Wow, this article from the Daily Beast really cuts deep. Donald Rumsfeld died today, and this is what they had to say about him. And it's true that an awful lot of men, women, children died by his hand. And many thousands of them were Americans. The wars that he prosecuted in Afghanistan and Iraq were unnecessary, unjustified, and entirely avoidable. And they were based on lies; the lies about 9/11 and more. For us, they were wars of choice. We had to cross the ocean to start them. And when it turned out that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, there was no, "Oh no, what have I done?" out of Rumsfeld. 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-rumsfeld-killer-of-400000-people-dies-peacefully?ref=home?ref=home

And it's not just a leftist publication like the Daily Beast that is remembering Rumsfeld that way. The Business Insider titled their remembrance of him as 

Donald Rumsfeld's legacy is defined by the disastrous Iraq War and America's disgraceful use of torture

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-rumsfelds-legacy-defined-disastrous-000000486.html

There are plenty of similar headlines, but here is just one more:

We Have A New Known-Known. Convicted War Criminal Donald Rumsfeld Is Dead At 88. 

https://economicleft.com/2021/06/30/we-have-a-new-known-known-convicted-war-criminal-donald-rumsfeld-is-dead-at-88/

These authors are being bold and brave, but not bolder or braver than we were in 2018 when we made MY STRETCH OF TEXAS GROUND. Everything that the film says about the 9/11 wars is true and understated. I'll give you an example. At one point, Sheriff Joe Haladin points out that in Afghanistan, we bombed a wedding party, trying to kill the Taliban, and we killed children. In reality, at the time he said that, we had bombed 8 wedding parties in Afghanistan trying to kill the Taliban. But, we didn't refer to 8 in the film; we just referred to 1. And that's because I thought it would be too difficult for viewers to accept that we did it 8 times, apologizing for killing innocents between each one. We went on to bomb a 9th wedding party in Afghanistan. 

If you'd like to know more about My Stretch of Texas Ground, go to: https://mystretchoftexasground.com

 

This ridiculous image is supposed to be Jack Ruby's hair, with long, thick strands combed straight back, intermittently, atop his head. His hair was nothing like that. He was practically bald on top.

 So, why did they paint that on him? It's because the Garage Shooter seemed to have such a thick carpet of hair, and that's exactly what it was: a rug. Bookhout wore a toupee'. 

So, they are supposed to be the same guy on the same weekend, right? OK, then let's put it to the test. Let's take the Shooter's hat off and see those long, intermittent strands underneath leading to a thick carpet of hair below. You see guys like this all the time.

Another thing about this bag is that it's too long. Supposedly, Oswald carried the rifle by tucking one end in his armpit and cupping the other end in his hand. So, the bag could only be as long as his arm. He wasn't a gorilla, was he? 

And how could anyone transport hard, jagged rifle parts in a paper bag without tearing the bag? There isn't the slightest tear in that bag. And what about when he emptied the bag? It didn't tear then either? Really? And why would he empty it at all?  Why go to the trouble of opening it and pouring out the contents? Wouldn't it make more sense to put it down and rip it open? Did he actually have the thought, "I don't want to rip this bag. I went to a lot of trouble to make it. And waste not, want not."  How could a makeshift paper bag, which went through the process of being loaded with loose, jutting rifle parts, and then carried that way, and then emptied that way, survive the journey without the paper getting the least bit torn? Did I mention that it was only paper?

Look: it's stupid. It is profoundly stupid.  It was stupid then, and it's stupid now. Yet, it is what we are expected to believe. You have to be stupid to believe the official story of the JFK assassination. 

Another ridiculous element of the JFK assassination is the claim that Oswald made this very tidy, nifty, and sturdy bag out of wrapping paper he stole from the TSBD. 

What if I gave you a wad of wrapping paper? Do you think you could make a bag that looks like that? The creation of such a bag involves a very precise geometrical process, as demonstrated here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rn4uQCtFp5Y

Do you have any reason to think that Oswald had the know-how to do that? Of course not. And why would he bother, making a bag when all he had to do was wrap the rifle parts in the paper? I mean just put them in the center of the opened paper; then fold the paper up around them and tape it all together.  I mean wrap it like a Xmas gift or birthday present. Why go to the trouble of making a bag? And think about how long it would have taken for an untrained person like him to make a bag, how much trial and error would have been involved. Where was the time for all that?

Anyone who expects you to believe that Oswald made that bag is either very stupid, or they think that you are very stupid. 

This is 2021, and anyone who still believes that Oswald shot Kennedy is a blithering idiot.  

   

In this famous picture of Oswald outside the Texas Theater, they altered the image of his t-shirt. They have it way up on his neck. It was nothing like that. It doesn't even look like a t-shirt. It looks more like a polo shirt. 

 Here is how Oswald's t-shirt actually looked. 

The photo-altering never ends, and the evil never ends, but unfortunately, it is the way of the world. 

Marina Oswald must have been drugged, and here's why: They couldn't just say to her:

"Say all these horrible things about Oswald, and we'll let you stay in the country. And, we'll see to it that a pile of money gets to you."

If that's what it was, they would have had to kill her. It would have been a criminal conspiracy between them and her, and they couldn't trust her to keep her mouth shut. As I said, they would have had to kill her.  

So, they needed her to say those things, and, to some extent, believe them. Surely, it was a tortured belief, and I bet she has been mentally tortured ever since. She has recanted. She has said repeatedly that she believes Oswald was innocent. But, it doesn't change the fact that she did most of the damage to him. She was, undoubtedly, the star witness of the Warren Commission.  

Therefore, brainwashing was, undoubtedly, involved. 

And we know all about the CIA's methods of brainwashing. It was called the MK-ULTRA program. And it involved drugs, hypnosis, and more. We know that Sirhan Sirhan was heavily drugged. He was extremely intoxicated the night of RFK's murder. And he said that on visits to the horse ranch where he was supposedly going to be trained to be a jockey, that he was heavily drugged. Jack Ruby was drugged. He was taking heavy doses of amphetamines. That was a drug of choice in MK-ULTRA. 

They didn't want Marina to act for them. They knew she wasn't an actress. They wanted her to adopt the new beliefs they were giving her about what happened- as her own. They wanted her to replace the memories she had of what actually happened with the things they were telling her. 

It is not possible to do that without drugs. You would have to take hallucinogenic drugs like LSD to have any chance of doing it. 

And if you don't believe me, put yourself in that situation. No matter how much you like money, whether they offered you a million, or a billion, or even a trillion, you know it's not going to have any effect on your memories. It's not going to erase the past from your mind. 

You know how they make jokes that there are some things you can only do if you're drunk. Well, this is something that you can only do if you're drugged.

Remember: Oswald never ordered and did not own a rifle. That is absolutely certain. But, Marina waxed on and on about it. It is absolutely certain that Oswald did not shoot at Walker. You realize that the bullet that Dallas Police dug out of Walker's wall wasn't even compatible with the rifle that Oswald supposedly owned but didn't. Do you realize that the day Oswald supposedly was going to go out to shoot Nixon in Dallas, Nixon wasn't in Dallas? She claimed to stop him from doing it by locking him in the bathroom, but that's impossible because from the inside, he could have unlocked it.

Her entire testimony was a complete illusionary fabrication, and she could not have spewed it without the help of mind-altering drugs.

Marina Oswald was drugged during her detention by the FBI and Secret Service. Don't doubt it for a second. 

  

John Lennon underwent marked bodily wasting between 1966 and 1968, as you can see in these images. Marina Oswald underwent bodily wasting much more rapidly than that, from late November 1963 to early February 1964. So, in just 2 1/2 months, she lost a lot of weight, and while she was under U.S. Secret Service protection. It was severe, and it wasn't due to grief. In Lennon's case, it was due to drugs. I suspect the same was true of her.

This is a very telling piece of evidence about Jack Ruby. It's his own narrative of what happened. However, it was edited by a Hollywood scriptwriter: William Read Woodfield, who went on to become a writer for the Mission Impossible tv series. 

So, the timeline subtitles that were sprinkled throughout his chronicle were inserted by Woodfield, not Ruby. Notice that Ruby said he got up early on Sunday morning. But, the subtitle says 9:30 AM. That isn't early. That's late. And notice that Ruby said he went to bed about 1 AM. That was early for Ruby. He typically stayed up until 3, 4, or even 5 AM. And if he went to bed at 5, he might get up at 9. He only slept 3 or 4 hours a night. He was strung out on amphetamines, which was part of the MK-ULTRA program. 

There is no chance that Ruby slept from 1 AM to 9:30 AM, as it says there. That's 8 1/2 hours, and Ruby never slept that long.  He was a chronic insomniac. So, if he went to bed at 1 AM, and it's in his testimony, then he must have arisen long before 9:30. 

So, why did they make it 9:30? It's because he only lived 5 minutes away from Western Union. Supposedly, he didn't send the money wire until 11:15. All he did was get dressed, eat a little breakfast, and go. So, if he got up at say, 7, which isn't early for a weekday, but I suppose it's early for a Sunday, it's too much time to kill. Even if w said 8, it's too much time to kill. 

Bingo: In his testimony to the Warren Commissioners,  Ruby said that he sent the money wire at 10:15. Instantly, a Secret Service agent, who was in San Francisco at the time, corrected him saying it was 11:15. He called him "Jack" too. Ruby didn't respond. He didn't dispute it, but he never disputed anything. But, it was no mistake on his part. He did send the money wire at 10:15. And that's one reason they had to strip him to his drawers on the 5th floor; to get his clothes, so they could find the receipt he got from WU and replace it with a phony one that said 11:15.  And if you doubt that, then why do you think they kept him in his drawers for 3 hours? There's no doubt that they did. It's in Gertz' book (his lawyer), and it's also in Bugliosi's book. 

Jack Ruby got to the garage about an hour before the televised spectacle went down. There was no shot. Was Oswald even there? I don't know. Cops just suddenly pounced on Ruby, and he didn't know why. And that's why he said, "What are you doing? You know me. I'm Jack Ruby." They dragged him up to the 5th floor, and that's where they told him that he shot Oswald. He had no memory of doing it, and to his last breath, he said he had no memory of doing it.  It's because he didn't do it. 

But, he was so strung out on drugs, and I mean high as a kite, and he was so submissive to the Dallas Police, and I mean pathologically so, that he succumbed. He offered no resistance, no defiance, and no denial whatsoever. It was all planned. It was all arranged. They knew exactly the helpless state of mind that he would be in. They put him in that state of mind. 

Jack Ruby was innocent! Completely and totally innocent.  It is the deepest, darkest secret of the JFK assassination. 

Bob Dylan referred to the JFK assassination as "murder most foul." I dare say that what they did to Jack Ruby was even more foul, considering how helpless and childlike he was. Mafia hit man? Not even close. Forget the Mafia and think CIA. Jack Ruby was MK-ULTRA'd.  

There is something else very damning that I want you to think about concerning Marina Oswald- and I mean damning to the FBI, the Secret Service and the whole damn Leviathan State. And that is: that the Secret Service grabbed her and began sequestering and detaining her on Saturday. Not Sunday after Oswald was dead, but Saturday when he was still very much alive. 

But, they could NEVER have gotten away with that if he continued to live. You can't prosecute a man for murder and detain his wife. Obviously, had he lived, Oswald would have found out that they grabbed her. Recall how angry he got when he found out that they talked to her. Imagine how he would have reacted when he found out that they had grabbed her. Imagine what he and his lawyer would have done. 

If Oswald were living, then spousal privilege would have prevailed. And part of spousal privilege is that you can't incarcerate the spouse of the accused person. 

SO, THE FACT THAT THEY DETAINED HER BEFORE OSWALD WAS KILLED IS PROOF-POSITIVE THAT THEY KNEW OSWALD WAS GOING TO BE KILLED, THAT IT WAS IN THE WORKS. 

They just jumped the gun by a day. They knew it was coming. 

Do you believe me now that Jack Ruby didn't kill Oswald, that he was just the Sirhan Sirhan of the case?

The State killed Oswald, just as the State killed Kennedy. Ruby was just the patsy, and unlike Sirhan Sirhan, he wasn't even present when it went down. Ruby is just a distraction. He is noise. The Tarantula State killed both Kennedy and Oswald. And they had to kill Oswald, because he would have exposed their vicious crimes in court. 

If you don't get it that the State is a python, you're out of touch with reality. 

Marina Oswald was the State's star witness, and they knew it; they planned it; BEFORE the assassination. It's why Hosty went to see her. 

 

An especially egregious element of the official story of the JFK assassination is that Marina Oswald, after finding out that her husband was a homicidal maniac, continued to live with him and expose her daughter to him. You get married with certain expectations, and one of them is that your spouse is not going to turn into a homicidal maniac. But supposedly, Marina's husband did. But, she just accepted the new him and went on living with him. 

Not only did she go on living with him, but when he moved away to New Orleans, she followed him there so that she could continue living with him. So, after knowing that he shot at Walker and was going to shoot at Nixon (which she prevented by locking him in the bathroom, so the story goes) she followed him to New Orleans with her daughter. Wow. That is taking "for better or for worse" to the limit.   

But, it's ridiculous because no woman would do that, and least of all a woman with a small child. What mother would subject her daughter to that? She wouldn't. She couldn't. She didn't. 

There is also the issue of her not reporting him to the police. If he could be incited to kill two men, Walker and Nixon, then why not a third? A fourth? A fifth? So you see, the official story is that Marina Oswald was directly responsible for the killing of President Kennedy since she failed to report her criminally insane husband to the police. 

But, the whole story of Oswald as a homicidal maniac is a crock of bull. Everything she told the Warren Commission about Oswald was lies -and she painted a very scary picture of her life with him, like it was something out of The Shining. But, it was a pack of lies- lies that were drilled into her by the FBI.

But, how did they get her to say those terrible things? I can imagine how it began. They told her that she was traumatized, that her mind was blocking out memories in order to protect her, but they were going to help her get those memories back. And the way they did it, besides drilling her in the things they wanted her to "remember" was with drugs: hallucinogenic drugs. 

One of the effects of hallucinogens is to blur the distinction between fantasy and reality. I am referring to drugs such as LSD, mescaline (from peyote) and hallucinogenic mushrooms. The CIA used all three of those and more in the MK-ULTRA program. That's what Marina became: an MK-ULTEA subject. 

Consider these two statements: 

"Sirhan testified in his own defense, saying he had no memory of killing Kennedy."

"Dr. Walter Bromberg, the clinical director of Pinewood Psychiatric Hospital in Westchester County, said Ruby had told him that he did not remember the killing of Lee H. Oswald on Nov. 24." 

Ruby and Sirhan. They were both MK-ULTRA patsies. Both of them were completely innocent. In Ruby's case, he wasn't even in the garage at the time. He was already tucked away up on the 5th floor, having arrived much earlier than reported.

Both of them were heavily drugged. And so was was Marina Oswald. 

One of the effects of LSD is to cause you to lose weight. It disrupts your circadian rhythms of eating and sleeping. It kills your appetite. 

John Lennon underwent a lot of weight loss from taking LSD.  But no more than Marina did when she was under the protective custody of the U.S. Secret Service. You'd think they starved her. 

And, her weight loss was not from grief. 

Do you know how they sometimes ask you if you could interview anyone, living or dead, who would it be? For me, it would be Marina Oswald. I would like to find out from her exactly what they did to her when she was MK-ULTRAd.

And think about this: When James Hosty went to Irving to interview Marina a couple weeks before the assassination, he reportedly did it to find out about Oswald.  Rubbish. They knew everything about Oswald.  He went there to find out about her; specifically, to find out how respectful she was and how submissive she was to authority. Would she cooperate? Will she do exactly as she is told? And I think he came away thinking that, yes, she will, that when the time came, when the shit hits the fan,  she will not be a problem; she will be an asset.  

I've been talking to Chris Chrichton, and he reminded me about how short and stocky the neck of the Garage Shooter was. His neck was nothing like that of Jack Ruby, whose neck was longer and narrower. You can see it here. There is no way these are the same neck. And anyone who is awake can see it. There is no basis for anyone to deny it. It's insanity to deny it. They were different men. The only reason to deny it is if you just don't want to accept the truth that Jack Ruby was innocent. 

HOW COULD THESE TWO BE THE SAME MAN?
  

Look at this pepper I just picked. I tell you, I eat good. And when you eat good, you feel good, and you can probably whip your weight in wildcats. It's just a metaphor.

 An Open Letter to Dan Abrams

from Ralph Cinque 

Dan, you are wrong about Jack Ruby. If you just look closely at the images of the Shooter and compare them to Ruby on 11/24/63, you can see that it wasn't him. Compare the backs of their heads and their hair in back. 

How can those two be the same man on the same day? 

Ruby was 5'9" the same height as Oswald. The Shooter was short. He was the shortest man in the garage. He must have been no more than 5'6." That's how tall FBI Agent James Bookhout was. And Bookhout was masquerading as Ruby during the shooting.

5.9" is average height, then and now, and there is no way a 5'9" man would appear so short in that crowd.  He isn't Ruby.

On the right below is the only frontal view of the Shooter. He is a spot-on match to James Bookhout, age-adjusted.

So, on the right, they blackened out his eyes and did other things to obscure the fact that he was James Bookhout and not Jack Ruby. 

Dan, the reason Ruby had no memory of shooting Oswald is because he didn't shoot him. Ruby showed up at the garage 45 minutes to an hour earlier than claimed. He was pounced upon and dragged up to the 5th floor jail. That's where he was when the made-for-television spectacle occurred. 

Jack Ruby is the most wronged man in history. He was totally innocent of shooting Oswald. He had nothing to do with it. But, he was impaired mentally (due at least in part to drugs that he was given) and he was incapable of grasping what really happened. What about you, Dan? Are you capable of grasping what really happened? Please respond to this email if you want to know more; if you want to be on the side of truth and on the right side of history.  Thank you. Ralph Cinque 

Doggone it, this legal analyst Dan Abrams has got it completely and totally wrong about Jack Ruby. He's come out with a new book, Kennedy's Avenger, and of course, he supports the official story that Ruby shot Oswald, and he did it alone. And that's why he's getting a ton of media coverage and free publicity.  

But, if he would just listen to himself, he points out two things that should tell him that he's wrong. 

First, he admits that Ruby claimed, through his lawyers at trial and in public statements, that he had no memory of shooting Oswald. Well, Abrams today, like Ruby's lawyers then, refuses to consider that the reason he had no memory of it is because he didn't do it. Ruby's whole basis for "confessing" was that others told him that he did it. 

And, the second thing Abrams points out is that Ruby brought his dog Sheba with him that Sunday morning. He mistakenly said that Ruby referred to Sheba as his child. That's not what Ruby said. He referred to Sheba as his wife. 

So, the fact that Ruby brought his dog along, and the fact that by the time he reached the basement, it was well past the time that Oswald was to be transferred. convinces Abrams that Ruby had no intention of shooting Oswald. 

And of course, Ruby didn't have the intention to shoot Oswald. And he didn't shoot him. If you just look at the pictures of the shooter and compare them to Ruby on 11/24/63, and we have pictures of him (mug shots) you can see that the Shooter was shorter, more portly, and had very different hair. He's not Jack Ruby, and you can see it. But, you have to have your eyes and your mind open. 

Go ahead and watch this. Dan Abrams is a man who is engaging in self-delusion.  

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LAYknihwNz_eMQawBl6ZkpNw73qCp41p/view?fbclid=IwAR0-fb4xnRWdYt8B9W-CmGYu3IyscSsnZu0rf_BCEd3ragbxnDRAXMhUg2w

Jack Ruby was innocent; completely, totally innocent. These two men cannot possibly be the same man on the same day. 

Paul Popa laid down a beautiful guitar track to the voice of Hannah Vaughn singing Pallin' Around With Me which I wrote for my 3rd film The Pro Bono Watchman. And now, I'm going to share some inside information about the film. In it, a character gets attacked by being shot with an ice dart that is laced with a poison. 

Now, where do you think I got that from? I got it from real life. That is exactly what happened to John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963, and with our own eyes, we can see in the Zapruder film the effects that the poison was having on him: his spasmodic paralysis, where he couldn't put his arms down. It was like they were frozen. Also, the effect on his mental state, the complete obliteration of his mind, where he became docile and childlike and totally incapable of realizing what was happening to him or doing anything about it. And that was the whole idea, to make him a sitting duck once he entered the Kill Zone.  

Of course, there is nothing about the JFK assassination in the movie. It has nothing to do with it. But, I feel good about introducing this way of attacking someone. And we should not assume that JFK was the only one who was targeted in this manner. Billy Lovelady died suddenly of a "heart attack" when he was only 41. It was right before the HSCA Final Report was released. Richard Case Nagell died of a heart attack one day after the ARRB informed him in a letter that they wanted him to submit to questioning about the assassination. And there are others similar. Dead men tell no tales. 

But, let me be clear: JFK is the only one that I know, with absolute certainty, was attacked in this manner. The others are just suspicious.

Paul flew in just to do the song for the film, and he's gone now. But, before we left, we recorded one of his favorite songs, This Masquerade, by Leon Russell. It's a very nice song, even with my raspy voice. So please give it a listen. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT2MdDNPQzM

This has been a very busy week for me working on the film, The Pro Bono Watchman, and also on the song for the film which I composed, Pallin' Around With Me. This picture was taken on Tuesday evening at the recording studio of George Coyne in Manchaca, Texas. Paul Popa and I are posing with our vocalist, the lovely Hanna Vaughn, who laid down her vocal track to the song, and she did a great job. What an evening.