally out of it, we can oblige them." 

Sirhan Sirhan was totally out of it mentally. He was strung out on drugs. He was immersed in Rosicrucianism, which is a very mystic kind of religion. And I know what I'm talking about because I have been to the Rosicrucian Center in Oceanside, California several times. Sirhan Sirhan was strung out on drugs, and he was subjected hypnotic/mind control techniques. He really was in bad shape, and they certainly weren't going to use him to actually shoot RFK. They weren't going to assume that risk; the risk that he would have missed or not shot him fatally, or went about it clumsily such that a well-meaning person might have stopped him, or that he shot someone else, which was easily possible because it was a very crowded place, just like the DPD basement garage. And, it was just the same for Jack Ruby. He was strung out on drugs: amphetamines. And because of that, and perhaps for other reasons, he had a very severe sleep disorder. If you look at timeline of Jack Ruby, you'll see that he only slept a total of 7 hours the last 3 nights before the Oswald shooting.

http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Jack_Ruby/Timeline_of_Ruby.html       

And if you read his narrative, you find out that he said he took twice his usual dose of amphetamines on Sunday morning plus some other large pills, which he did not identify.  Why did he do that, and why did he write it like that without elaborating? But remember, somebody edited what he wrote. 

It was reported on WGN, the local ABC affiliate in Dallas that when first arrested, Ruby was "mumbling incoherently." It wasn't repeated. but it was reported the one time. But, if that is the state that he was in, who would want him wielding a loaded gun in a crowded place? And even if you think they wouldn't have cared if a reporter got killed, the place was swarming with Dallas policemen. They weren't going to take the chance of him firing.  Therefore, the plan could not have been that Jacky Ruby would pull the trigger of a loaded gun in that garage. The plan was just that he would take the blame for it. He was a Sirhan Sirhan kind of patsy, not a Lee Harvey Oswald kind of patsy.  

I wrote earlier about that wonderful article by the Iranian journalist Ramin Mazaheri who said that after they killed Suleimani, they laid out a whole "false life" for him as a terrorist, when, in reality, he fought terrorism, and probably saved American lives.  

Well likewise, after his death, they laid out a whole "false life" for Jack Ruby, claiming that he was a gun runner, a pimp, a hit man, a Mafioso, and more. It was all lies. They even said he was involved in killing Kennedy. I realize that that contradicts the whole idea of Oswald as lone gunman, but they knew beforehand that a lot of people were never going to buy that, and they wanted those people to embrace the idea that Oswald and Ruby were confederates. That's why the idea surfaced right away that Oswald had been to Ruby's nightclub, the Carousel. It's nonsense, and Ruby said so, himself, in his death bed confession. He said, "it's just a fabrication." And in the mental state that he was in, I doubt that anyone was a worse liar than Jack Ruby. But, he did not lie. He did not lie about anything. He didn't even have it in him to lie about anything. For Goodness sake, he pleaded to take a polygraph test and to be given truth serum. Since when do liars do that? 

Jack Ruby, a devout Jew, was completely, and totally innocent, and  he only accepted that he shot Oswald because he was told that he did it. He said he had no memory of doing it and no intention of doing it, and his innocence is the deep, dark underbelly of the whole JFK assassination saga. 


                                                                       

This is an interesting article on the tragic killing of Suleimani (and I say "tragic" because so many others died as a direct result of it). It was written by a top Iranian journalist, Ramin Mazaheri, but what makes it significant is where it was published: Op Ed News, which is one of the most widely read political commentary websites in the world. Technocrati lists it among the top 100 websites.

In the article Mazaheri makes several important points, including a very interesting one concerning the evolution of the body politic in America. He compares the Vietnam War to the Iraq War, saying that both were based on lies; both involved neo-imperialism; both involved atrocities and attacks on civilians, etc. But, the difference is that the American people have responded to the Iraq War (and he could have included the Afghanistan War as well) very differently than they responded to Vietnam. He makes the point that the Vietnam War was the first time Americans became broadly aware that their government lied to them about a war. (Actually, the U.S. government has been lying about its wars going back at least as far as the Mexican-American War in the 1840s.) Americans are just as aware that their government lied to them about Iraq, but for some reason, they just don't care. Is it because of economics?

Mazaheri asks that, noting that more Americans are living on the edge today financially, than ever before, including a lot of people who were formerly middle class. Is it because of fear? He asks that too. "In an era when every American is tracked - from credit scores, to the location of their cell phone, to what they wrote on the internet 15 years ago - and people can be droned at will, the average American has no choice to but to pretend that they are going along with it all." This, he says, has led to a "neo-fascist" state (and I have made that comparison too) where the telling of lies and the accepting of lies has become so ingrained in the culture that everybody is leading a "false life." It registered with me as well, just how different Americans are. Few Americans seem to care about the crimes of their government. If you point out that millions of people have been killed in U.S. wars since 9/11, unnecessary wars that were founded on lies, they shrug. It really is an amazing degree of callousness and inhumanity that has taken hold, but it has become, not just common, but standard, in 21st century America. Here is the article:

https://www.opednews.com/articles/Anti-ISIS-Hero-Soleimani-S-by-Ramin-Mazaheri-Assassination_Heroes_Iraq_Trump-200107-951.html

My Stretch of Texas Ground has been selected by another film festival, the Los Angeles based Blastoff Film Festival. They sent me this laurel, and they also informed me that both Jeff Weber and Junes Zahdi are in contention for Best Actor. 

I know that quite a few of my readers are from outside the US, and I want to inform them that the film is available on Vimeo and can be rented just about anywhere in the world. They accept the rental fee in many different currencies. So, I am going to put that link up in case any of them would like to watch it. 

https://vimeo.com/ondemand/mystretchoftexasground 

The film is very controversial, yet, in decrying the horrific human toll from the U.S. post-9/11 wars, there is nothing disputable about anything that is said. In fact, we low-balled everything. For instance, Sheriff Joe points out that when we bombed a wedding party in Afghanistan, trying to kill the Taliban, we killed children. But, the fact is that we have bombed 9 wedding parties in Afghanistan.  And, Abdul Latif Hassan refers to the death toll from the wars as "hundreds of thousands- and more." We could have said millions because American researchers have determined the total death toll emanating from the wars is in the millions. But, I made it "hundreds of thousands" just because I thought that if he said "millions" that a lot of people would think that it was an exaggeration- even though it would not have been. But, the actor Junes Zahdi approached me about it, and after I told him my thinking, he's the one who came up with the idea for his character to say "hundreds of thousands- and more."  And I liked it. I thought it was a great idea, and that's what he says in the film.      

I know I am biased, but without a doubt, the film is very unique, and it is very impassioned. I seriously doubt there is any more impassioned film than this one.                                                                                                                

Here is something else to consider about Dorothy Kilgallen: 

We can be absolutely certain that Ruby told her the following: that he had no plan to shoot Oswald; no intention of shooting Oswald; that no one put him up to shooting Oswald, and that he didn't realize that that he shot Oswald until Dallas Police told him on the 5th floor that he had done that. 

As for the idea that he was involved in killing Kennedy, we can be absolutely sure he expressed his pain and grief over Kennedy's death. I doubt that he volunteered that he didn't kill Kennedy, and if she asked him whether he was involved, I'm sure he responded with aghast and revulsion, as in, "Are you nuts?" 

We can be absolutely sure of all that because there is no reason to think that he told her anything different than he said in other contexts.  

So, the question is: did Dorothy Kilgallen believe him, or did she think that he was lying? Well, let's remember that she was the world's leading expert on detecting lying. On What's My Line, there would be three contestants, and two of them would be lying- claiming that they were the third contestant.  Her job was to determine which two were lying, and which one was telling the truth. And Dorothy was the best- the smartest and most cunning of the questioners.

And Jack Ruby was not the least bit cunning. He didn't have a Machiavellian bone in his body. And why would he talk to her at all, let alone twice, if he intended to lie to her? Why would he insist on having a polygraph test if he intended to lie? He wouldn't. 

We can be sure that Jack Ruby told her the truth, and we can be sure that Dorothy Kilgallen got a read on him and she assessed that he was telling her the truth. And the people who killed her surmised all that, and that is why they killed her. 

Don't listen to the people who tell you that Jack Ruby was involved in killing Kennedy. He loved the man. He wasn't putting on airs. He wasn't an actor. Their alternate story of the assassination does nothing but serve the interests of those who actually did kill Kennedy and Oswald.     

Why do people have so much difficulty accepting Jack Ruby's innocence? And innocence of everything, of him not having killed Oswald, and not having anything to do with killing JFK. Those who think that Ruby was involved in the killing of Kennedy must think that he was one hell of an actor because, repeatedly, he broke down, emotionally, in talking about President Kennedy, about how much he admired him and  really loved him. And I don't say that he used the word "love," but he implied that he felt like he lost someone he loved. That came through. So, how could he emote like that if he was actually involved in killing the man? If Ruby was involved in killing him, then he deserves an Academy Award for Best Actor.  

But, I am going to provide an explanation as to why people have so much difficulty, and it really comes down to distance: the distance from what they have always believed to what I am asking them to believe. It's just too great a distance for them to go. 

There is an analogy I can make to piano playing. A lot of piano players, and I mean amateur hacks like me, are comfortable playing in the middle of the keyboard, but if they have to hit a note or a chord that's way high up in the octaves, or way down low in the octaves, that they're not comfortable doing it. It's too far to go, and they lose their bearing. 

Well,  there is so much distance in going from Ruby having done it, and supposedly with photographic and film evidence, and also supposedly with his admission, that the idea of his innocence is just too far to go. They shut down. They just close their minds.  They just apply the lunacy banner to it, and then they become like the monkeys who speak no evil, see no evil, and hear no evil. 

But, let's look at those assumptions upon which the rejection is based. Are there films and photos of Ruby shooting Oswald? There are films and photos of a short, stocky guy, whose face we can hardly see, and whose hat is also obscuring his face, shooting Oswald, but the amount of visual data on him is limited. We never see his face straight on in the garage. It's always obscured to us. And when you take that limited data of his distinguishing features, and you compare them to Jack Ruby, you realize that they are NOT a match. 

For now, let's just use one example. We can see the Shooter's hair in back below his hat. It's one of the most distinguishing things we see about him. So, we can take that visual information and compare it to the visual information we have on Jack Ruby on the same day.

So, that is the Shooter on the left, with his long hair in back that is curling up at the bottom, the very straight horizontal hairline, and below it a clean neck. But, in Ruby's mug shot on the right, we see that his hair in back was shorter, but he had a lot of scruffy hair growth that went all the way down to his collar. So, they certainly had different hair in back. And you know something? That alone settles it. Different hair means different men. So, without going any further, without comparing anything else, we have already established that Ruby was not the shooter. But note that there is more. The Shooter was too short to be Ruby. He was too fat to be Ruby. And more. 

And what about the idea that Ruby admitted shooting Oswald? That's false too. Ruby ACCEPTED that he shot Oswald because he was told that he did. But, he had no memory of doing it, no intention of doing it, and there is nothing about his actions beforehand that support the idea that he had any such intention. Who brings his dog along to a killing? 

The bottom line is that the idea of Jack Ruby innocence seems, at first, to be extreme. But, it is not extreme; it is well supported; well grounded. But, if you are going to close your mind to it and shut down examining it before you even start, because you think it's so preposterous, then you'll never budge. You'll remain mired in delusion- forever.  And that is a pity.  

Back to Afghanistan, the 7 day "reduction in violence" is underway, and Trump says that if it holds, he'll sign the peace treaty with the Taliban on February 29. But, President Ghani has ordered that he be sworn in for his next term two days before that, on February 27.

https://ariananews.af/ghani-to-take-oath-of-office-as-president-thursday/

Now, the Taliban have agreed to hold "intra-Afghan talks" but they keep believing that Afghanistan is a believing nation that wants an Islamic government. And regardless, they hate Ghani; they don't recognize him as President, and the future Afghanistan that they foresee does not include him as President. 

So, the first thing they are going to say at the intra-Afghan talks is that Ghani has to go. And then Ghani will say that he's not going. And that is going ignite conflict on a major scale. 

Now, is it possible that Trump, Pompeo, and Esper are too stupid to realize that that is going to happen? Even they have to realize that it's looming. So, what are they thinking? What we don't know is how much money they have promised the Taliban to rebuild the country. In 1973, at the Paris Peace Accords, Henry Kissinger promised the Vietcong billions of dollars -and that was 1973 billions, not 2020 billions, which are a lot less billious. So, you know that there must a huge green poultice involved this time as well. So maybe they think they can coax the Taliban to accept Ghani on some basis by offering them even more money? If so, I'll be very surprised if it works. The Taliban have said all along: ALL OCCUPIERS AND THEIR PUPPETS MUST GO. 

So, what I'm saying is that for peace to have a chance, Ghani has to step down. I think they can probably get a commitment from the Taliban not to kill him. But, he can't be President in a government that the Taliban is going to accept. 

The best to hope for is to form a new government, and it will have religious leanings, but hope that at the same time it shows some tolerance, and that the Taliban is willing to make some concessions  for the sake of inclusiveness. That's all there is to hope for. Hoping that the Taliban is going to accept Ghani is a pipe dream. There is no chance of that. 

So, when the time comes, will we inform Ghani that he needs to step down for the sake of peace? We might. It's very possible that we will. But, it's also very possible that he'll tell us to go fuck ourselves. And I think we know that too. But then, if war resumes between the Afghan government and the Taliban, we can say, "it's between them now; it's not our fight." Yet, NATO has said that they are going to continue to support Ghani even if the U.S. doesn't. And that's OK with us too. This is about Donald Trump delivering a campaign promise to get us out of there. If he does it, then whatever happens afterwards is a different narrative, as far as he's concerned. 

So, how are the chances looking for peace? Not too good. I certainly wouldn't bet on it. It's going to take a miracle. 

Dorothy Kilgallen was murdered. I presume you know that. The question is why.  It was not because of anything she figured out about the JFK assassination. What could she have figured out? That it was a conspiracy? That the Mafia was involved? They had no need to kill over that. That became Official Government Story #2. Just a few years later, the HSCA arrived at that conclusion. 

And even if Dorothy believed that, say, LBJ was involved, that was already taken. Right away in 1964, J. Evetts Haley came out with his book, A Texan Looks at Lyndon in which he accused LBJ of killing Kennedy. So, it was too late for Dorothy to get a scoop on that either. 

And what about the idea that Jack Ruby was involved in killing Kennedy? That's just plain false. Do you think she thought that? Well, they definitely weren't going to kill her over that idea. That alternative idea came directly from government and establishment sources, and they have been nursing it for over half a century. Just last year,  2019, the whole mainstream media broadcast that Ruby went to watch the fireworks in Dealey Plaza with somebody. They all spewed it, even though there isn't a snowball's chance in Hell that it's true. 

You need to understand something: the same people who killed Kennedy killed Oswald. And they had to. They fabricated all this phony evidence against him which he and his lawyer would have destroyed in court. The trial of Oswald would have turned into the trial of the FBI. They could not only not let Oswald go to trial, they couldn't even let him speak to a lawyer. They had to kill him before that happened. That's how desperately they needed him dead. 

So, they were behind the whole operation to kill Oswald. But, they knew before they did it that some people were not going to accept the story they were going to tell of Ruby doing it to save Jackie a trip to Dallas. They knew that the same people who were going to doubt Oswald's lone nuttery were going to doubt Ruby's lone nuttery. And so, they fabricated an alternate story for Ruby, where he was a gangster, a Mafioso, a hustler, a con man, with a long history of violence and unlawfulness.  And, they didn't mind a bit if people wanted to think that he was involved in killing Kennedy, and that he killed Oswald to silence him. This was all safe ground for them. It was safe because it was polar-opposite to the truth, which is that Ruby didn't kill anybody, that he was mentally ill and strung out on drugs and tricked into believing that he shot Oswald. 

But, let's talk about what Dorothy Kilgallen found out from her two interviews of Ruby. And make no mistake: it was those two interviews that got her killed. They killed her precisely because of those two interviews. But, they didn't know what was said. Nobody did, and nobody does, to this day.  Anything that anyone says about it is pure speculation- and that includes me. But, I'm still going to speculate. 

First, it's very significant that there were two interviews. It means that she established rapport with Ruby at the first interview.  He apparently did not feel threatened by her. She did not make him feel uncomfortable and uneasy. He probably enjoyed talking to her. 

So, what transpired between them? What was said? Well, Dorothy asked the questions, right? So, what did she ask him? I presume she asked him why he shot Oswald. so, what did he say? Ruby said, in essence, that he didn't know; that he went to the garage; that he was jumped on by the police; that he was dragged up to the 5th floor, where they told him that he shot Oswald. He told her that he had no intention of shooting Oswald; that he had no motive to shoot Oswald; that he had no desire to do it. He brought his dog along; he had his day planned; and he certainly did not go there expecting to destroy his life and abolish his freedom. 

And you can be absolutely certain that he told Dorothy that no one in the Mafia put him up to it, that no one threatened him, that there was no conspiracy whatsoever.  Now, how do I know that? I know it because he said it over and over again to others. He even made a joke about it, saying "no one knew a thing about it, not even me."

So, Dorothy heard all that, but what else did she discern about him? Well first, she had to realize that he didn't fit the mold of cold-blooded killer, or hit man, that Ruby was made out to be. Instead, he was docile, submissive, not arrogant, and not the least bit hostile. She must have picked up that he was very respectful, including respectful of authority and very patronizing to the Dallas Police and Henry Wade, even though they were prosecuting him and painting him as a horrible person and trying to get him the death penalty. Even with all that, he didn't have it in him to be combative towards them. 

So, Dorothy must have figured out that the real personality of this man was polar-opposite to the image that was being painted- in and out of court. Jack Ruby was a devout Jew, a patriotic American, who was not aggressive- physically, verbally, or otherwise, and he had a soft, rather childlike way about him, that he was NOT cunning; he was not discreet; and he wasn't even smart. I think she must have realized all that and realized that no one would have trusted this man with a role in the JFK assassination. No one would have wanted to rely on him for anything, and certainly not to keep his mouth shut, that he was a scatterbrain and a numbskull.  

Now, I am not going to suggest that Dorthy figured out that Ruby was not the Garage Shooter. Unlike me, she didn't have a computer with which to enlarge, brighten, and enhance images. All she had to go by were the images of the Shooter in the newspapers, which consisted mainly of the Beers and Jackson photos. And actually, that was enough to determine that the Shooter wasn't Ruby. But still, I don't assume she arrived at that.  But, I think she did arrive at this: 

1) Jack Ruby was a different person than the one being depicted in court and in the media, and he did not seem like a killer.

2) Jack Ruby was not right in his head. There was a childlike innocence about him, or I could call it a puppy dog innocence. I think she read him as being honest and not deceitful. And:

3) I think she believed him when he told her that he had no thought whatsoever to kill Oswald. And again, there is no reason for any rational person to doubt him because if he was thinking of killing Oswald, he would not have brought his dog along, and, he would have gotten there at the time the transfer was scheduled to take place, which was 10 AM.  If you are plotting to kill someone, you need to be meticulous about it, don't you?  

4) So, I think that Dorothy figured out that this simple man with a childlike simplicity and childlike innocence must have been manipulated to go there, that he hadn't conspired with anyone, but that others conspired against him. He was somehow manipulated . That's what she figured out. 

It must have been very baffling to her because, like everyone else, she probably accepted that it was Ruby in the photos and films- for the reason that her mind had nowhere else to go. Remember that James Bookhout did not attend the Ruby trial- not one day of it. She may not even have known his name. But, she probably had the eerie feeling that Ruby came across more like a victim than a perpetrator. And she was probably determined to resolve the descrepancies and contradictions about him that she was faced with. 

But now, we have to look at it from the standpoint of those who gave the order to kill her. They may have feared that Ruby told her flat-out that he didn't do it, that he didn't remember doing it and  couldn't imagine himself doing it. And that is essentially what he told her except without the arrogance that you or I would have had in saying it. But, they must have feared that a light was going to go on in her head in which she said to herself, "Wait! Maybe he really didn't do it! Maybe his description of what happened is exactly what transpired." If they thought there was even a 10% chance that she was going to arrive at that, then they had to kill her. And I really think she was gravitating in that direction. I suspect that she felt great sympathy for Ruby. And I think she was driven to pursue the angle of Ruby as framed victim- in some way.   

Again, there was NOTHING she could have found out about the JFK assassination that would have warranted killing her. And the fact was that she had already published some columns alleging a Mafia connection- so, it was too late. I think she liked Jack Ruby. I think she had rapport with him. I think she was a good judge of character- and I think she was confident that Ruby was being truthful with her and would be if she spoke to him again. And who is to say she wouldn't have? In fact, the rapport and mutual respect and understanding between them would have just grown and grown. And that's why they had to kill her. 

Jack Ruby was innocent. Dorothy Kilgallen didn't figure that out, but she did figure out that the portrait painted of him by the media was completely false, and that was going to lead her through the Looking Glass, and they couldn't risk that. That is why they killed her. 

Jack Ruby had NOTHING to do with the JFK assassination. Absolutely nothing. And he had nothing to do with the Oswald assassination either except that he was manipulated to go down the ramp and fall into the waiting trap.  



      

Here's the link to the slugout between Anderson Cooper and Rod Blagojevich. I don't know how good you are at calling fights, but I call this one a win for Blago by knockout. Blago had a comeback for everything Cooper threw at him, and he was quite eloquent. It's no wonder that Cooper started cursing. It's what losers do. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=gLM5zb3iVV8&feature=emb_logo

The big question is: why did they even go after Blago? They went after him BEFORE they happened upon that comment he made that he ought to get something for appointing whomever Obama wanted to replace him in the Senate. If the law states that the governor gets to decide, why should he have to abide by what the incoming President wants? If that's the case, they should just make it that the incoming President decides. So, there was actually a basis for why he would be resentful since he was being usurped. But regardless, he only made an offhand remark to his brother that he ought to get something in exchange for letting Obama tell him who to appoint, and to construe that into a crime and prosecute him for it, when he never demanded anything, is the real crime. 

But, as I said, they were already determined to get him before that, and they just lucked into that and made hay out of it. Do you know that he imported prescription drugs from Canada for the Illinois health care system? The case against him started under Bush, not Obama. And the Bush administration was vehemently opposed to people doing that-getting drugs from Canada- let alone governors doing it. Here's a short video by an Illinoian, In Defense of Rod Blagojevich. You should give it a listen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74blS3Wb0ao

Mark, you are a lawyer. So tell me: why wouldn't Ruby's lawyers put him on the stand? He would have said the following:

Ruby: I do not remember shooting Oswald. I remember walking down there, being jumped by the police, being dragged up to the 5th floor, and then told that I shot him. That's how I found out. And I was shocked." 

Belli: Jack, did you go to that garage with the intention of shooting Oswald?

Ruby: Absolutely not. I had my dog with me. I had my day planned. I decided to walk down there out of curiosity, but I had no thought to shoot him and no awareness of shooting him. 

Mark, are you aware that in his testimony, Ruby spoke of sending the money wire at 10:15?  Instantly, an SS man corrected him, and told him it was 11:15, and Jack didn't dispute it. But, if you look at the timetable: Ruby said that he got up early that Sunday morning. And all he did was get dressed and eat some breakfast and then he left. It was a 3 minute drive to get there from his apartment. They said he lost time going to see the wreaths in Dealey Plaza, but he did that on Saturday. Would he have done it again on Sunday? He brought his dog along because he intended to drop her off at the Carousel Club where someone was going to look after her. Then, he intended to go to the new apartment building that he was moving into, which was swanky and nice compared to the dump he was living in. If he planned to shoot Oswald in a crowd of police, he would have known that his life, as he knew it, was over, and he wasn't going anywhere. 

This is an image of the face of the Garage Shooter, huddled with detectives on the 3rd floor of the PD about 2 minutes after the shooting.  

That round face is not the face of Jack Ruby. They were there in the dark. The lights were out. The flash from the NBC camera was the only source of light. Notice how distressed the detectives looked. They weren't distressed over him. They were distressed over the photographer who was taking the picture.   

The image is altered. The Shooter has got back stripes for eyes. Look at the eyes of Detectives Boyd and Hall. Their eyes were captured, so there is no photographic reason why the Shooter's eyes should be stripes. 

Detective Boyd said in an interview that he found out about the Oswald shooting when he was eating brunch with his wife and in-laws at the home of his in-laws and saw it on television. So, he excused himself and went downtown to see if he could help. But, as you can see with your own eyes, that was a lie because he was already down there. This was taken very soon after the shooting, long before he could have gotten down there if he was away. 

Jack Ruby was innocent, and it is the biggest and most damaging secret there is about the JFK assassination. Ralph  

Even though I disapprove of President Trump's killing of Suleimani and 9 Iraqis in an act that I regard as murder and terrorism, that's as strong a statement I can make about it without violating Facebook's Community Standards. But, I am pleased that Trump freed Rod Blagojevich. 

Blago was convicted of trying to sell Obama's Senate seat which he did NOT try to do. What he did was have a thought about it, which he expressed to his brother, who was his campaign manager and confidante, on the phone. He actually got sent to prison for saying this in a private phone call: 

"I've got this thing and it's (expletive) golden. "I'm not just giving it up for (expletive) nothing."

He had that thought, and he expressed it to his brother, but that was it. He never acted on it. He never followed through on it. He never demanded anything. He just had the thought, and for having the thought, he was convicted of a crime; a thought crime. 

He never "tried" to sell the seat. He only thought about it.  And it was a very fleeting thought. He, apparently, never had it again. They had no evidence he ever brought it up again. It may have just been a single spontaneous utterance that flashed across his mind and slipped out and then vanished like a fart in a high wind. 

Since when do we prosecute people in this country for their thoughts? Someone may consider doing a bad thing, but then they get a hold of themselves; they get a grip; and they don't do it. If he took the first step towards actually doing it, I could see charging him. But, lip-flapping is not a step. And it sounds like it was nothing more than a frustrated utterance, a letting off of steam.  

But, look at this. It is from a media outlet called The Independent. They actually state that he did it, that he actually sold the Senate seat.

  
Wow. That is incredible. That is so bad, I think Blago has got  a case for libel here. Anyone know how I can reach him? 

I am also in correspondence with Mark Shaw, the lawyer who has written a book about the murder of Dorothy Gilgallen, and he, apparently, is having success in getting the case reopened. He is on a speaking tour, but he is taking the time to communicate with me. This is something I wrote to him:

Mark, you are absolutely right, which is to say that Dorothy Kilgallen was absolutely right, that Ruby was practically bald. And therefore, the many images of him with substantial hair were faked. I wish you would open your mind to Jack Ruby innocence. He wasn't there. He got there early and was skirted up to the 5th floor and held there until they could slip him into the story. FBI Agent James Bookhout impersonated him during the televised spectacle. You've got the scoop on this, Mark. You're the one who could take it to the heights, not me. 

Look: they didn't kill Dorothy Kilgallen because of anything she found out about the JFK assassination. You are absolutely right that they killed her over one thing: Jack Ruby. It was for what she was about to find out about him that she was killed. And it was not that he was a Mafioso and a player in the JFK assassination and killed Oswald to silence him. That's the official alternate story. That's what they wanted the naysayers to believe. And even now, it is what they want them to believe. Just last year, the mainstream press was circulating a story that Ruby took some petty criminal to "go watch the fireworks" in Dealey Plaza. Ruby didn't watch anything. Ruby was definitely in the Dallas Morning News building at the time of the motorcade, as multiple witnesses attested, and as he said so himself. So, that was a false story that the media circulated. But, why did they do it? They did it because it's totally false and polar opposite to the truth. Ruby had nothing to do with the JFK assassination. He had no foreknowledge of it. And likewise, he had nothing to do with the Oswald assassination. Mark: Ruby brought his dog along and left her in the car when he went to Western Union. Doesn't that prove to you that he had no intention of shooting Oswald? 

Neither you nor I know exactly what Dorothy found out, but we know she was a very bright woman, and in conversing with Ruby twice, I suspect that she discovered two things: one, that he was childlike and innocent in his bearing, emanating not the slightest impulse towards violence, and two, he was not right in his head. He was delusional and just plain incompetent. If she didn't figure out that he was a victim, she was on the threshold, and they couldn't take the chance of her figuring it out. She died because of the truth about Jack Ruby, that he was innocent. 

Ralph

This is from a correspondence I am having with Anthony Summers and another prominent JFK researcher, whom I shall not name. But, it concerns the conflicting claims of Carolyn Arnold. 

Men, I thought of something else that is very important. It is that there are witnesses in this case who are damaged goods, mentally. A glaring example is Buell Frazier. He was damaged even back then. For example, in his testimony to Joseph Ball in April 1964, he placed himself in the doorway by saying that he was right next to the median handrail, one step down from the top. But later, in that same interview, Ball asked him, why don't we see you in the photo? And Frazier said it was because he was "way back in the shadows." Well, that's a contradiction. Either he was on the steps or back in the shadows, but not both. And what about the whole idea of him saying that Oswald said that he went to Irving to get curtain rods? Oswald denied ever telling him that, and there is no reason to doubt Oswald. And then, Frazier said that Oswald had a bag that was 2 feet long and looked like curtain rods, but Oswald said he brought only a sack lunch from Mrs. Paine's house, which consisted of a cheese sandwich and an apple. So, why didn't Dallas Police go to that lunch room and look for the remnants of that lunch? Well, who's to say they didn't? 

Frazier said that he waited at the parking lot to let the engine run so as to recharge the generator, but that makes no sense because the drive from Irving would have done that. Frazier went on to contradict himself about many things. He never told the doorway story the same way twice. He told it different to Jim Garrison, and he told it different in 1984  at the mock trial in England where he said that he was several steps up above and behind Lovelady. But Lovelady, by his own admission, was on the "top level." So, there were no steps above and behind him. Frazier is a mental case. We know that they threatened him. They threatened to arrest him and charge him as Oswald's accomplice. They threatened to arrest his sister. He is damaged goods, and he has been all along. You can't trust a word he says.  

Well, the same goes for Carolyn Arnold. She was 19 years old, and when first asked, she naively thought the FBI wanted the truth. They didn't want the truth. They wanted conformity to their narrative. So, she said that she thought she saw Oswald at the doorway, on the inside of the glass looking out, shortly before the motorcade arrived. It's very likely that Agent Richard Emberley came up with the time of 12:15 because that left Oswald enough time to get up to the 6th floor. But, smarter men above Emberley realized that no, it still looked bad, real bad, if Oswald was milling around downstairs as late as 12:15. So, they went back there in March 1964, and they got her to sign a statement saying that she didn't see Oswald at all. So, what did they threaten her with? And note that the Warren Commission did not call her in to testify. They did not want to talk with her. And you should realize that the FBI did the screening of witnesses for the WC. And the FBI did not want the WC hearing from Carolyn Arnold either. The FBI did not want the WC hearing from Mary Moorman too, and that's a whole story in itself. 

Now Anthony, I understand that YOU interviewed Carolyn Arnold. I don't know exactly what she said to you, but I presume she defended her 1978 claim that she saw Oswald eating in the 2nd floor lunch room, as depicted in Oliver Stone's movie, JFK. And it is very regrettable that Stone went with that. There is absolutely no doubt that she did NOT claim that in 1963 or 1964. There is absolutely no doubt that Oswald did not eat in the 2nd floor lunch room. He ate in the 1st floor lunch room AS HE ALWAYS DID. And he said so at the very first interrogation. It was reported by Bookhout and Hosty.

Now, as for Fritz, in his WC testimony, he was asked specifically where Oswald said he was during the shooting, and Fritz said that Oswald said he was eating lunch with other employees. But that was a lie. Oswald didn't say that, and he didn't do that. For one thing, Oswald was definitely anti-social at the TSBD. He didn't eat with anybody. He wasn't friendly with anybody. He was aloof. He wasn't that way with people in Russia. There, he was outgoing, friendly, and very sociable. But, at the TSBD, he was anti-social. He was the ultimate loner. The whole place made him uncomfortable. Have you read "The Spider's Web: The TSBD and the Dallas Plot" by William Weston? It's online. In it, he makes the case that the TSBD was a CIA front company, doing espionage and gun and drug running under the guise of distributing school books. And that's all the book business was, a cover for what they were really doing. If they were really distributing books to schools, they'd have been handling large orders, enough for a classroom or several classrooms. In other words: whole boxes of books. But, all we have ever heard about are small orders, a few books that the the "order-fillers" could carry by hand. They didn't have carts or wagons.  And if you know anything about the book business, you know that you don't stack books a mile high the way they were doing there because books are heavy, and you wind up crushing them. Plus, there was no organization to the place, no system. How could you find anything in the maze of those stacks? So, the book business was a cover, and Oswald must have realized that the place wasn't what it seemed. And there is no chance that he ate lunch with anybody. Fritz lied because what Oswald really told him was that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front." 

Oswald, like everyone else, broke for lunch at 11:45. That was 15 minutes early, but they wanted to give the workers enough time to eat so that they would be done with it to watch the motorcade at 12:25, the expected time of arrival. Well, Oswald knew about it. Have you read the testimony of James Jarman? Oswald went up to Jarman and asked him why people were congregating on the sidewalk. He didn't know, and Jarman told him why. So then, Oswald knew. And when he broke for lunch, he did not wait around doing nothing for 45 minutes, only to eat at 12:30 and miss the event. He ate promptly. And why not? He had eaten nothing that morning. All he had was coffee at the Paine house. And he worked all morning. So, of course, he ate right away. He got started eating in the domino room before Noon. And he was certainly done by 12:20. How long does it take to eat a sandwich and an apple? And then he went to the doorway. But, he didn't go outside right away. The whole wall of it was transparent glass. So, he could look out without going outside. And that's what he did, at first, for a bit. 

Professor Gerald McKnight makes the case in his book Breach of Trust that the real time that Carolyn Arnold gave to Emberley of seeing Oswald was 12:25. That's when she saw him at the doorway. Emberley changed it to 12:15. But then in 1964, when she deleted the claim of seeing Oswald at all, she was allowed to give the correct time of 12:25. So, McKnight, whom I have talked to about this, believes that the correct attribution is her seeing Oswald at the doorway at 12:25. So, in other words, you have to merge her two statements, to take her original statement from 1963 but add the time from 1964.  And I agree with Dr. McKnight. And the two other secretaries, both said that the three of them didn't get outside until 12:25, and they did not encounter Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room on the way out.  

Again, I don't know what Carolyn Arnold told you, Anthony, but her whole story about seeing Oswald eating in the 2nd floor lunch room is complete, utter nonsense. If she came to believe it, if she adopted it as her mindset, then so be it, but it definitely did not happen. She was undoubtedly threatened and harassed. It could not have been easy for her. We need to look at her and Frazier like PTSD victims. In other words: you can't trust a word that either says.  Thank you. Ralph Cinque    

I am going to address, again, the reasons why there is NO CHANCE that Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the JFK shooting. 

This has come up again because of a certain someone who is wavering, and I have written this for him. And I am reminded of the mock trial in Houston where Larry Rivera was set to testify and show his overlays to the jury, which would have won the case, but at the last minute, Attorneys Bill Simpich and Larry Schnapf pulled Rivera and replaced him with another guy who claimed that Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shooting. The majority of the jurors voted to convict, and that is a disgrace for Oswald's so-called Defense team.   

Oswald SAID he ate lunch in the 1st floor lunch room, early in the lunch break, at a time when James Jarman and Harold Norman were in the vicinity, and by 12:30, they were perched up on the 5th floor, and we have a picture of them there. Oswald ALWAYS ate in the 1st floor lunch room because he stored his lunch there on the shelf, and there was usually a newspaper there, which he liked to read. If you know that Oswald was innocent, that he was telling the truth about not killing Kennedy or Tippit, then you have no reason to think he lied about where he ate lunch. OSWALD DEFENDERS NEED TO BELIEVE OSWALD. I shouldn't have to say it. 

The entire story about Oswald having been in the 2nd floor lunch room during the motorcade was derived from one source: Earl Golz, and the year was 1978. Until then, no one had ever proposed it. And he proposed it in the Dallas Morning News. Do you realize that the Dallas Morning News has been at the journalistic forefront to defend the official story? So, why would they publish such a story exonerating Oswald? It was to distract attention away from Oswald in the doorway which was in the spotlight again because of the HSCA.  And the DMN knew there was no danger in expounding an exonerating story that was false because it would just muddy the waters- and it did.  

Earl Golz claimed to have interviewed Carolyn Arnold, who  supposedly decided to tell the truth, finally, after over 5000 days.  Did Golz really talk to Carolyn Arnold? Who knows? She never came forward publicly. It may have been an impostor.   

But, according to Golz, she denied telling the FBI on 11/26/63 that she believed she saw Oswald at the doorway shortly before the shooting. And she ignored completely that she signed a statement in March 1964 claiming that she didn't see Oswald at all on 11/22/63. So now, she was telling a different story a third time.  But keep in mind, as Professor Gerald McKnight pointed out in his book Breach of Trust that there is no reason to doubt her first story. There is no reason to think this naive, innocent 19 year old girl had any inclination to lie to the FBI. And there is no reason to think that the FBI made it up. Why would they make up a story exonerating Oswald? It was only after she realized she had touched the third rail by being truthful that she scrambled to save herself. So, her first revision in March 1964 needs to be rejected, and her second revision in November 1978 needs to be rejected with extreme prejudice. And I mean to the point of questioning whether it was even her. Golz may have been set up.  But regardless, TWO OTHER SECRETARIES CLAIMED TO LEAVE THE BUILDING WITH HER, PASSING THROUGH THE 2ND FLOOR LUNCH ROOM, AND THEY DENIED THAT OSWALD WAS THERE. THEIR NAMES ARE VIRGIE RACHLEY AND BETTY DRAGOO. 

Carolyn Arnold reportedly did an interview with Anthony Summers, but in 1988, she was invited to state her convictions on camera for the film series The Men Who Killed Kennedy, and she refused. 

Again, it is PREPOSTEROUS to think this pregnant 19 year old girl did not tell the truth when first asked about it by the FBI. As Dr. McKnight pointed out in his book, it is only her first statement that has any credibility. 

But, there is another basis on which to reject the 2nd floor lunch room claim and that is the testimony of Officer Marrion Baker, who said that when he first saw Oswald at 12:31, that Oswald was on the move. He was moving from the vestibule into the 2nd floor lunch room. Therefore, Oswald was just getting to that lunch room when Baker first saw him. So, IF OSWALD WAS JUST GETTING TO THE 2ND FLOOR LUNCH ROOM AT 12:31, HOW COULD HE BE THERE AT 12:30? I realize that it's physically possible that he could have been there at 12:30, departed, and then returned at 12:31, but there is no basis to claim that, and that mean Friar Occum will slash your throat with his razor if you try. Furthermore, the 1978 story had Oswald sitting in the lunch room, sprawled in front of the remnants of his lunch, and planted there. You can hardly go from that to him arriving at the lunch room a minute later. All the indications are that Oswald was just reaching the 2nd floor lunch room, for the first time, at 12:31 when Baker first saw him, and there is no reason to twist it into something else. 

But, in addition, there is all the evidence that Oswald was in the doorway, particularly the photographic evidence, but also Oswald's own statement to investigators that he was "out with Billy Shelley in front." And remember that he must have meant during the assassination because Shelley was not out front after the assassination. He left immediately with Lovelady to scour the railway area, as many did, and then they re-entered the building through the back door.  They never returned to the front.

This matter is settled. If you don't know that Oswald was in the doorway during the JFK assassination, then you don't know anything about the JFK assassination. It is 2020, and Oswald in the doorway is written in stone. We have identified the man, as well as his clothes. There is no disputing it, and there is no denying it - unless you are a blithering idiot or an Op.