Do you realize the implication of saying that Ruby's soiled underwear were put in Bin Number N-30? Although on this on, the N30 is crossed out and replaced with N18. This ridiculous property invoice was done multiple times, multiple ways, and in different colors, and with different stamps and scribblings.  But, if the bins went up to letter N, that means there had to be bins A through M. You know, like the Cat in the Hat, with little cats O,P, Q, etc. And since the Ns went up to 30, at least, we have to assume that all the other letters did as well. So, it means that the Dallas PD was crawling with all these bins containing the clothes and belongings of their detainees, and that they had to keep track of all the stuff and return everything to their rightful owner- somehow. 

And since, they were replacing shoes, and feet come in all different sizes, it means that they must have had a shoe room bigger than that of a major bowling alley. 

"Let me guess, Jack: I bet you're a 10 1/2 D. Am I right?"

But, the worst thing of all is that if you're going to take a man's soiled, sweaty underwear, l hope to God you have enough sense to put it in some kind of hamper and launder it. You don't just put dirty underwear in a bin. 

So now, we also gotta have a big laundry there at the DPD: washers, dryers, etc., 

Now, in reality, this was just a very stupid ruse that was thought up by a very stupid man who never thought that 58 years later, anyone would be questioning his designation of N30 or N18 as the bin destination of Ruby's stuff. And maybe he thought it added a nice touch to cross out the N30 and make it N18, but what about the other copies that still say N30? 

Look, they just fucked up with the mug shot. They gave it away that it's not Jack Ruby in the famous Jackson photo. It's somebody else: James Bookhout. And he was wearing white socks and wingtip shoes, which Ruby did not wear. 

And that of course makes the whole thing very bloodied: bloodied for Oswald; bloodied for Ruby; and bloodied for JFK. Who is going to defend this? How about you, Dr. John McAdams? You're a college professor, at least, you were. You were in charge of young minds. Let's have you defend this. And before you do, raise your right hand and repeat after me, "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God."   

This is Oswald on Saturday morning after his morning interrogation with Fritz, et al. Notice that he is back in a tee-shirt. He was allowed to wear his outer shirt to the Midnight Press Conference, but it is not seen on him at all on Saturday. But then on Sunday, we are supposed to believe that the Dallas Police provided Jack Ruby with a shirt, pants, and underwear. That's right, underwear. Now, who would believe that? Who would defend it? In reality, they came up with that about the underwear because Ruby had on black socks for his mug shot, whereas the Garage Shooter wore light socks. And as I have pointed out, even the shoes didn't match. So, they had to make the story that they gave Ruby other shoes as well. And they made it that his clothes and shoes and underwear all went into Bin N30. 

You need to understand that Lee Harvey Oswald shot John F. Kennedy, and Jack Ruby shot Lee Harvey Oswald. All that is official. The fact that it isn't true doesn't matter. It's a matter of saving the historical record. It's a matter of purifying the historical record. And the number of people who are aware of the discrepancy of the socks and the shoes is so small, that they can be ignored. You just slap them with the "conspiracy theorist" label, and then you issue another Frontline or History Channel rendering about Oswald and repeat how he was gunned down by Jack Ruby during a jail transfer, and you have saved the Republic. No one in high places cares about the truth. The historians don't care about the truth. The media doesn't care about the truth. Not even the Kennedy family cares about the truth. All anyone cares about is whitewashing the evil that was done. Evil abounds. Evil prevails. And the good died a long time ago. 

In response to 9/11, the United States government went on a killing spree of gargantuan proportion, killing millions of people, and the number of them who had anything to do with 9/11 was zero.

Why weren't Americans outraged? Why weren't even Iraqi-Americans and Afghan-Americans outraged? These monstrous acts of genocide did not even dampen the sense of greatness and superiority that American leaders have- as do the American people. How do you maintain that in the face of such atrocities? 

Even prior to that, America's criminality should have been evident. But after that? When we all found out together that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, that everything that was claimed to justify launching that war was a lie? How do you brush that off and go on with your delusion that your country does people a favor by attacking them to liberate them and get them to where they get to vote? Because: getting to vote is the be-all and end-all, and if your loved ones had to die in order for elections to be held in your country, it was well worth it, and you should thank us. 

Every day, I see articles about the dire situation in Afghanistan, with up to 90% of Afghans at risk of starvation. They say it would cost a "staggering" $2.4 billion to stop it.  That amount is staggering? That amount is a small fraction of the daily budget deficit that the United States government runs up every single day. Then, there is $9 billion in the Afghan government account that we could turn over to the Taliban. And if we don't want to give them the cash, we could buy food with it and give them the food. But, some first want guarantees about letting girls go to school, and if some of those girls die first of starvation, so be it. You see, when we had our stooges in power, we were all about helping the Afghans, because after all, we did it for them. But, these reports are not even accompanied by appeals to contribute to the International Red Cross. Our government and media are content to let the Afghans starve, now that our stooges are out, because the reality is that we don't give a smoldering shit about the Afghans and never did.  

The demonization of America is complete, where even the regular people have been converted into bloodied little demons who go along with their government's crimes, completely ignoring the wanton and grotestque atrocities that America commits, again and again in the conduct of its profane and criminal wars. Yes, the molding of Americans is complete to where just about everybody is bloodied. It's a matter of culture now. That is the American culture. And it's hardly surprising that actual physical bloodyness is at its highest peak. The savagery of America's foreign policy has spilled over into blood on the streets in a magnitude that has never been seen before.  They decay, the decadence, and the descent into hellishness is with us, and all we're waiting on now is the ultimate economic collapse. But, I don't expect our government and media to have the same attitude if it's Americans who are starving. They'll demand that we do something, which will be to print even more money. But, what happens when the money just plain dies?  

 

 

The Architects and Engineers are suing NIST over their Building 7 report, which claims that Building7 collapsed due to office fires. You probably recognize this guy because he has been the face of NIST for a long time. 

Now, NIST has filed a court motion to have the case dismissed on a technicality, and the Architects and Engineers are fighting back. They can't wait to pit their experts against NIST's experts about the physics of Building 7 collapse. 

But, if I were a betting man, I would bet on NIST. And that's because NIST is just an srm of the U.S. government. It's the U.S. government that maintains the official narrative about 9/11, and NIST just provides the pseudo-scientific jargon for it. But, the Court is also an arm of the U.S. government. The judge is an employee of the U.S. government. And the bias in this case, is overwhelming. The U.S. government is not going to eviscerate itself. No 9/11 lawsuit has ever succeeded. Every one has been dismissed with extreme prejudice. And if this fails too, as I think it will, I hope the Architects and Engineers will learn a lesson, that they can't expect the courts to help them.  

Again, this was spurred by Rick Bucciarelli, who pointed to the contrast in how the Dallas Police Department handled Oswald's clothes and how they handled Ruby's. Oswald got nothing. They didn't give him anything. And even the clothes he wore when he walked the green mile were his own clothes. 

At 4 pm on Friday, he went through the first lineup. And for that, they took his shirt away. And Oswald complained about it. This is a picture of him complaining about it. He is pointing to his t-shirt. 

He said "All these other guys have shirts. How come I'm the only one who doesn't have one?" So, why did they do that? I think it was because when Brennan described the guy he saw in the window, he said he wore a white shirt. He didn't say it was a t-shirt, but white is white. 

But then, afterwards, they did not give him his shirt back until the Midnight Press Conference. There, we see him in his shirt again. He spoke of the arraignment at which he complained to the judge that he was being denied legal representation. Think about that for a minute. He complained to a judge that he was being denied a lawyer, and then less than 24 hours later, when one was offered he turned it down? You really need to believe me that that whole bit about H. Louis Nichols visiting Oswald in his cell is a con. And I don't say that Nichols was in on it. He was conned too. They used an Oswald double, which they had. And the purpose of it was damage control from what Oswald said so eloquently at the Midnight Press Conference about being denied a lawyer.

So, from the video that is available to us, Oswald was stipped of his shirt at 4 pm on Friday. He was given his shirt back for the Midnight Press Conference. Then, all day Saturday he is is shirtless in the footage that we have. And then on Sunday, he was shot wearing his own clothes which they got from his room. 

Now, compare that to Jack Ruby who had all his clothes changed down to his underwear, including socks and shoes.  

Now, if that doesn't jar you, why? It's a bloodied thing. You are looking at gore when you ponder the fact that Oswald got nothing and Ruby had every stitch of his clothing changed, down to his underwear. It is indefensable. It is impossible to rationalize. It is absolutely impossible to come up with an excuse for it. 

Yet, I realize that there are plenty of people who just don't care. What if I could send this to every History teacher and every History professor in America? How many of them would be moved by it? I would like to think that a few would, but I have no doubt that the vast majority would just brush it off as as the ravings of a conspiracy theorist, and go on with their deluded lives.   

   

Rick Bucciarelli reminded me of the debacle over Ruby's mug shot, where they exposed that he wore black socks, whereas the Garage Shooter wore light socks. 

In the words of the vernacular, they fucked up. I'm a filmmaker, and I know how easy it is for stuff to fall between the cracks. And that's what  happened here. You just can't catch everything, and they didn't catch this. So, right away they went to damage control and said that Ruby's underwear was changed. Can you imagine that they had the nerve to claim such a thing? They only held prisoners until their arraignment, and then, they were either flat-out released, or released on bail, or they were remanded to the County Jail. Under no circumstances did they remain in the City Jail. So, why would they change their clothes? You can't make sense of that, not in your wildest dreams.  

And it wasn't just the socks, it was also the shoes. The Garage Shooter wore a dressy wingtip that was very low at the ankle; it dipped at the ankle. Whereas, Ruby wore what looks like a work shot that had a relatively high top. It was high at the ankle.

Now, this is a smoking gun. It's the smokingest gun that there ever was. But, what do you think would happen if I showed it to the Attorney General? Nothing would happen. He wouldn't care.  If you're loyal to America, you don't question the official narrative of the JFK assassination. 

There are a lot of claims about Oswald and Ruby having met, for instance, that Oswald went to the Carousel Club. Now, why would he do that when he didn't drink and he didn't like to be around smoke? Other claims were that they were both at a "safe house," that they were both present at a weapons handoff, and more In this video, you can see and hear Jack Ruby say that he never met Oswald. 

I know that people can lie, but I'm asking you to be the judge of that. Juries do it all the time, don't they? Even if a defendant takes the stand and says that he didn't do it, they flat-out don't believe him, and they convict him. So, you be the jury this time, and see if you think Ruby was lying. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3frRy03qKV8 

And then he said that the word "anger" isn't in his vocabulary. And I believe it because the word "anger" is in my vocabulary, and if I got railroaded for a crime I didn't commit, I'd be screaming bloody murder. But, Jack Ruby was so passive, so submissive, so non-aggressive, that he was incapable of doing it. And tell me, now that you've seen it, does he look like someone who would throw people down the stairs? He reportedly did that repeatedly. 

And think about it: If he wasn't angry, if all he was feeling was remorse, then why would he kill somebody? Don't you have to be angry to do that? This should tell us that he did not go around that weekend thinking, "I hate Oswald, I hate Oswald." He went to Western Union on Sunday morning with his dog Sheba in the car. He was planning to take her to the Carousel Club because there was someone there who was going to look after her. Now, how could he think such a thing? "So, let's see: I'm going to send the money to Little Lynn, then I'll kill Oswald, and then I'll deliver Sheba to the club."  Obviously, he had no intention whatsoever of shooting Oswald. 

He didn't do it. The same people who killed Kennedy killed Oswald. The delusion that Jack Ruby killed Oswald is one of the biggest mass delusions of all time. It took 50 years for Maxim Irkutz to first say it. And the means by which they got Ruby there was a total manipulation, starting with the call from Karen Carlin (Little Lynn). It's no wonder she went into the Witness Protection Program afterwards and was relocated to Michigan under a different name. 

So, they got him a block and a half away just by doing that. But, they drugged him first. He even said that he took more than his usual pills that morning. He didn't say why, and maybe they edited it out. Maybe his "roommate" George Senator (think Sigi's roomate in The Odessa File) put him up to it. And I strongly suspect that one of those drugs was scapolamine, which the CIA learned about from the Nazis. It completely destroys a person's will. So, if someone in the WU office said to him, "You ought to go down see what's going on at the ramp" he would have done it, and he did do it. And then at the ramp, if someone nudged him to go down the ramp, he would have done that. He was in a daze, a fog. His ship was pilotless. And that happened well before the Garage Spectacle. They got him tucked away on the 5th floor in advance, so that they could slip him into the story later, and no one would suspect a thing. They were careful not to capture the face of the Garage Shooter, and even though he was shorter and pudgier than Ruby, people just ignored it, as they do today.   

The magnitude of the evil of all this is staggering. Jack Ruby was innocent. Completely, totally innocent. The people who arrested him and charged him, the Dallas Police, were Oswald's real killers.  

A report that came out today in the New York Times confirms that there is nothing exaggerated about the claims made in My Stretch of Texas Ground about how horrifically the post-9/11 wars were fought. And it's ironic because the New York Times usually defends U.S. government claims and actions.

The gist of it is that the new way that the U.S. fights its wars, which is to do it almost entirely from the air, kills a lot of innocents. I consider this a vindication of My Stretch of Texas Ground. "The Times reported that a drone strike in Kabul, Afghanistan, which U.S. officials said had destroyed a vehicle laden with bombs, had instead killed 10 members of a family. Last month, The Times reported that dozens of civilians were killed in a 2019 bombing in Baghuz, Syria that the military had hidden from public view. Now, a Times investigation has found that these were not outliers but rather the regular casualties of a transformed way of war gone wrong."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/know-civilian-casualty-files-162317088.html

 From his hospital bed a few days after the assassination, Connally said that they heard the first shot right after they made the turn. 

Of course, that didn't mesh with the official story, but the official story wasn't out yet. But, what shot was that? If they had wanted to put a bullet in Kennedy's head at the top of the Plaza, they surely could have done it. But, they did NOT want to kill him there, not with all those people around and all those eyes fixed on him. They wanted to wait until he got down to the Grassy Knoll area where there were few people and half of them were operatives. 

So, the shot that Conally was referring to was the shot that I talk about; the preparatory shot; the one whose purpose was to incapacitate Kennedy, physically and mentally, so that once the real shooting began, he would not be able to take evasive action. And you can plainly see in the Zapruder film that he was intoxicated, and he was seized up in his muscles. Now, that has to be accounted for, and the only thing that can account for it is that he was poisoned. This was before the fatal head shot, and he did not suffer any trauma to his central nervous system, to that point. So, it had to be due to poisoning, and that was the purpose of the first shot, to poison him. It was an icedart containing a nerve agent, most likely paralytic shellfish toxin.  And, it may have contained more than that.  

This 1953 song is a signature song of Tony Bennett, and perhaps his most signature song. I assume you heard that he has Alzheimer's disease and won't be singing or recording any more. It's the end of an era because he was the last great crooner of his generation. So many great songs he sang better than anyone. So, this is my tribute to Tony Bennett, a great singer and a great man.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pC3PAdNDPzU

This is said to be Marina Oswald being taken to see Oswald's dead body at Parkland.

 But, here she is walking into the morgue room. Her coat was on, her hair was not pulled back. It was hanging down. 

And notice little Junie who was born in 1961. It was 1963, so she was 2 years old. Who brings a 2 year old to go look at her father's butchered body? That is weird. But, look at the other picture of the kid in blue jeans. Does that look like a 2 year old to you?

This is a picture of Oswald on the stretcher as they are about to load him into the ambulance. Notice his right hand is lying right on the area of entry. You're not supposed to do that to an abdominal gunshot victim because any added pressure will increase the bleeding. Oswald could not have done it himself because he was unconscious. So, someone must have put his hand there. 

 I don't know what that white thing is. Notice that there is a folded blanket over his legs. Now, this is him as they are unloading him at Parkland. Look where his right hand is now:

So, his right hand went from lying on top of the entrance wound to being raised aside his head in extreme external rotation. So, it went from extreme internal rotation to extreme external rotation. So, how did it happen. This is what Dr. Bieberdorf said about Oswald's movements in the ambulance.

Mr. HUBERT. And when he got to the ambulance you saw signs of life?
Dr. BIEBERDORF. I did not until we got about halfway to Parkland.
Mr. HUBERT. You thought he was dead?
Dr. BIEBERDORF. Yes--I surmised he was dead until he started moving a little bit.

Moving that arm from the one to the other would have been a lot more than moving a little.  I presume that Bieberdorf meant that he was fidgeting. And who knows, Oswald may have been jostled because he wasn't strapped in, and the ambulance was speeding, so whenever it turned, he could have been jostled. 

But, I know the amount of damage that Oswald sustained, and I can tell you that he could not have had the ability to pick up his arm and move it like that. And I don't see how it could have happened just from jostling. 

So, it is a mystery as to how Oswald's right hand went from one to the other, and  I have to wonder whether it's fraud. We know they did reenactments of this. Here's one using a younger lankier Leavelle.

That is not Jim Leavelle. Here is the real one:

Here is a comparison of their footware. The impostor wore boots; the real one wore swede shoes.

You can watch the whole movie Parkland with ads on Youtube. I wanted to see if they attempted to renact the Zapruder film, but they did not. In fact, for the entire assassination, they actually kept the camera on Zapruder. He's filming and you hear three shots. The camera stays on him. It doesn't return to the Z-film until the limo is speeding under the underpass.

What a stupid way to make a movie about the JFK assassination: to keep the camera on Zapruder for the whole thing. Why did they do it that way?

So, Hanks paid Bugliosi millions for the rights to his book. The book is mainly about the assassination: what happened when JFK got shot; how it went down. But, in the end, they decided not to depict any of it. Why?

I know why. It's because it's impossible to duplicate the Zapruder film. If anyone tried to, they could never do it. Even though the freeway sign isn't there any more. it would be simple enough to install a proxy for it. But if you did, and you did it accurately, and then you shot from Zapruder's pedestal, you'd see that your sign looks nothing like the one in the Z-film. You'd be scratching your head and wondering, "How the hell did he do that?"

So, they decided not to show the meat of the Zapruder film and not to reproduce it. This was a movie about the JFK assassination that didn't cover it at all. They did not show it to you.

Since the JFK assassination wasn't depicted in the movie, what did they need Bugliosi's book for? The movie was supposed to "debunk the debunkers." But, how could it possibly do that if they avoided showing the event? You literally see nothing.

As a filmmaker, I have to wonder how they could make a film about the JFK assassination without showing it.

Now I know why they called it Parkland because it is not a movie about the JFK assassination; it's about the aftermath of the JFK assassination. But, it was chicken shit way to do it; a cowardly way to do it. If Hanks really thought that Bugliosi had a lock on the truth, he should have depicted his rendering of it. But, he skirted it completely. Instead, he showed all these characters coping with the aftermath and showing a lot of valor and fortitude. It's just a puff piece. It didn't get into the ring with the debunkers. This movie said "No mas" from the beginning.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzTN947b3H8

This is a book review by Dr. Thomas Halle of the book, LBJ: The Dark Side of Lyndon Baines Johnson by Joachim Joesten.  

You may recall that--over the last few years--I've been perusing some of the volumes in my JFK assassination library... to refresh my memory (and, in some cases, make additional "discoveries"). Today the book in question was Joesten's book on LBJ ("The Dark Side of Lyndon Baines Johnson")...and here is my review of that volume:

I laid my hands on this volume more than ten years ago, and was delighted to learn a considerable amount about LBJ's corrupt history. Yet, sometimes a "second read" of a book will reveal additional details (or provide a more complete "picture" of a topic). I've been perusing it this morning....and have learned that--yes--Johnson only won his Senate seat by "slick maneuvering" (my words), but this early "win" was done with an incredible number of  (scandalous) "steps" to make him "Landslide Lyndon." This practically unbelievable story leaves one breathless. Johnson overcame a 20,000-vote deficit to achieve his famous 87-vote victory in the 1948 Democratic runoff primary against the popular former Governor, Coke Stevenson. A South Texas political boss, George Parr, had manufactured thousands of votes, particularly in one county, Jim Wells County, the county seat being the town of Alice. 

RC: That LBJ stole the 1948 Senate election through ballot fraud is widely recognized. Even Robert Caro in his adulating biodgraphy of LBJ admitted it bold-faced in the second volume, entitled Means of Ascent. Now back to Thomas:  

Of course, of great interest has been Joesten's documentation of LBJ's connection with Bobby Baker and Billy Sol Estes (and Johnson's very likely imminent indictment, along with them, over MASSIVE corrupt practices!), at the time of the presidential visit to Texas in November of 1963, which seems to explain why he was so intent on being sworn in as the 36th president (on AF1) before returning to Washington.

Yet there is also biting content in this book which strongly implicates Johnson (and his cronies) in the death of his predecessor.  PARTICULARLY poignant was the revelation (which had slipped my attention years ago), that Manchester's book "Death of a President" originally had the title "Death of a Lancer," and contained material which was scathingly critical of Johnson. Only because of the urging of Jacqueline and Robert Kennedy, was this material excised, leaving us with a very pallid, unsatisfying narrative.

By far the most interesting aspect of this matter, however, is Epstein's contention that Manchester's original theme, which gave unity to his book, was 'the notion that Johnson, the successor, was somehow responsible for the death-of his predecessor'. Several quotations from the original draft bear out this contention. At one point, the Lancer version states, 'The shattering fact of the assassination is that a Texas murder has made a Texan President'. At another, Kenneth O'Donnell, Kennedy's appointments secretary, is quoted as exclaiming 'They did it. I always knew they'd do it. You couldn't expect anything else from them. They finally made it'. Then Manchester comments: 'He didn't specify who "they" were. It was unnecessary. They were Texans, Johnsonians'.

 If you are a serious student of the assassination, this book is a Must-Have!!! Yes, the "Military-Intelligence Apparatus" (or, to use Col. Prouty's term, the "Secret Team") was behind the murder of a sitting US chief executive, but Johnson and his Texas Oil cronies were also in the midst of this UNSPEAKABLE plot.

https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Side-Lyndon-Baines-Johnson/dp/1771520094

This is the video of Ruby combing his hair at the Dallas parade in 1960. You see him combing the sides of his hair, repeatedly, but he NEVER runs the comb over the top. In the picture, it looks like he has a short thick tuft of hair in front and then sparse strands behind it on top. But, if he did, he would have combed it. The fact that he only combed the sides and never the top should tell you that that was fake. And it looks fake. When have you ever seen a man with hair like that? It is not how men go bald. 

https://vimeo.com/246328143

The scary thing is that they controlled the media enough to get Ruby's hair doctored all the time, although it never looked the same way twice. 

The reason they did it is because Bookhout wore a toupee to the Garage Spectacle that was like a rug.  It was such a thick mane that they could not let Ruby be bald. 

To my good friend XXXX:

The image on the right has baffled me for years. I have taken your collage and slightly enlarged the image of Courtroom Ruby who is on the left, and now I would like to address it. 

If you are correct that the man on the right wasn't Ruby, it means that they did massive manipulation of his face to make him look like Ruby, where they essentially gave him Ruby's face through photographic replacement, as they did with Oswald in the Backyard photos. I say that because this much likeness of dopplegangers is impossible. 

And note that Ruby did not have as much hair as the courtroom image shows, let alone such long strands of it. If you look at how low his hairline was on the side, you realize that his baldness was severe- too severe to retain a thick tuft in front. 

Even his lawyer behind him at higher hair on the sides than Ruby did, and look at his condition in front. This was when they went to hear the verdict. They left a few seconds later, and this was Ruby going out. 

The brazen, arrogant bastards had the nerve to keep doing that, although their hair installments were never consistent and often goofy.

Below was Ruby in 1960 at a Dallas parade, and it was probably doctored too because men do not go bald like this. When he went to comb his hair, he didn't even run the comb over the top at all- despite the tuft.  

So, don't be concerned about the lack of hair on the DPD image of Ruby because he really was that bald. As you said, there is hair from the man deep to him that looks deceptively like Ruby's.  

But, getting back to the comparison collage, notice the spot-on match of the ears, mouth, chin, and even nose. This much likeness of features between two unrelated men is impossible.

So, if that man on the right wasn't Ruby, they must have imposed Ruby's face over him. They certainly didn't find someone who looked that much like him. 

Now, as far as the absurd speed at which he dropped in the footage that was manipulated too. The very same thing happened to Oswald in the film of the Garage Shooting where after being shot, Oswald drops that fast. 

So, if that guy at the DPD wasn't Ruby, they did give him Ruby's face. And regardless, he certainly was not the Garage Shooter, who was short and pudgy, as you can plainly see.

About 3% of the population have prominent ears, where they stick out more than a certain amount. The guy on the left in this collage has  prominent ears. I put the other two guys in next him just to show you, so you have no doubt. They don't have prominent ears. 

Billy Lovelady had prominent ears, and the only reason we know is because Mark Lane pirated a photo of him. That's Lovelady on the lower right, and you can see that his ears protruded and quite a lot. 

But what about Doorway Man? He didn't have prominent ears. His ears looked like Oswald's. They were the same size, same shape, and same angle. Take a look. It's one more reason to cry foul. And it shows you how concerted the effort was to hide the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was standing in the doorway during the shooting of President Kennedy. 

 

What did Lee Harvey Oswald say? All we can be sure of are the things he said on tape, where we can see and hear him say it. We know that he declared his innocence numerous times on tape. I think when I counted, it was 13x that he denied killing anyone. He denied it adamantly, although the word he used was "emphatically." He said, "I emphatically deny these charges."

The next thing he said in greatest volume and repetition was that he was being denied a lawyer. "These police officers won't let me have one." He said that on tape. Now, would he say that if he would settle only for John Abt? There was no way the police officers could provide him with John Abt, and he had to know that. So, that statement is evidence that Oswald was willing to accept another lawyer.

And that's why I keep telling you, and pleading with you, not to believe that Oswald ever met with H. Louis Nichols and turned down his offer to get him a lawyer. Never happened. Not a chance. They had an Oswald double fool Nichols, and regretably, fool the world. That was Saturday evening, and they had to know that Oswald was going to be killed the next morning. That's because the genie was out of the bottle. Nichols had already announced it on television- to the world. But, imagine if Oswald had lived. Surely, he would have gotten a lawyer eventually, and surely they would have discussed it. And when the lawyer found out that Oswald never met with Nichols, the shit would have hit the fan- for the prosecution. The FBI and the Dallas Police would have been screwed. What they did they knew they could get away with because they knew Oswald was going to be dead.

There are other things that Oswald said that are not in doubt and which were very exonerating. He said that he did NOT own a rifle. Now, if he did, and if someone else shot Kennedy with it, he surely wasn't stupid enough to deny owning the rifle. How many times has someone used someone else's gun to shoot someone? "It's my rifle, but I didn't shoot anyone with it. Someone used my rifle in order to frame me." How hard is it to say that? He would have said it.

Then there was the so-called evidence of him having ordered the rifle from Chicago under the name A. Hidell. He didn't do that. He probably didn't even possess a P.O. box, as they claimed. But, here's the most damning thing- to them. They didn't show that evidence to him. They could have. They supposedly tracked the rifle to Chicago that very evening. Before the sun rose on Saturday morning, they had it. So, why didn't they show it to him? I mean: to get him to stop lying. There can only be one answer: Because they were the ones lying. It was all bogus. Completely, totally, bogus.

And I don't assume that the decision not to show it to him came from Fritz. It came from Bookhout. Do you remember how Karl Rove was called Bush's brain? Well, James Bookhout was Fritz' brain. He was the real boss at the interrogations, not Fritz. Fritz did what he was told.

But, think about it. The perpetrators knew that Oswald didn't own a rifle and that their evidence was fake and phony, and they also knew that the moment he told a lawyer that he didn't own a rifle, that they were screwed up the yin-yang. That's why there was no way that they were going to let Oswald speak to a lawyer. And that decision had to come from Bookhout too. Think about it: Fritz arranged for Ruby to have a lawyer, and he let Ruby consult with that lawyer before Fritz interrogated him. So, why didn't he do the same with Oswald?

Oswald denied ever telling Frazier that he was bringing back curtain rods. And note that it follows from the previous point that he couldn't have. If he didn't own a rifle, then he didn't need to lie about taking one to work. People only tell the lies they need to tell.

I don't know how they got Frazier to say that. But, I do know that they put Frazier under a tremendous amount of pressure. They threatened to charge him as Oswald's accomplice. And, I find it very unnerving that Frazier only started working at the TSBD a month before Oswald. It seems awfully convenient. And they only moved into that building a month before that. So, the whole operation was in the works before Frazier got there.

And they must have ridden Frazier hard.

"He must have told you something. What did he say was in the long narrow bag? It was about as long as curtain rods. Did he say it was curtain rods? Look: you need to give us an answer. If you don't, we're going to take out the handcuffs. You are going to the electric chair, boy. You are going to fry. Now, did he say it was curtain rods?"

I suspect it was something like that.

Oswald denied ever going to Mexico City. And of course, he didn't. Supposedly, the CIA trailed Oswald the whole time he was in Mexico City, and of course, if they had, they would have taken numerous photographs of him. But, they had none. They had less than none because they tried to pass off phony ones, which didn't work. Nobody bought it. Then they had to drum up excuses for the bogus images.

The purpose of fabricating the trip to Mexico City was to link Oswald to Russia or Cuba or both. That was before the lone gunman narrative got written. Once they decided to go "lone nut" they didn't need Mexico City any more, but they were stuck with it. And do you know that to this day, Fox News runs specials about Oswald in Mexico City. Who did he see? Who did he meet with? Who did he conspire with? Why is the government lying to us about this? We demand answers. The idiocy just keeps growing.

Oswald denied the authenticiy of the Backyard photos, and that was a flub of the FBI. They must have intended for those photos to be discovered after Oswald's death. After all, they didn't show him or tell him about the bogus invoice for the rifle. They didn't ask him about the bogus P.O. box. So, why would they ask him about bogus photographs? And just imagine what must have gone through Oswald's head. If he had any doubt that he was being framed, those doubts had to vanish once he saw those bogus images of himself.

The killing of Kennedy and the framing and killing of Oswald was a monstrous plot comitted by monstrous men. But then, thousands more followed in their wake, perpetuating the lies, and, in effect, pumping more bullets into the bodies of Kennedy and Oswald.

This comes down to Good vs. Evil. Anyone who supports the official story of the JFK assassination is endorsing and practicing evil. If truth and decency matter to you at all, then you will categorically reject the official story.

A man who has been imprisoned by the U.S. at Guantanamo Bay for nearly 20 years, but never charged with a crime or brought to trial, is petitioning to be released on the grounds that Biden has declared the Afgahnistan War over.

His name is Abu Zubaydah, and he is Saudi, but ethnically, he is Palestinian. He undoubtedly and indisputably was tortured by us, although some of it was administered at secret CIA prisons in Poland and Thailand. He lost an eye. His left eye. 

The Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the U.S. government from committing such atrocities. However, on the technicality that he is not a U.S. citizen, those rights were abridged. But, we should remember that those rights were derived from inherent human rights to which every person is entitled. That the U.S. government would want to commit such atrocities against anyone shows you that they disregard the human rights of everyone. They don't respect anyone's right to life. During our illegal war in Afghanistan, we bombed 9 wedding parties. At the time we filmed My Stretch of Texas Ground, the number was 8, but then it became 9. And after each one, we apologized for killing innocent men, women, chldren, the aged, etc. But then, we went on and did it again. 

Why? And how? I'll tell you. It's because the U.S. government will do ANYTHING to accomplish its military objectives.  It would rather accomplish them without killing innocents, but if it has to kill innocents to accomplish them, it will. It sees its military objecties as sacrosanct; as worth sacrificing human lives for, including innocent ones. 

And it isn't new. It's always been that way. If you study the real history of the Vietnam War and the Korean War, you'll discover the horrific war crimes, crimes against humanity, that we committed in those wars. And the same goes for World War I and World War II.

The criminal wars against Afghanistan and Iraq were started by George W. Bush, and there is no statue of limitations. He could still be arrested, charged, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to spend the rest of his life in prison for his crimes . But, his authorization to commit those crimes, and more, was supposedly derived form the Authorization to use Military Force Act of 2001, which passed almost unanimously by Congress. One lone Congresswoman, who is African-American, had the guts to stand alone and say no. Her name is Barbara Lee. Are you lacking in heroes? Well, here's one for you. 

That is fodder for a screenplay, and I should write it. 

But, the point is that the cowardice and the criminality goes beyond Bush. The spineless sissies in Congress are also responsible for turning the United States into a criminal, terrorist nation. 

But, getting backing to Abu Zubaydah, he was never involved in 9/11, and the U.S. government has admitted all along that he wasn't. And the U.S. government also conceded all along that he wasn't and isn't a member of Al Qaeda. He was incarcerated for fighting against us in Afghanistan. But, we went to Afghanistan and started that war. We started bombing and killing. We're the ones who crossed an ocean and two seas to do that. We went to them; they didn't come to us. 

And now that war is over. The side on which Zubayda was fighting won. We lost; they won. And after a war is over, even if you are the winning side, and we're not, you release your prisoners of war. There is absolutely no reason to continue detaining him. 

Mark Denbeaux, Abu's lead attorney, described the Zubaydah case as “the perfect storm that exposed the evil behavior driving the global war on terror and the torture program in particular.”

For more than four years he was held in CIA black sites in Thailand and Poland and subjected to some of the most brutal torture ever carried out by the US state. Zubaydah became the guinea pig for a program devised by two psychologists under contract to the CIA euphemistically known as “enhanced interrogation” but widely denounced as torture.

He was waterboarded 83 times in one month, held for hours in the nude with his hands shackled above his head, deprived of sleep for days at a time, and stuffed into a closed box resembling a coffin.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/dec/03/guantanamo-abu-zubaydah-war-is-over-afghanistan-court-filing

Evil. The spiraling descent into evil has taken over the United States- lock, stock, and barrel, and really, it is no wonder that we have 15 year olds going on shooting rampages at high schools. The foul rot is systemic.