I just read through Oswald's autopsy report:

http://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/Other/oswald,%20lee%20harvey_report.pdf 

And it doesn't say anything about finding a mastectomy scar on him. It's hard to believe they would miss that because we're talking about a big bone that protrudes behind your ear, which, in his case, should have been missing, leaving a 3 inch scar behind his left ear. 

So, why didn't they find it? It's because he wasn't really Lee Harvey Oswald, and he never had a mastectomy. That was the other Oswald, the real Oswald, the one who was born in New Orleans as Lee Harvey Oswald in 1939. We don't know when the Oswald of fame was born. 

Note that a lot is made out of them finding a mastectomy scar when they exhumed the body in 1981. But, nobody has recognized that they didn't find the mastectomy scar in 1963 when they were, for sure, examining the body of the famed Oswald, the one who went to Russia, was married to Marine, and worked at the TSBD. That Oswald did not have the mastectomy scar.  

The films of the Oswald shooting all go to noise; video noise. By that, I mean that they go to frenzy and pandemonium, where that's all you see. It's particularly true of the NBC footage, which is the most famous one. In it, you see the Shooter come in at a sharp angle; Oswald gets shot; he grimaces; then he drops to the ground like a stone falling at terminal velocity. Then, the Shooter, whose back is to the camera, dives into the crowd of police who swarm him. And then it goes to video noise. 

You see more in the KRLD footage, KRLD being the CBS affiliate in Dallas. When the Shooter dives towards the police, a division takes place, in which some of the detectives stay with the collapsed Oswald, while others form the crowd of "penguins" who obscure the Shooter. However, before it goes to video noise, you see one of the detectives put something over the head of the Shooter after his hat comes off. He covers his head with something. You can watch it here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0yTz68Vt70

This is the last frame before it goes to video noise:

You recognize Leavelle on the left in his Easter suit. Just barely, you can see Oswald's head on the ground in front of him. In the center is Blackie Harrison, still smoking his cigar. Supposedly, what happened next is that Leavelle and another officer picked Oswald up and carried him inside the jail office. That wasn't captured in this film or in any film. Two men carrying another man is a large object, and you would think that it would have been captured. And, Leavelle was supposedly handcuffed to Oswald. He did not claim to uncuff them there in the garage, and in the 1978 tv movie RUBY AND OSWALD, he does the uncuffing in the jail office afterwards. But, how do you pick up a man to whom you are handcuffed? This is how they did it in the movie, but it would be impossible to do this in real life if you were handcuffed to the victim. Leavelle's left hand has to be underneath Oswald's right shoulder, which means that Oswald's right hand has to be there too, but it's impossible. There's not enough joint mobility to do it, unless he dislocated Oswald's shoulder, and that would wake the dead. 

So, it looks like Leavelle has his right hand underneath Oswald in the area of the hip, and though we can't see it, he must have his left hand underneath Oswald at the level of the right shoulder. But, how could he do that and take Oswald's right hand with him? But, let's go back to the image that we have:

So, at that moment, Leavelle was on Oswald's left side. So, he would have had to step around to Oswald's right side. Then, you would think the Detective Lowery, whom we see, would have stepped in to lift from the left side, but he didn't. He ended up joining the pack of penguins and then taking his gun out. So who, supposedly, picked up Oswald on his left side? Leavelle never said. He said he couldn't remember who it was. Are you willing to buy that? 

In this interview on the day, Leavelle gives his account.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzKvMKkwvmc&t=56s

You'll hear Leavelle say that as they were walking out, he was handcuffed to Oswald, and "he had the waistband of his trousers." There is no waistband in men's trousers. There are stretch pants that have a waistband, but those are usually worn by children and young women, but not men. So, we have this strange admission by Leavelle that though he was handcuffed to Oswald, that that wasn't enough. That in addition, as they were walking along, he had his hand in the man's pants. And that has gone unquestioned for 59 years, as to why he would do that. 

Then, he claimed that he saw "Ruby" approaching, recognizing him, and he also saw that he was wielding a gun. He said he responded by jerking on Oswald to pull him behind him, but that did not happen. You don't see it in the films. Then he said he shoved on Ruby's left shoulder with his right hand, and he demonstrated it, as you can see. 

But, that didn't happen either. You don't see it in any film. Then he said that "Ruby" tried to fire again, but that his partner LC Graves prevented it. That isn't true either. The Shooter never tried to fire again. And then Leavelle said that he and another officer picked Oswald up and carried him inside, but he could not remember who that other officer was. What???? This was the very day, a few hours later. How could he not remember who assisted him in carrying Oswald inside? It is totally unbelievable.  

So, why didn't he want to say who the officer was? Because it never happened. Oswald wasn't shot in the garage, and he scurried into the jail office on his own power, but hidden from view by the stampede of men, the video noise, the frenzy and pandemonium. 

Another detective testified that he saw Leavelle and Graves carry Oswald in. That was a lie too. Graves was one of the penguins. He went with them. He didn't linger with Leavelle and Oswald. And Graves admitted that he didn't see Oswald again until he was in the jail office. There is no chance that he carried him in there. 

So, why all this lying? It's because the truth was very different. The truth was that they were all in on it, including Oswald. It was a staged event. Oswald wasn't shot until afterwards. They weren't going to take a chance and shoot him right there in the garage. That was too risky. Oswald was very slender. The bullet could have traversed him. Would you want to be on the other side of skinny Oswald when he was being shot? They must have tricked Oswald into thinking that they had to stage his death in order to protect him, or else someone would come gunning for him. So, he cooperated. He went along with the whole ruse. He didn't have a clue that he was being conned. Once they were inside, they must have knocked him out. Someone may have thrust a hypodermic needle into his arm to sedate him. Then they must have carried him into a special room and using a 38 with a silencer, they shot him. That happened in the first two minutes. In the footage inside the jail office, you see officers standing around, supposedly looking down on the body of Oswald. But, you never see Oswald. Maybe he wasn't there. Maybe they were still busy with him. They didn't show Oswald until he was on the stretcher being wheeled out. You never see Oswald on the floor in the jail office. They show you blood stains on the floor where he was lying. But, that's ridiculous too. If he was leaving blood all over the floor, how come there isn't a drop showing here?

The Garage Shooting of Oswald was a staged event; it was pure theater. It was all acting. Oswald was shot for real afterwards in the jail office. 

 

 

 A Gitmo prisoner held without trial for 15 years and tortured has finally been released. Asadullah Haroon Gul, an Afghan, was a captive there since 2007. A US District Court said that the US no longer has a legal basis to detain him, but if that's true, it never had a legal basis.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-says-afghan-national-freed-200623988.html 

Gul's release came about through multiple efforts, by the Taliban, by the government of Qatar, by the British human rights group Reprieve, and by the British law firm Lewis, Baach, Kaufman, & Middlemis, which worked pro bono. 

For the first 9 years of his detention, Gul was denied any legal representation. And he was denied being able to contact his family. They didn't know if he was alive or dead. He was starved, parched, hung from his wrists, and subjected to various other tortures and humiliations. 

This is the comment I posted at the article:

 

This is such an outrage, and it exposes the United States for what it is: a terrorist nation. Not the Taliban, but US. And note that that the vast majority of Gitmo prisoners, when released to their country of origin, were let go. Not kept in prison there, but let go. The Fourth of July is coming up; just days away. Be like me and don't celebrate it. Don't tolerate a single flag.

 Rick Bucciarelli

I agree this is a crazy photo. And what makes it more crazy…is that James Altgens was in the street not on the curb when he took it.

And a question I never hear mentioned:

He was in the street- pointing an object (camera) at the President. He was within 100 feet of the car. How is it that not one Secret Service agent noticed or even approached him as the threat he was??

• Like
• Reply
• Share
• 42m

• Active

  Ralph Cinque

  Author

  Admin

  And there is a corollary question: how did Altgens have the nerve to do that, to get into the street when the motorcade was approaching so close? The answer is that it wasn't that close. The conventional wisdom is that the Altgens photo was taken a Z255. It was not. It was taken much earlier than that. It was taken before JFK was hit in the throat. It was taken when the limo was still high on the hill and hadn't completely passed the Book Depository. They tried to make it that all the shots except the fatal head shot had already been fired. Not true. The throat shot wasn't fired, and even the shot to his back that delivered the nerve agent may not have hit yet. That one is too close to call because that shot occurred about the same time as the Altgens photo. So, JFK may have been reacting to that shot. But, he definitely wasn't raising his hands to his throat because he wasn't shot there yet. And the imagery of that in the Altgens photo is fake. If you look closely at this image, you'll see how ridiculous it is. Jackie is holding this arm that juts out like the wand of a vacuum cleaner. It's not connected to him and goes way past him. His fist is greatly oversized. This is art. All that hadn't happened yet.

  

 On the personal front, the song I wrote for Joe Haladin: The Case of the Missing Sister won top honors for songwriting at the Vegas Movie Awards. It's called: It's Precious We Have It Today. 

And to celebrate, I recorded a song tonight that Irving Berlin said was one of the greatest songs ever written, and he wished he wrote it. The song is I Don't Want To Walk Without You by Jule Styne and Frank Loesser from 1941. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBF-Ab7zNmE

Take a look at these people standing on the steps to see what a normal photograph of such a thing looks like.

Now, here's the version in the Altgens photo:

Crap like this doesn't occur anywhere else except the JFK assassination. And it is not only a smoking gun, but it is bloodied; bloodied with the blood of John Kennedy, Lee Oswald, and JD Tippit, and many others after them.

 Take a look at these people standing on the steps to see what a normal photograph of such a thing looks like.

Now, here's the version in the Altgens photo:

Crap like this doesn't occur anywhere else except the JFK assassination. And it is not only a smoking gun, but it is bloodied; bloodied with the blood of John Kennedy, Lee Oswald, and JD Tippit, and many others after them. 

 I did some work this weekend involving 40 pound bags of soil, and hauling them around, I kept thinking about the mother and boy in the Altgens photo. They're watching the motorcade. He's high up. He could not have been standing on anything, so she must be holding him. But, how could she? Objects feel heavier as you continue to hold them. Do an experiment: just hold your arms out. See how long you can do that, hold them up. See how heavy they start feeling. See how long before it gets painful. He is not a baby or a toddler. He is a little boy, who just happens to be wearing a wool cap and pulled down over his ears on a sunny, 71 degree day. He and his mother were put in the picture, and it was to cover up the man behind them who is turned around looking at Oswald in the doorway. The President of the United States is driving by, and he's looking at Oswald. Who was he? I suspect he was FBI Agent James Bookhout who went on to impersonate Jack Ruby at the Garage Spectacle. You realize that there is no other photo in the world like this, where you've got a man who is completely headless just from visoring his eyes with his hands. Then, the man behind Oswald, who for some reason is turned 90 degrees and facing the wall; he is both in front of and behind Oswald at the same time. He is covering up Oswald's left shoulder at the same time that Oswald is covering up his right shoulder. So, who is in front of whom? And what's with the white splotch over the face of the short man who has his arms folded? This kind of photographic lunacy doesn't happen anywhere except the JFK assassination. It is the Bizarro World of the JFK assassination. 

The head of NATO just announced that the war in Ukraine could last for years. It's not going to last for years, unless Ukraine and NATO make it last for years. What's going to happen is that Russia is going to continue fighting until it has whatever amount of land it wants. The most important piece for it to get was the land bridge from Russia to Crimea, so that they wouldn't be entirely dependent on that bridge they built over the Kerch Strait, which everyone said they couldn't do, calling it "Putin's folly." They surely intend to secure the whole Donbas region. And they are going to keep the Kherson region, which I have been to. It's nice. I spent quite a bit of time there. Will they try to take Kharkiv? I strongly doubt it. If anything, they would try to take Odessa. 

But, whenever they're done taking what they are going to take, they are going to announce a unilateral ceasefire and tell the Ukrainians that the war can be over, but they have to stop fighting. If they make any attempt to retake captured lands, then the war will resume. 

Will the Ukrainians choose to have more war in a vain effort to retake captured lands? They could never do it. If they could, they would have retaken Crimea.  They are no more going to take back Kherson or Mariupol than they are going to take back Crimea. 

Hopefully, we are not going to be stupid enough to urge them to keep fighting. Let the fucking war end, for Christ's sake. And the truth is that most of the people in the taken lands want to go with Russia anyway. Again, I've been there. I threw away my Ukrainian dictionary. Nobody spoke it. They all spoke Russian. 

I'm saying all this, but I don't defend what Russia did. I don't think anyone has a right to start a war. If there is no war, and you start one, you've done a monstrous thing. But, this war needs to end, and the only way it's going to end is if Ukraine admits that it's lost a huge chunk of its land. 

Paz Marverde Rosas: As we know, Jim Garrison, the New Orleans DA, reopened the investigation on the assassination of JFK and incriminated Clay Shaw. Garrison discovered that Shaw was a member of Centro Mondiale Commerciale, an Italian company which, in reality, was a CIA front. Thanks to the Italian historian Michele Metta, who was able to get the CMC papers, it emerges that Byrd, the owner of the Texas School Books Depository, the location where Lee Oswald was accused of having fired from on that fatal day, November 22, 1963, was connected to the CMC. In this excerpt from Metta's book, Accomplishing Jim Garrison's Investigation on the Trail of the Assassins of JFK, this connection is explained. Courtesy of Michele Metta

https://www.amazon.com/Accomplishing-Garrisons-Investigation-Trail-Assassins/dp/B098QMC6TG/?fbclid=IwAR2TknK-BzMVFqgZxgMljuFkuGHdTm0UqVWQ2FY52ROMy5u-SPHYUBlXYwo

Ralph Cinque:  Thank you for that, Paz. Now, here is the clincher: Like Centro Mondiale Commerciale, the Texas School Book Depository was also a CIA front. The book distributing was just a cover for what they were really doing, which was espionage, gun-running, and drug-running. How could they be distributing books to schools when there were no school-size orders? How could an "order-filler" with nothing but a clipboard, carry boxes of books? Do you realize how heavy a box of books is? And why would so many boxes have been open? And why would they need a "mailer" who was wrapping small orders in brown paper, the same brown paper that Oswald supposedly stole to construct his supposed bag? No one would wrap a heavy box of books in brown paper. There would be no point. Then, they had a tying machine that only worked with small parcels. So, they weren't shipping boxes of books, which means they weren't shipping to schools. At schools, you have classes, and every kid in the class needs a book. It was all a facade. The TSBD was CIA, and they were directly involved in killing Kennedy. Not everyone of course, but people like Truly, Shelly, etc.- they were directly involved in killing Kennedy and framing Oswald in a CIA operation.

I am amazed that after having invaded and waged war in Afghanistan for 20 years, that now, it's as though it never happened. All we ever hear about Afghanistan are negative stories about what the Taliban is doing, the latest being that they are requiring female newscasters to cover their faces. 

Well, I agree that it's appalling, but before 2001, the Taliban didn't even allow female newscasters. They didn't allow female anything. So, at least they are not going back to that.  And remember: it's based on religion. They have their religion, and we have our religions. And one of our religions is our medical religion, and it required, not just women, but everyone to cover their face - with a Covid mask. And they might go back to it. They are saying that the case numbers are rising, even among the twice vaccinated and twice boosted. So, it may become mask-time again for all of us. 

Our media doesn't report anything positive about Afghanistan, but on the Taliban website, it's mostly positive news, for instance, they had an economic conference in Kabul with representatives from 60 countries attending. Obviously, the U.S. wasn't one of them, but how was that not news?

But, getting back to the Afghanistan War, George W. Bush started it, accusing the Taliban of collaborating with Osama bin laden to do 9/11. Not only did he not provide evidence that the Taliban was involved in 9/11, he didn't even provide evidence that Osama bin laden was involved. And ultimately, the only thing he ever provided was the phony Fatty bin laden tape, and that was two months after he launched the war. I'm sure the phony thing didn't even exist at the time he launched the war. So, even he could not have known about it at the time he gave the order to attack. Then, it was the Taliban's refusal to extradite OBL to us that became the trigger for the war, but we didn't have an extradition treaty with them. Our invasion of Afghanistan was just as criminal and illegal as Russia's invasion of Ukraine. But, we act as though we never invaded another country in our entire history. 

But, I haven't gotten to the main point I want to make, which is: that no one has been held accountable for the disastrous and totally miscalculated war on Afghanistan. It should have started with criminal charges against Bush himself, and then moved on to others. But, no one has been charged, and no one will be. And you would think that, by now, some insider would have written an expose' about the disastrous U.S. war on Afghanistan, naming names and assigning blame. But, that hasn't happened, and if someone does write such a book, I predict that the media will ignore it, just like they ignored The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder by Vincent Bugliosi about the disastrous war on Iraq.

So, the U.S. government, the U.S. Military, and the U.S. Media have moved on from the War in Afghanistan, and the only reporting that will be done about that country will be negative reports about the Taliban. Any and all good news about progress in that country will be ignored, but they'll hone in on any bad news or anything that is derogatory about the Taliban. The 20 years of war, the trillion dollars spent, the thousands of Americans killed, and for absolutely nothing, not to mention the much larger number of Afghans killed, it's all water under the bridge now. The U.S. has moved on and will not be accounting for what it did in Afghanistan. 

This past Sunday, I appeared on an internet television program to discuss the innocence of Jack Ruby. I presented images, and the first one was this one. 

That is the only face-shot there is of the Garage Shooter. We don't see his face in the garage because of his hat and because he was never facing a camera, even though there were many there. In the garage, we only see him from behind or from the side and wearing his hat.  

So, you would think that this being the only facial image of him would make it the go-to image. But, it's not. Only I and my friends and supporters show it. And that's because it's a blight on the official story since he obviously isn't Jack Ruby.

Of course, it's Jack Ruby on the right, and that's his mug shot. I'll do the point by point comparison, but first, let me point out that it is immediately obvious that they are not the same man, and that's based on our lifelong experience looking at people and understanding that each human being is one-of-a-kind genetic specimen with his or her own genetic blueprint, except for identical twins. 

But, what you can see is that the man on the left had a round face, (think Charlie Brown) while Ruby had a longer, narrower face. The man on the left had a short forehead, whereas Ruby had a long forehead. The man on the left had racoon stripes instead of eyes, which was a photographic alteration, whereas Ruby had eyes. And, the man on the left had a very short neck while Ruby had a longer neck. There is absolutely no way they could be the same man. 

The three men with the Shooter were Detectives Boyd, Sims, and Hall, who, ironically, were Oswald's handlers. They were the ones who led Oswald around: to lineups, to Court, to interrogations, and also to the  Midnight Press Conference. So, how did they wind up being being the handlers of the Garage Shooter? Why weren't they, or two of them, allowed to lead Oswald out to the Garage for the supposed jail transfer? Why were they replaced by Leavelle and Graves? 

And what were the four of them doing there? It was taken on the 3rd floor of the police department, right next to the elevator. But, what were they doing there? The weren't waiting for the elevator. They were just hovering there. And when was it? It was very soon after the Garage Spectacle: probably 2 minutes after. 

Notice that the detectives are looking sharply at the photographer, and they don't look happy. They look concerned. But, they aren't the least bit concerned that they have their backs to a homicidal criminal. And that's because they know they have nothing to fear from him. And that's because they knew he was FBI Agent James Bookhout, and what they were really doing is escorting him to freedom. They were about to release him so that he could go back to being James Bookhout.  So, after this, they must have taken him to wherever he had his regular clothes, so he could change into them and go back to being himself. And that was probably in the Homicide Bureau. That's where Bookhout said he was during the Oswald shooting. He said he remained there after the final interrogation. He didn't say why. He didn't say what he needed to do there. And he didn't explain why he had no interest in watching the jail transfer, even though he was interested in watching every other thing that Oswald did.  

We found this image in Fred Rheinstein's 30 year retrospective of the Oswald shooting, called The Killing of Lee Harvey Oswald.  Fred was the producer and director of the NBC spectacle of the shooting 30 years before. 

The 30 year retrospective used to be up on Youtube, in its entirety. Now, it is nowhere to be found. Why? It's because of what we found: the image of the Garage Shooter showing that he was definitely not Jack Ruby.

How big is this? There is nothing bigger. It's bigger than Oswald in the doorway, and that's big.