On the film front, the BlastOff Festival is holding their online screenings of their winners, including My Stretch of Texas Ground. Jeff Weber and Junes Zahdi won for Best Lead Actors, and the film won the Jury Award for Best Feature Film.

I like their description of MSOTG: "a riveting action/thriller that will make your hair stand on end." 

https://blastoff.us/screenings/

And Allied Vaughn has the DVD of the film for sale for $14.58 on Movie Zyng.

https://www.moviezyng.com/my-stretch-of-texas-ground-dvd-jeff-weber/810044711011?fbclid=IwAR3kcbXpHtY-pM5fhVbFMbpgkHSC4jg1wUefDZAcOllfQUqunjoe6WrTanc

It includes the film, the trailer, and a 15 minute commentary by me about the making of the film. 

I continue to ponder that mother and boy in the Altgens photo. Most people assume that she is holding him, but based on what? He's seems upright. He's not leaning towards her. And she doesn't have her arms wrapped around him. The Fedora Man behind them is turned around and looking at Oswald in the doorway. That's his back we're seeing, You can see the point of his right shoulder. I'll point an arrow to it. 

So, the President of the United States, the Leader of the Free World, and his glamorous wife are riding by, and this guy has got his back to them. And that's why they put that mother and boy in there, to obscure him. I'm thinking that he may have been James Bookhout. He definitely was not Jack Ruby. Ruby told the truth:that he was in the Dallas Morning News building during the motorcade tending to his newspaper ads. Ruby told the truth about everything. 

But, the very idea of a mother standing there watching a parade holding such a child is preposterous. She would have to be Superwoman. Lifting the child is one thing. And even that gets hard. How many times have we heard women say that such and such child is getting too big for her to lift? I've been hearing it all my life. But, we're not talking about lifting; we're talking about holding. The object gets heavier and heavier the longer you hold it. It doesn't really, of course, but it seems to as your muscles tire. 

Here's an experiment: just hold your arms out and see how long you can hold them up. See how long before you are aching to put them down. And in holding a child, women do things such as lean backwards or lean sideways- anything to take the pressure off her relatively weak arms. What we're seeing in the Altrgens photo is impossible. 

And it's one more example of the ugly, murderous photo alteration that was done to hide the truth and protect the killers. They must have had a crack team there. And it's not that they were so good but that they were so fast. I wonder if Dino Brugioni was on it. I'd bet he was. 

Wes Stover Yes! Finally someone with some sense! I agree, it clearly shows Oswald was in the Doorway. However, supposedly a newspaper depicting this photo on its front page was printed and circulated that very same afternoon. Can someone please explain that or debunk it please. Otherwise, they would have had to been extremely quick to alter the photo immediately after the assassination???

• Like
•  · Reply
•  · 7m

• 

  Ralph Cinque The first public showing of the altered Altgens photo was on national television by Walter Cronkite at 6:30 PM Eastern, 5:30 PM Central, so 5 hours after the shooting. That was plenty of time for their crack team to alter the photo.

Ralph Cinque When you look at the degree of distortion in the Wiegman film, it is insane. Wiegman was shooting for NBC, which means that he had the best equipment in the world. So, why would his camera produce this ugly mess? It's because they deliberately blurred it and distorted it so that Oswald would be blurred and distorted. The evil of it all is staggering. And don't anybody make excuses for it. YOU are killing Kennedy if you make excuses for this shit. 

I was recently asked about Oswald in the Wiegman film; is he in it? Yes, he is. He is standing in the top of the doorway in the center just as the press car, in which Dave Wiegman was riding, rounded the turn from Houston to Elm. It's right at the beginning.

It is extremely blurry and distorted, which they did to it, in order to obscure Oswald. But, after passing the doorway, Wiegman did a second pan, in which he rotated his body around to the right to capture the doorway again. Why did he do that? It must be because he detected a commotion in the doorway. He either heard something or he saw something out of the corner of his eye. And so he swung around. And by the time he got to it, there was no Doorman there. So, they put one in, a cut-out, a still-image that was put into the film. 

 That circled image on the far right is not Oswald; not Lovelady; and not there. And note that it would be impossible for you or I to create this image from the film because it happens so fast, it's all a blur. The glimpse that you get of that guy in the film lasts for a tiny, infinitesmal fraction of a second. 

What I believe happened is that between the first and second capture of the Wiegman Doorman, Oswald left the doorway. He left for the 2nd floor lunch room. But, since they needed a Doorman to still be there, they put that still-image in. 

Here is a toggle of the two Wiegman Doormen, one real and the other not. You'll notice the pronounced qualitative difference in the frames. Now, why would that happen within Wiegman's camera? It wouldn't. It couldn't. It didn't. They did it. It's all them. 

The JFK limo was already down the hill as Oswald looks in that direction, west. It corresponds quite closely in time to the Altgens photo. The second image occurs about 4 seconds later in the Wiegman film, but remember, it's highly edited. So, you can't go by that, no more than you go by what the Zapruder film shows. But, why would Doorman go from being turned and looking down Elm at the President to facing squarely out the doorway looking straight ahead, as stiff and stolid as a Cigar Store Indian?  It makes no sense behaviorally, in addition to everything else.

So, that is Oswald in the Wiegman film, and that's how they dealt with it. No doubt there were other captures of Oswald in the doorway that were dealt with in different ways. Oh, what a hassle Oswald created for them when he stepped out into the sunlight. 

I am pleased to announce that the sequel to My Stretch of Texas Ground, to be called His Stretch of Texas Ground, is going to be produced.  I have signed a contract with Spork Productions, which is the production company of Geoff Ryan.  Geoff will be directing, and helping him produce and doing the line-producing will be his longtime associate Robert DeSanti.   

Geoff Ryan is an accomplished filmmaker. He wrote and directed the award-winning film Fray, which is about an Iraq War veteran who is struggling with PTSD. Geoff's most recent film is Blood from Stone, "a genre-defying vampire film" which came out in June.

Geoff is also the one who fixed the editing of My Stretch of Texas Ground. We were having problems with lighting, visual effects, and other things that were very challenging, but Geoff fixed them all. He was never credited because the Closing Credits had already been drawn up. But, I'm sure we never would have won so many film festival awards without Geoff. 

Here is an interview of Geoff about filmmaking from VoyageLA:

http://voyagela.com/interview/meet-geoff-ryan-spork-productions-west-hollywood/

Reprising his role as Sheriff Joe Haladin will be Jeff Weber, and this was an absolute must because I would not have considered re-casting Sheriff Joe. Jeff is the one who makes Sheriff Joe Haladin the iconic lawman that he is. And this time, Jeff is also going to lend his singing voice to the film.  If you haven't heard Jeff sing, then listen to this recent song of his because it is one swingin', catchy tune. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kq0101n9CFg&t=2s

Another great development is that Mike Gassaway has agreed to play Sheriff Joe's father, retired Sheriff Clint Haladin, a rugged and straight-talking old lawman with a dynamic role in the story. 

The screenplay, which I wrote, is finished, and I like it very much. I doubt there are many screenplays that were toiled over more than this one. It is a crime drama in which an ex-con returns to Arlettsville and does something so vile, some will say we crossed the line putting it into the film. But, evil knows no bounds. 

Indie Rights Corporation, the largest distributor of independent "films, has sent me a "letter of intent to distribute" His Stretch of Texas Ground. So, this film has found distribution before it's even made. 

Filming is scheduled to take place in Austin in October, followed by post-production by Geoff, with an expected completion date of  January 15, 2021.

Sheriff Joe Haladin, that very independent Texas lawman who can take on all comers is coming back. I am thrilled to be working with this production team, with these actors, to tell this riveting story. Watch: it is going to sizzle. 

Wan Rahman Definitely two different people

• Like
•  · Reply
•  · 31m

• 

  Ralph Cinque Thank you, Wan Rahman.

Let's do a physical comparison between Jack Ruby and James Bookhout. Ruby was taller 5'9"; Bookhout was shorter 5'6". Ruby was relatively slender at the time, while Bookhout was pudgy. Ruby's face was relatively gaunt while Bookhout's was round and full. Their hair was very different, but Bookhout wore a rug at the Garage Spectacle. That isn't his real hair on the right. Bookhout wore light socks that day whereas Ruby wore black socks, as we can see in his mug shot. And that was one of those "fall through the cracks" things. You plan a ruse like this, and you just can't address everything. You slip-up. Now, these two are most certainly NOT the same man. It is insane to say they are.

• 
  Hoyt Kelley Ralph Cinque you produce pictures ... and narrate the story as you go.
  
  You explain that poor innocent Jacob Rubinstein was just at the police station ... to offer the nice policemen a roast beef on rye. Hahahaha.
  
  You show 2 pictures that are supposed to be Rubinstein ... and neither one look like him.
  
  Everyone knows that you can produce pictures that "you" manipulated ... just to get your desired opinion.
  
  At what time did Jacob Rubinstein "deny" that he cold bloodily murdered Lee Harvey Oswald? Never ... hahahaha.

  • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 3h
• 

  Ralph Cinque Hoyt Kelley You think your points pose any challenge to me? It's established beyond doubt that Ruby went to a delicatessen and ordered roast beef sandwiches for the detectives. Then, he got Detective Sims on the phone, and Sims told him that they were being provided with plenty of food. And so Ruby decided to give the sandwiches to the news crew. That's all well established, and just because you are ignorant of it doesn't matter. The two pictures weren't produced by me. They are from the official record. And you don't think they look like Ruby? The one on the right is definitely Ruby, and the reason you don't recognize him is because he was thinner than the Garage Shooter, and that's because he wasn't the Garage Shooter. The short pudgy guy on the right was definitely not Jack Ruby. And Jack Ruby didn't deny shooting Oswald, but that was because the Dallas Police told him he did it, and he believed everything the Dallas Police told him. They were his heroes. But, he also said that he had no memory of shooting Oswald, no thought to shoot him, and no desire or intention to shoot him. When asked to recount what exactly happened, he couldn't. He said it was all a blur. He said that all he could remember was going to the garage and then police were pouncing on him, and nothing in-between. That's because there was nothing in-between. And when the police jumped him (which was at the time that he was there, which was not the time that we saw) he started saying, in the midst of the scuffle, "Hey, what are you doing? You know me. I'm Jack Ruby." He didn't know why they were jumping on him. As far as he knew, he didn't do anything- not a damn thing. And he hadn't. Ruby was innocent. Completely and totally innocent. And he was mentally impaired. He did not have the wherewithal to defend himself. And he was a very decent man, a good man. The picture of his character that goes along with the official story is complete fiction, and most of the citings and doings of Ruby are fiction too. He was not a Mafioso. He was not a hit man or a pimp. He was not a gun runner. Those are all lies fabricated by the real killers.
• 
  
  

• Mick Tappe But Ruby knew about Oswald to spread propaganda at the Press Conference & enough about him to want him dead ?

  • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 14m
• 

  Ralph Cinque Mick, don't confuse the reported scenario with what actually happened and what we know actually happened. Ruby admitted going to the Police Station on Friday evening. He did not go on Friday afternoon. He said he didn't, including on a polygraph test which he passed. And we have phone records which prove that he was on the phone talking to his sister at 2 PM when he was supposedly stalking Oswald. So, don't believe all the stuff you hear. Now, about the Friday night press conference, Ruby went there to deliver sandwiches to the detectives. He was told they weren't interested. So, he got the idea to give them to the crew of a television or radio station that was covering the murder. So, Ruby went there Friday night with no thought or expectation of seeing Oswald or killing him. Was he even at the press conference? He never explicitly said that he was, and I suspect that he wasn't because the pictures of Ruby at the press conference don't look like him. He was definitely in the hall and in the vicinity, but I don't know that he ever went into the room. Look closely at this collage. On the right is Ruby at the PD on Friday evening, in the hall. It was very late. Actually, it was already early Saturday morning. On the left is supposedly Ruby at the press conference, but can you see that that is a much younger man? And I mean 20 years younger. And remember: the people telling you all that stuff about Ruby are the people who killed Kennedy. And I'll tell you that the people who killed Kennedy are the same people who killed Oswald.

Hoyt Kelley Poor Jacob Rubinstein ... just another persecuted innocent jew.

How was your imbecilic victim ... seen in New Orleans with his buddy Lee Harvey Oswald ... before the assassination?

Many a slip ... twixt a cup and a lip.

Try again ... this time don't leave out pertinent details.

• Like
•  · Reply
•  · 33m

• 

  Ralph Cinque Oswald was never seen with Ruby. You, apparently, don't know the difference between a claim and a fact. Anybody can claim anything. Ruby and Oswald never met. If you say otherwise, you are just repeating a falsehood. And, Ruby may have been targeted for this because he was Jewish. And he was a very devout Jew. Devout enough to rule out any possibility that he would shoot Oswald. He had a strong moral compass. He chastised himself for making an illegal turn- and it wasn't even illegal. He was enamored with the Dallas Police. He was like a groupie to them. There is a greater chance that the likes of you shot Oswald than Ruby did. He was innocent. He showed up at the garage about an hour before the spectacle. He was pounced upon by police and dragged up to the 5th floor where he was told that he shot Oswald. And he believed them because they were the Dallas Police, and he worshiped them. And that's where he was at 11:20 when it was showtime for the theatrical spectacle starring James Bookhout as Jack Ruby. Oh, and by the way, I'm making you famous.

  • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 1m

Why should anyone accept the lighting in the limo in the Altgens photo? Why would Kennedy and Connally be all light-up but Kellerman obscured in dark shadow?

It wasn't that way at other times. This is from Main Street, which has the same orientation to the sun as Elm. 

The image of Kennedy in the Altgens photo is fake. He was NOT yet shot in the throat at the time of the Altgens photo. There isn't a snowball's chance in Hell that he was shot in the neck already by then. The Altgens photo was taken when the limo was high on the hill. It was nowhere near the point where he was shot in the throat. He may have been shot in the back already and probably was. But, definitely not the throat. 

There was a relatively long time in which JFK was shot only in the back and reacting to it. But, all of it was cut out of the Zapruder film. And they doctored the Altgens photo to create the illusion that it corresponds to Zapruder 255. The truth is that the Altgens photo does not correspond to ANY Zapruder frame.  It goes with the part of the film that was extracted and destroyed. 

Jeffrey Epstein is back in the news with the arrest of his girlfriend, but do you realize that there are parallels between the his suicide and Oswald's murder?

But first, note that incredulity about Epstein's suicide is so great, it is probably the #1 Conspiracy Theory in the world. People were predicting it and making jokes about it before it even happened. They were making videos about it- and they were funny. 

So, Epstein was facing trial in which he could have done colossal damage to important and powerful people, such as Bill Clinton, Bill Richardson, Alan Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, etc.- all vacationers on the Lolita Express to Orgy Island. And that's why he needed to be killed.

Well, Oswald was also facing trial, and he could have, and would have, done tremendous and colossal damage to the Dallas Police and the FBI, and ultimately, to all those who really killed Kennedy, including LBJ. Oswald would have been able to persuasively prove that he did not own a rifle, that the documentation produced by the FBI, purporting to show that he mail-ordered a rifle from Chicago, was phony. It was as phony as three dollar bill. And that genie would have been out of the bottle, and there would have been no putting it back. Oswald would have been able to prove persuasively that it was him in the Altgens photo, and that things were done to the photo to deliberately, maliciously, and criminally obscure that fact. Tampering with evidence is a crime.  He would have been able to prove that he never had a P.O. Box and that he never wrote a letter to Marina concerning the Walker shooting. He would have been able to destroy the claim that he went to Mexico City.  And so on, and so on. And remember that his lawyers would have been able to get their experts to testify on the print evidence and the fibers in the butt of the rifle. All of the alleged evidence against him would have been challenged and destroyed.  His lawyer or lawyers would have decimated the prosecution. 

And, I dare say that  there would have been a lot more at stake than whether some big shots indulged on Orgy Island. At stake would have been: everything- the future of the republic.   Because: as I have told you, if Oswald didn't do it, it's not as though authorities could pin it on some other lone-nut. And, they couldn't blame the Mafia either, as the HSCA did in 1979 because the Mafia story is linked to Oswald. The story went that the Mafia, in deciding to kill Kennedy, settled on an ex-Marine who had just spent 3 years building radios in Russia, and since then worked a bevy of odd jobs in Dallas and New Orleans, none of which had anything to do with shooting or assassination. It was ridiculous and absurd, but how could they blame the Mafia for a phony order-form proffered by the FBI? 

So, Oswald needed killing fast, and the clock was ticking. How much longer could they deny him a lawyer? I figure they had until the next day, Monday. If they didn't get him a lawyer by Monday, it would have been obvious to the whole world that they were violating his rights. 

So, then what happened? Did they just get lucky that Jack Ruby came along and killed him? A lot of people doubt that. They would rather think that they set it up for Ruby to kill him. But, how do you get a guy, to not just kill somebody, but to utterly and totally destroy his own life? Who would do that? Nobody would do that. And when I say nobody, I mean absolutely nobody. 

In The Godfather, the Corleone family got some guy to confess to the killing of the police chief, which enabled Michael to return to America from Sicily. But, they paid the guy an enormous sum of money, which went to his family. In this case, there was no money involved. When you ask the people who believe that Ruby did it, why he did it, they will usually say that it was because of threats; that they threatened to kill his sister unless he killed Oswald. Have you got a sister? If someone threatened to kill her unless you killed someone who they wanted dead, would you do it?  Of course, you wouldn't. Nobody would. And I don't even know if anyone would do the thing that happened in The Godfather. Remember, it's fiction. But, it's not as wild a fiction as the official story of the Oswald shooting or the alternative story. 

Doesn't it bother you that the Oswald shooting just happened to take place on national television at prime time? Doesn't it bother you that the face of the shooter never got captured during the spectacle, that we never got a good look at him? Doesn't it bother you that after the most intense security precautions in the history of police work that Oswald should get shot just seconds after walking out a door into a police garage and in a sea of police? The attached photo is of Dallas Police manning the phones because of all the death threats to Oswald coming in. They announced it on the radio Sunday morning that they were being inundated with threatening phone calls. 

Doesn't it bother you that Dallas Police responded to a violent and armed man not by handcuffing him but by taking him somewhere? 

If you don't believe the official story of what happened to Jeffrey Epstein, you've got reasons in spades not to believe the official story of what happened to Lee Harvey Oswald. And the truth is NOT that that they conspired with Ruby to get Ruby to kill him. The truth is that they manipulated the feeble-minded Ruby TO THINK that he killed him.  And I am hoping that you are sharp-minded enough to realize it. Jack Ruby was innocent. The shooter in the garage was the short FBI agent, James W. Bookhout. That is a fact, and it is as certain as the sun will rise in the east tomorrow and set in the west. 
  

My Stretch of Texas Ground has won a very unusual and distinctive award at the Austria International Film Festival: Best Humanitarian Feature. I greatly appreciate it. It truly was the idea behind the film, that there really is just one race, the human race, and violence among humans has got to stop.

Slavery was a monstrous, despicable, abominable evil. I know that. But, George Washington was more directly involved, and more monstrously involved in the practice of that evil than Robert E. Lee ever was.Therefore, if we are going to tear down statues of Lee, we need to do the same to Washington. That's all I'm saying. Don't condemn Lee and make excuses for Washington.

John Daley Are you saying Robert Lee was lesser of the evil?

• Like
  
•  · Reply
•  · 3h

• 

  Ralph Cinque John, it's the hypocrisy that gets me. Lincoln could have freed all the slaves in Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, and Missouri, but he didn't. Why do people keep celebrating the Emancipation Proclamation when it was vacuous, when it didn't free a single slave? And, that empty proclamation wasn't even made until nearly 2 years into the Civil War. The 13th Amendment didn't pass the Senate until April 1864, and it didn't pass the House until December 1864, which was just a few months before the Civil War ended. But yes, if Lee is going to be denounced then Washington needs to be denounced in spades because of the two of them, Washington enslaved people to a much greater extent than Lee did, and Washington is known to have committed atrocities against slaves, such as extracting their teeth. How do you forgive that? How do you make excuses for it?

  • Like
    
  •  · Reply
  •  · 1m