It's hard to get off the subject of Ukraine, as catastrophic as the tragedy is. Putin's decision to do this will go down in history as one of the worst mistakes ever made, right up there with the decision by Kaiser Wilhelm to make the first military incursion of World War 1, or Hitler's decision to invade Poland.  

What is happening to Ukraine and to Russia right now, since the  world is so united against it, is unspeakable. And it was completely unnecessary because Russia was in no imminent danger from Ukraine. Even though they didn't like their intention to enter NATO, it was just an intention. There was no need for this drastic action. 

So, what I have to think is that this is a mental problem of Putin's, that he has lost his mind. And because he is such an autocratic ruler, no one in Russia can stop him. Apparently, Putin is to Russia what Saddam Hussein was to Iraq and Kim Jong-un is to North Korea.  Putin is the Emperor there who wears no clothes, and no one can stand up to him. Putin did great things for Russia, raising the standard of living there tremendously. But, he's 70 years old, and he may have some early dementia going on. It impossible to construe how he could think that this was necessary or good for Russia. 

In the long run, this is going to be more devastating for Russia then for Ukraine. 

Putin had a strong argument that U.S. has never tolerated Soviet or Russian intrusion in its hemisphere, for instance, the Cuban Missile Crisis. But, Ukraine didn't attack Russia and had no plan or intention to attack Russia. I honestly think that this whole thing happened because one man, Vladimir Putin, had an uneasy feeling about Ukraine that was causing him a lot of psychological discomfort, and to alleviate that psychological discomfort, he resorted to this. Ultimately, the ones who are going to suffer the most over this are not the Ukrainians but the Russians.  

I am shocked and appalled at what Putin has done, and I don't grant anyone the right to do such a thing. I thought he would just go into the Donbas region, where he was welcome, and where the populace supports him, as they do in Crimea. I never thought he would overrun and attack the whole of Ukraine in a determined effort to take over the whole country. 

Of course, that's what the U.S. did in Afghanistan and Iraq, and it was every bit as bad. Maybe he took his cue from us. 

I think he had every right to object to Ukraine being in NATO and to the American intrusion into Ukrainian politics, going back to 2014 with the so-called Orange Revolution. We fomented it and paid for it. Even though we've had the Monroe Doctrine in place since 1823, which forbids intrusion in the politics of any nation in the Americas, we don't think it applies to us. We get to intrude anywhere on Earth. That's the true meaning of American Exceptionalism.

Until now, Putin had the moral high ground. But now, he's lost it and is committing an abomination. Russia was not in danger from Ukraine. There was no chance that Ukraine was about to attack Russia. There was plenty of time to keep working diplomatically to secure a neutral Ukraine. That he sunk to doing this reckless thing makes me wonder about his state of mind, whether he is losing it. He is almost 70 years old. 

But, we knew that he was serious, and we also knew that we weren't going to actively defend Ukraine- that we weren't going to send the U.S. Military in to fight the Russians.  So, we should have had the good sense to quash the idea of Ukraine being in NATO. That's all we had to do to prevent this. But, we wouldn't do it. We'd rather have this- and we got it. 

And we got something for it, which is Russia being seen as a pariah nation the world over. But, at what cost? Everyone on Earth is being hurt by this. The sanctions against Russia are going to hurt the whole world. And the repercussions are going to endure. The Cold War is back in full force, and it's staying- certainly for the rest of my life, but maybe for the rest of our children's lives as well. This is an immeasurable catastrophe. 

  

 

I haven't announced it here before, but my very good friend Paul Popa died on December 17, 2021. He died in Houston where he was undergoing treatment for neuroendocrine cancer. With him were his grown son and daughter, his girlfriend Monier, her grown son and daughter, his nephew, his two sisters, and me. This is an image from his memorial service. The woman speaking is Sophia, who is Monier's daughter. Paul was like a father to her. 

Before he died, Karen Mitchell and I recorded a song to Paul, which he got to hear. At the time, we were clinging to the hope that the treatment he was undergoing in Houston would help him. And recently, I recorded another song for Paul, You Showed Me The Way by Ella Fitzgerald. This is it: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qrVu46rwKM

It's ironic that the defense that Ruby's legal team used at his trial- that Ruby had no intention of shooting Oswald but did it in a moment of madness- is exactly what was portrayed in the 1978 tv movie RUBY AND OSWALD. So, even though that defense failed, and Ruby was convicted of premeditated murder and given the death sentence, history has sided with the defense. 

But, it's not entirely true because we hear every bit as much about the alternate story, which is that Ruby was a Mafioso, a hardened criminal, a hit man, a pimp, and more. And the story goes that Ruby was ordered by the Mafia to kill Oswald. 

Note first that there isn't a stitch of evidence for it. At least, there isn't any evidence that wouldn't be thrown out of court as hearsay. There is no document supporting it. There is no phone record supporting it. There are only unverified, unsubstantiated claims of Ruby's Mafia ties, along with some dubious Ruby sightings. 

But, let's look at the basic claim that the Mafia threatened Ruby with something that forced him to do it.  First, consider that it amounted to the total utter destruction of Ruby's life.  Killing Oswald within a swarm of police meant that Ruby was going to lose everything he held dear. It was the equivalent of suicide. It may have been worse than suicide. 

What threat could someone make to you to cause you to destroy your life and give up everything you hold dear? There is nothing. Right? You wouldn't destroy your life no matter who ordered you to do it. right? Why do you think Ruby would?

And let's note that that story can't possibly explain why Ruby brought his beloved dog Sheba along and left her in his car while he went on to destroy his life. That makes no sense at all. The "Mafia made him do it" claim dies on that alone. 

But, once Ruby did it, he wouldn't have been needed any more. So, why would the Mafia let him live? Why would they trust him to keep his mouth shut about what really happened? They knew he was going to be interrogated, over and over, by police and his own lawyers. What if he tripped up? What if they broke him? Why take the chance when he wasn't needed anymore? They could have had him die trying to escape; or he hung himself like Jeffery Epstein; or he overdosed on drugs; or he was killed by another prisoner. The list goes on and on.  But, Jack Ruby lived for over 3 years, and that is proof-positive that he didn't know anything. Not a damn thing. If he did, they would have killed him.

So, who started the story that Ruby was an underworld criminal deep in the Mafia with a long history of violent acts? It was the very same people who actually killed Oswald. They wanted that story spread. Why? Because: it's a very safe, tolerable story. The truth was that Ruby didn't do it at all. That's the secret that had to be kept. So, you get the buffs to go the other way. You monsterize Ruby, so that nobody, even in his wildest dreams, could imagine that Ruby didn't do it.  

For instance, there is this FBI letter about a Jack Rubenstein from Chicago working undercover for Richard Nixon infiltrating Communist groups. Was that the Jack Ruby of fame? Some say yes. Some say no, that it was another Jack Rubenstein from Chicago. The fact is: they're both wrong. The letter is just bogus. It was written in 1947 and it includes a zip code. Ironically, zip codes didn't come into use until 1963. 

So, the letter is definitely bogus, but who would have created such a letter? It certainly wasn't created by "conspiracy theorists." It was created FOR conspiracy theorists; not by them. It was created to galvanize them to accept Ruby's guilt even more vigorously. 

The framing of Ruby for the killing of Oswald is THE most Machiavellian plan that has ever been executed. It took 50 years for someone to see through it. And it wasn't me. It was Maxim Irkutsk.  

I am reminded right now that we're all alive today because of John F. Kennedy. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, his hardline advisors wanted him to retreat to the bunker and start bombing the hell out of Cuba with the 1962 version of Shock and Awe. But, he didn't. Instead, he negotiated with the Soviets and offered to remove U.S. missiles from Turkey if they withdrew their missiles from Cuba. And that's how war was averted.

What if they tried it again? What if they worked out a deal with Mexico to install missiles there and point them at the U.S.? Can you imagine our reaction? The rhetoric agaist Putin for doing it would be apoplectic. 

Well, for quite some time, we have been arming Ukraine, which is right next to Russia. And by accepting Ukraine into NATO, it would mean that even more more missiles could be installed there and aimed at Russia. 

I know that Putin snatched Crimea, and he has supported the separatists on the eastern side of the country. I don't want to argue with anyone about it. But, I will point out that if Putin had gotten involved in Mexico to the extent that we got involved in Ukraine prior to that, that we would have screamed bloody murder that he had no business being there so far away from Russia. The point is that when it comes to hypocrisy, nobody beats us.  Do you remember the Monroe Doctrine? It held that any intrusion into the political affairs of any country in the Americas would be considered a hostile act against the United States. They still teach about it in our schools as a rightful and righteous thing. But, the principle behind it does not apply to us. Again, it's the hypocrisy that irritates me to no end. 

I am thinking about History, in general, the study of the past. I was watching the Olympics yesterday, the female aerial skiing, and the commentator said that this one American skier is in college studying History, and she wants to teach History.  My first thought was: Why doesn't she teach skiing? At least that's clean. It's uncorrupted.  History is so strewn with State propaganda... it's bad enough we have to learn it, but to teach it?   

Take the JFK assassination. History says that Lee Harvey Oswald, a lone gunman, "without confederates," killed JFK.  But, we have a photograph of Oswald standing in the doorway during the shooting, and we can see that it's him wearing his clothes. For it not to be him, someone else had to, not only look like him, but dress exactly like him too. 

Forget History; this is about Mathematics. What is the probability that someone at the TSBD looked and dressed that much like Oswald on November 22, 1963?  

And it's not just Mathematics talking; Physics also says no (the Single Bullet Theory) and so does Chemistry (lack of nitrates on Oswald's face).  Then, the trek of that money order, in getting to Chicago, is equally implausible and untenable. The list goes on and on. The bogus evidence; the planted evidence; the altered evidence (altered films and photos) scream that Oswald was framed and innocent. 

This is about delusion, including self-delusion. The decision to believe that Oswald was guilty was made instantly by many people. Obviously, there were some who knew better because they were involved in it. But, among those who were not involved in it, who only got involved afterwards, there was a warped psychological process that was akin to religious fervor that Oswald did it. It was stoked by loyalty, patriotism, self-interest, and a tsunami of "group think" that swept away all rational thought, turning grown men into Stepford Wives.

The process continues today, and the History teachers are the ministers of the State religion. The history of the JFK assassination is such a foul swamp of phony evidence, altered evidence, and obstructed justice that a History teacher has to tip-toe through it, holding her nose, and covering her eyes, as she coughs ups the talking points like a regurgitated hairball.

Why would anyone want to do that in their work-a-day life? I know everyone has to eat, but aren't there other things they can do? 

 

 

I'm thick-skinned. Sticks and stones, etc. Plus, you misspelled your name. 

But yes, Jack Ruby was innocent. It was not him in the garage shooting. That was FBI Agent James Bookhout pretending to be him. Ruby got to the garage much earlier, the better part of an hour earlier. He was jumped on and hustled upstairs. And that's when they told him that he shot Oswald. He had no intention to, not the slightest thought to, not even the slightest inclination. He only accepted it because they told him that he did it. Even in his last interview, two weeks before he died (and it is extremely likely that he was murdered) he was asked to recall exactly what happened, and he said, "that's where it gets murky." He couldn't remember it because he didn't do it. 

This was perhaps the most Machiavellian crime ever committed. It's fooled the entire world. So, how did they get Ruby to the garage? Well first, you know about Karen Carlin, otherwise known as "Little Lynn". They got her to call him with a desperate plea for money "for rent and groceries." And Ruby said to her, "Can't I give it to you when you come to work on Monday?" But no, she and her husband needed it right away. 

So, that got him to the Western Union office, which was a block and a half away. Now, he went there with his beloved dog Sheba in the car. Why would he bring the dog along if he knew he was going to shoot Oswald and be apprehended immediately, never to return to that car? He wouldn't. He couldn't. He didn't. So, what they did was first plant people around that incoming ramp. There was no reason for anyone to be there. Oswald wasn't coming out there. And nobody was coming in either of any notoriety or interest. That was strictly to be a magnet to Ruby. 

But if you read Ruby's narrative, he said that he took twice his usual dose of amphetamines that morning, plus some other large pills. He gave no explanation. My hunch is that it was edited out because there was an editor: William Read Woodfield, who was a prominent tv scriptwriter. I don't know how he got involved. But, that sounds like a lot of drugs. I don't know for sure, but I strongly suspect that Ruby's roommate George Senator was dirty. 

So, Ruby was heavily drugged, and I strongly suspect that one of the drugs was scopolamine. This is a drug that the CIA learned about from the Nazis, who used it as a truth serum. It's also known as the zombie drug. It removes a person's free will. It makes them comply with anything they are told to do. 

So, what I suspect happened, is that Ruby was in the WU office, and someone there must have urged him to go down and see what was going at the ramp. And under the influence of scopolamine, he did it. And when he got there, there must have been one or more men there who nudged to go on down and see what was happening. This was before Officer Roy Vaughn was placed there. Ruby knew Vaughn, just as he knew Lt. Sam Pierce, and he would have identified him. 

 A local television anchor in Chicago reported that Ruby was heard to be mumbling incoherently after his arrest. That only got reported once and was never repeated. 

But, the most important thing is that the images confirm that the Garage Shooter wasn't Ruby and was Bookhout. In other words: there is conflict with Ruby's images and confirmation with Bookhout's. There is absolutely no doubt that the Garage Shooter in the televised spectacle was James W. Bookhout. 

In this image of Ruby on Sunday afternoon, you can see that his eyes are dilated, and his affect is totally wrong for a man who just murdered someone and destroyed his own life. Ruby was stoned. 

Ruby was not in the Mafia. All of that is just invented narrative. He never worked for Nixon. You could write his real biography on a cocktail napkin- except for the part about how he got recruited for this. How did Sirhan Sirhan get recruited? Birds of a feather.   

 

This is a presentation by Dr. Cyril Wecht that was given at the Sixth Floor Museum in 2017. It was not an interview, as most of their presentations are. He just spoke for an hour. 

You know, of course, that the Sixth Floor Museum is totally committed to the official story, and their entire exhibit is designed to sell it. I don't know of any other disputers who have been invited to speak there. And I really am surprised they let him speak so independently. Maybe he insisted on it. 

But, I can tell you this: that the only reason they let him speak is because he doesn't dispute that Oswald was a shooter. He insists that there had to be multiple shooters, including at least one from the front. But, he does not defend Oswald, and he doesn't mind a bit thinking that Oswald was a shooter.  

And that really is the crux of the issue because if a disputer accepts Oswald as shooter- that's the most important thing. 

Think about the way they have conducted JFK surveys: "Do you think Oswald was the lone gunman or do you think he acted within a conspiracy?" Do you realize that that's like saying "Heads I win; Tails you lose"? They don't really care if you want to think that there were other shooters and a conspiracy. As long as you keep Oswald up on the 6th floor pumping bullets into Kennedy, they are happy campers. After all, he was actually standing in the doorway at the time. So, if you support the most crucial lie in the case, which is that Oswald shot Kennedy, you are no enemy; you are a friend. 

That Oswald did it within a conspiracy has long been Government Story #2. It's what the HSCA decreed in 1979. They came up with the ridiculous idea that Oswald was working for the Mafia. Tell me: if you were the Mafia, and you were out to kill the President of the United States, would you hire a guy who practically flunked his final marksmen exam in the Marines, and then spent 3 years in Russia working at a radio factory, where the only shooting he did was to occasionally go rabbit hunting with a shotgun? And he reportedly stunk at that. And you can't even use the word "hire" since there is no record of any money transfer from the Mafia to Oswald. So, since Oswald wasn't paid by the Mafia to shoot Kennedy, why did he do it? Why would he be willing to kill Kennedy for the Mafia if he wasn't paid? Was he a complementary assassin? Did he just do it for the sport? So, the Mafia wanting Oswald is ridiculous, and him being willing to do it for them is ridiculous. Everything about the "Oswald did it for the Mafia" claim is ridiculous. It is patently absurd. You almost have to be insane to believe it. Yet, it persists to this day.

But, even though Cyril Wecht talks only about the ridiculousness of the Single Bullet Theory and nothing else, he does a hell of a good job of it. In watching this, he made some points that I was unaware of, for instance, of just how ridiculous the trajectory had to be- and it's even funnier than what Seinfeld did. 

So, I encourage you to watch this. It's historic that they invited him. I don't think Gary Mack would have ever allowed it. Now, if they would only invite Larry Rivera on to show his overlays of Oswald, Doorman, and Lovelady. Fat chance. 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqr8cfATwyo&t=35s