A Tale of Two Images

On the right in the Fedora hat is supposed to be Jack Ruby. But, isn't he too tall? He's standing next to the tallest guy in the garage, Detective Blackie Harrison, and he's almost as tall as he is. 

At the bottom of the collage is another image taken in the same place a few seconds later, and now you can see Blackie and others wrestling with the Garage Shooter, who was short. He's on his feet there. His knees may have been bent a little, but not a lot. He was a short man. He was the shortest man in the garage. 

How could Jack Ruby be both a tall man and a short man? And which of them was Jack Ruby, the tall or the short? Neither! The short man was James Bookhout, who admitted having to stand on a pedestal in find James Hosty in the hallway. And the tall man? I don't know who he was. But, I am 1000% sure he wasn't Jack Ruby. 

 

Amazon bans a lot of books, but one they have not banned, which I think they should ban, is a complete guide to murder entitled Kill Without Joy. It's out of print, but used copies are for sale on Amazon for over $300. Shame on them. I am formally requesting Amazon to stop selling this book. 

https://www.amazon.com/Kill-Without-Joy-Complete-Book/dp/0873646479

The book includes a passage about Jack Ruby shooting Oswald that is outrageous for being so wrong. 

It starts by saying that Ruby was "strictly a pro" meaning, a professional assassin, which he most certainly was not. Then it refers to him pumping bullets into Oswald. The Garage Shooter only fired once at Oswald, but you know how in gangster movies, they often have the killer or killers riddle the victim's body with bullets, if only for show. 

Then, the author  refers to the "left hand drawing back the jacket and the gun clearing leather," but that is never seen, nor could it have been seen since there was no leather. Leather refers to the holster, and Ruby didn't have one. His gun was just in his pocket. Then, the author refers to Ruby using his middle finger to squeeze the trigger, that being the mark of a pro. He states that British SOE agents did that during WW2. But, that isn't true either. British SOE agents were known to do that with Lee-Enfield rifles, so that they could bolt faster, but not with small revolvers. It's very dangerous to have your index finger right next to the cylinder gap. 

And the fact is that the pistol is designed to fit your hand using the index finger to fire. Using the middle finger would result in you having less control and weaker control of the gun. 

Finally, the author applauds the Shooter's lunge that is seen in the Beers photo. He failed to say that that's the only time we see the lunge. In the Jackson photo, which was supposedly taken just a fraction of a second later, the Shooter is not lunging. How do they explain that contradiction? They don't.  To lunge, the Shooter would have to stop some distance away from Oswald, then after planting his right foot, lean and stretch the rest of the distance to get to Oswald. It was practically a contact shot. But, in none of the films, do we see that happen. 

So, the lunge we see in the Beers photo is an anomaly, and it was made to look like that to cover up the Shooter's short stature, which I am going to cover next. The reason Bookhout went through the motion of firing with his middle finger is because Ruby was missing his index finger. It so happened that it was his left index finger that was missing, but that was something that was easy to get wrong. So, it was a production error. 

Remember, I am a filmmaker, and I know how easy it is for production errors like this to occur. There is a flow of information in the production process, and somewhere it got switched around that it was Ruby's right index finger that was missing. And that's why the actor, James Bookhout, did it that way. It was a set error.  Everything stated in this excerpt below is utterly false.  If it had been Ruby in the Garage, which it wasn't, he most certainly would have used his index finger. He wouldn't even have thought about it. Would you? Does anyone want to claim that Jack Ruby actually had the thought to use his middle finger to fire when he had a perfectly intact right index finger? And would it not be a strange coincidence that he just happened to be missing his left index finger? The association of those two things is mathematically bizarre. Clearly, it was a set error.   

The Blueprint of why it is impossible for Jack Ruby to have shot Oswald

If you consider the known facts, you'll know that Jack Ruby could not possibly have shot Oswald.  It starts with recognizing that Ruby brought his beloved dog Sheba with him. He loved her. He used to say that she was like his wife, 

If he knew he was going to shoot Oswald in a crowd of police, then he would have known that there would be no chance of escape and that he would never return to his life.  So, not only, would he not have brought his dog along; he would have made arrangements for her care and well being after he was apprehended.  

This was one of those times where Ruby, the victim, unwittingly, foiled his oppressors. By bringing his dog along, he proved that he had no intention of shooting Oswald. So, just as Oswald vindicated himself by wearing that very unusual Russian shirt on Friday and unwittingly getting photographed in it in the doorway during the motorcade, Ruby unwittingly got the better of his oppressors by bringing his dog along. So, why did he bring her? He was going to leave her with someone at the Carousel Club, which was right across the street. He had plans for the day. He was going to go to the new apartment complex that he was soon moving into. 

So, the whole idea that Ruby went there to kill Oswald, on any basis whatsoever, can't get off the ground. It can't get airborne- not with that dog in the car.  

And Ruby's lawyers knew it. They knew about the dog. And that's why they argued that he had no intention of shooting Oswald, that it was just something he did in a moment of madness. His lawyer Melvin Belli came up with a medical diagnosis: psychomotor epilepsy. It was ridiculous. Epilepsy is the massive and random discharge of nerve impulses from the brain to the muscles, but the idea that a person could pull the trigger of a gun as part of an epileptic seizure is absurd. Furthermore, we have the footage of the Shooter's movements, and he is definitely not acting epileptic. 

So, why did Belli go down that road? It's because he talked to Ruby. He asked him, "What do you remember?" And Ruby told him, "Nothing. I went down there, and the next thing I knew, the police were pouncing on me. Then, they dragged me up to the 5th floor, and that's where they told me I shot Oswald. That's it. I don't remember anything else."

So, why didn't Belli believe him? Why didn't he consider that what Ruby remembered is exactly what happened?

But, let's start with Ruby. Why didn't Ruby believe in himself? Why didn't he consider that he was remembering it accurately, and it was the Dallas Police who were lying? He couldn't go down that road because he believed in the Dallas Police. They were his heroes. He greatly admired them. It was beyond the pale for him to think that they would do something so heinous. 

Well, that's the exact same reason why Belli's mind wouldn't go there. I'm sure his mind wasn't closed to police corruption, but it was closed to police corruption of this magnitude. All he had to do was look closely at the images of the Garage Shooter, and he would have seen that the guy wasn't Ruby because he had different hair; he was a different height; his body was different (pudgier); he had  a different shaped head and a different length neck, etc. But, Belli was blind to it because he already concluded that Ruby did it, and therefore, he never looked at the images closely or critically. 

And Belli overlooked another great indicator, which is that in both the Beers and Jackson photo, you can see that the Shooter pulled the trigger with his middle finger. Why would Ruby have done that? He wouldn't have. He had a right index finger.  And to be honest, NOBODY would do that, unless they want to blow their finger off.  Did he ever ask Ruby why he used his middle finger? I can't answer that, but if he did, I'm sure Ruby told him that he didn't know anything about it. Perhaps Belli attributed it to the epilepsy. But, it was a colossal failure of thinking and reasoning.  

What about the idea that the Mafia put Ruby up to it? A lot of people claim that, but we know everything Ruby did from Thursday to Sunday, and I mean for every minute of the days and nights, and he definitely did not meet with any Mafia. And it could not have been arranged in advance because the original plan was to have Oswald shot in the theater. That was the purpose of sending him there. But, it didn't work out. So, getting Ruby to shoot Oswald was definitely Plan B. They couldn't talk to him about it in advance. So, they didn't talk to him about it before the assassination, and they definitely didn't talk to him about it after the assassination. So, when did they talk to him about it? They didn't!

And the whole idea that they got him to do it by threatening his sister is childish. Childish and stupid. NOBODY would go out and kill someone because of such a threat. Would you? I've got a sister, and I love her dearly.  But no, I wouldn't go out and kill somebody because someone threatened to kill her if I didn't. I would go to her and get her somewhere safe and protected. I would go to the police and report it. And then I would go to the newspapers and tell them. But, I'm not going to go out and kill someone. Of course not. 

And really, it is stupid, INCREDIBLY STUPID, for anyone to believe it. Such a threat is very likely to be a bluff anyway. The Mafia didn't really have anything to gain by killing Ruby's sister. Murder is risky business, is it not? They weren't going to take the risk for that reason.  Do you really think that if Ruby told them no, that he won't kill Oswald, that they would have gone out and killed his sister? How would that have helped the Mafia? What would they have gained from it? And if it was a matter of punishing Ruby for not following orders, wouldn't they have just killed him? I don't know where the idea came from that Ruby killed Oswald to protect his sister, but it is ridiculous.  It makes no sense at all. 

And get this: THE PEOPLE WHO CLAIM IT DON'T EVEN HAVE ANY EVIDENCE FOR IT. They have nothing whatsoever to point to that anyone in the Mafia ever made such a threat to Ruby. They just pull it out of thin air and plop it down, but why does anyone believe them? 

So, forget the Mafia. But, what about the Dallas Police? Couldn't they have put Ruby up to shooting Oswald? 

No, There could have been no conspiracy between the Dallas Police and Ruby. When people conspire together, they all expect to win. Nobody conspires when the plan is for them to be arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and then put to death.  Not even Ruby, as deranged as he was, would have gone for that. 

If the Dallas Police had conspired with Ruby to kill Oswald, then they would have had to kill Ruby right away. They couldn't trust him to keep his mouth shut. For three years?  To trust that he was never going to blurt to his lawyers, "All right. I can't take it any more. I'm going to tell you the truth. The Dallas Police put me up to it. They told me when to come. They made sure a door was open for me to get in. We did it together. I've been lying to you all along." 

You think the Dallas Police would have taken a chance like that? When Jack Ruby could have exposed them as murderers? They would have killed him his first night at the County Jail. You know: he hung himself in his cell; or he got stabbed in the shower; or he had suicide pills that he took; or somebody poisoned him; or he was shot trying to escape. Bada bing;  bada boom. You take care of business. Dead men tell no tales. The fact that Ruby lived for three years should tell you that he didn't know a damn thing. 

It was easy for them to get Ruby a block away by getting Karen Carlin to request the money wire. So, how did they get him from Western Union to the Police Garage? That's where drugs came in. And it's very likely that one of those drugs was scopolamine. 

Allen Dulles learned about scopolamine from the Nazis. Remember, he was very cozy with the Nazis throughout WW2. He was stationed in neutral Switzerland, and there were plenty of Nazis there too. He socialized with them. He partied with them. That is part of the record. And he befriended quite a few of them. And that's why, after the war, he did all he could to save his friends. Even though 11 Nazis were put to death for war crimes at Nuremberg, Dulles ferried over 2000 Nazis into the U.S. to good and richly rewarded lives because of their talents, starting with the rocket scientists, and then the chemists. It was called Operation Paperclip. 

The Nazis used scopolamine as a truth serum, but it was much more than that. Scopolamine is called the zombie drug. It makes you like a zombie. It destroys your free will. It makes you inclined and willing to do whatever you are told to do. Criminals in South America have used it to get people to go to the bank; empty their accounts; and give them the money. 

So, the Karen Carlin ruse got Ruby, who was high on amphetamines and scopolamine, to Western Union. Then, all it took was for someone, anyone, to just make a casual remark to Ruby, such as, "What are those people doing down there at the ramp? You ought to go check it out." That's all it would have taken for him to do it. (And note that it was an entrance ramp, and there was no reason for anyone to be there. Who were they waiting for to enter? Nobody.) And then, when he got to the ramp, someone just had to nudge him down there with a head-nod, or say, "Go on down there; see what's going on," and he would have done it. 

One of the effects of scopolamine is to cause your eyes to dilate, as you see here on Ruby:

There is a big black dilated pupil in the center of his eye. Here is a reference to the dilating effect of scopolamine. 

https://www.aao.org/eye-health/ask-ophthalmologist-q/scopolamine-side-effects

And if you try to say that there are other drugs that cause dilation, I'm going to say, so what? It doesn't change anything. 

Ruby was innocent. He got there an hour early, and what he remembered happening is exactly what happened. He was jumped; then hustled up to the 5th floor; and there he was told that he shot Oswald. That's where he was when the Garage Spectacle went down, with James Bookhout filling in for Ruby, until they could slip the real Ruby into the story in a perfect bait and switch. That is really what happened on November 24, 1963.   

     

 

 

A troll named J.R. Bonner said that these two ears are the same, It's Ruby on the left, and the Garage Shooter on the right. But, on what basis can he claim that? If these two ears are the same, then what two ears are not the same? You could claim that any two ears are the same if you claim that these two are. And these trolls will claim anything, no matter how outrageous. All it proves is that anyone can hit any keys on the keyboard.

This is a new collage of Ruby and the Garage Shooter. 

On the left, it's Ruby from the next morning, when they were taking him to the County Jail, just as they were supposed to be doing with Oswald the day before, though that was just a ruse. Notice on the left how thin Ruby was at the time. His doctor in Dallas had put him on amphetamines as "diet pills," and I bet he was a CIA doctor. Why don't we know his name?  

On the right is the Garage Shooter, as per the Beers photo. Notice how pudgy he was. He had this small round head, a short neck, and burly body. One reporter in the garage, a French guy, described him as "strong and muscled" but really, he was just thick and burly. 

On the left, Ruby did not have such long strands of hair. That's how the photographic hair enhancement went that time. They did it routinely in his photos, and it looked different every time. They did it because of the thick mop of hair we see on the Garage Shooter, and it was a mop (a toupee').  Remember, this was 1963, pre-Beatles. The long hair trend hadn't begun yet. Few, if any, men had such a long, matted hair in back. It was a wig.  And no one who was practically bald on top would have such long hair at the bottom. So, they had to routinely give Ruby more hair in order the sell the idea that he was the Garage Shooter. 

The inset picture on the far left is from an Easter parade in Dallas in 1960, so 3 1/2 years before. Notice how bald he was on top, and you know that baldness only goes in one direction. A man can lose a lot of hair in 3 1/2 years. And that little tuft in front must surely be fake. Why? Because: Male Pattern Baldness doesn't go like that. And if it did happen, why would he keep it so short? If he actually did have hair in front, yes, he would let it grow long enough to provide some coverage. And there's proof that it's fake because it was a film, and in the film, Ruby takes his hat off and combs his hair. However, he only combs it on the sides. He never drags the comb across the top. Why? Because: he didn't have any hair there. As we look at it, he is holding the comb in his right hand and his hat in his left hand. In the film we see him comb the right side; then comb the left side; then put his hat back on. He never combs the top. 

  

Marina Oswald was drilled by the FBI to say the things she said about Oswald to the Warren Commission, and she was the most damaging witness to Oswald. And her questioning went very strangely, considering what wasn't said or asked. Supposedly, she knew full well that Oswald went out and tried to kill General Walker. And then, according to her, he wanted to go out and kill Richard Nixon, but she locked him in the bathroom to stop him from doing it. However, when you marry someone, and you find out later that he's a homicidal maniac, do you just go on living with him? Do you just brush it off? And remember that she had a three year old daughter living with them. So, do you just let your daughter continue living with him?

All of this happened before Oswald left for New Orleans in April 1963. But later, Marina followed him down there with June. And she was excited about it. According to Ruth Paine, when Oswald called with the news that he had a job and that he had gotten them an apartment, Marina exclaimed ecstatically to June in Russian, "Papa loves us."

But, what about the fact that he was a homicidal maniac? She didn't forget about that, did she? How could she carry on like that and go down there to live with him when she knew what she knew? The answer is that she must not have known it at the time, that only later was she brainwashed to say it.

But, getting back to the Warren Commission, the one questioning her was the Chief Counsel of the WC, J Lee Rankin.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you tell the authorities anything about this Walker incident when you learned about it?

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mr. RANKIN. You have told the Secret Service or the FBI people reasons why you didn't. Will you tell us?

Mrs. OSWALD. Why I did not tell about it?

First, because it was my husband. As far as I know, according to the local laws here, a wife cannot be a witness against her husband. But, of course, if I had known that Lee intended to repeat something like that, I would have told.

First, the spousal privilege law applies to her not having to testify against her husband at a legal proceeding. You can't be forced to be a witness for the prosecution at your husband's trial. But, it's unclear going the other way. If you know your spouse has committed a crime, especially a violent crime, you are expected to inform police. And if you hide evidence about it, such as his note about it, it could be considered an accessory after the fact. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not crystal clear about it, but there was certainly a basis by which she could have gotten in trouble. And how did she know anything about spousal privilege? She must have been coached. The FBI must have told her to say that if she was asked why she didn't go to police.

But, what she said about him never repeating it wasn't even true. This came out at the HSCA hearing:

Mr. McDONALD. Mrs. Porter, I just have three more questions for this line of questioning, and, that is, let me direct your attention to April 1963, April 21 specifically.

This was a date on which it is in Priscilla Johnson's book and elsewhere, it has been written that you were told by Lee Oswald that Richard Nixon was coming to visit Dallas.

Mrs. PORTER. Yes.

Mr. McDONALD. Do you recall that incident?

Mrs. PORTER. Yes.

Mr. McDONALD. Tell us what happened, please?

Mrs. PORTER. Well, after the Walker incident, he give me promise that he never do it again. I see him one day, I mean I don't know the exact date, that he was putting his gun, not gun, pistol or rifle, whatever, anyway he said he is leaving, but I knew he had a weapon with him. So I told him where you leaving, and he said "Well, the Nixons is coming to town, so I am just going to look." And I said for that you didn't need--you know, why you taking all this ammunition with you, not ammunition, the gun? And so we wind up having an argument over it, and we had a fight, and he did not go.

Mr. McDONALD. All right, now the book "Marina and Lee" states that somehow you lured him into the bathroom, and then slipped out and held him in there.

Mrs. PORTER. Yes.

Mr. McDONALD. Tell us how that happened?

Mrs. PORTER. Well, it was easier to remember details when you were working so many years ago on the book than right now.

Mr. McDONALD. Try, if you could.

At this time he had the handgun on his person, and he was preparing to go out?

Mrs. PORTER. Yes, I guess.

Mr. McDONALD. And how did you get him into the bathroom?

Mrs. PORTER. Well, we wrestle or whatever you call it. You try with the time passing by not to--it is easier to forget the bad things of your life that bring memories back, so I cannot describe you the fight that we have, you know, in such scrupulous details that you wanted me to.

Mr. McDONALD. But do you recall getting him, maneuvering him into the bathroom?

Mrs. PORTER. Yes.

Mr. McDONALD. How normally--well, was he stronger than you?

Mrs. PORTER. Of course.

Mr. McDONALD. So how did you get him into the bathroom?

Mrs. PORTER. First of all, I was very angry and that maybe give memore energy and I was determined just that I am going to keep him there,and maybe he give in after a while. Maybe he was just trying to make meangry and see where he stand with me. If he really want--I mean he was much stronger than me. If he really wanted to, he could overpower me,definitely.

Mr. McDONALD. I see. And then the book says, and other testimony, that you held him in. You held the door shut.

Mrs. PORTER. The door for a while, yes.

Mr. McDONALD. Did he try to pull the door open?

Mrs. PORTER. But not for very long, yes.

Mr. McDONALD. Did he appear to be pulling very hard?

Mrs. PORTER. Well, it was hard for me to hold on to it. I don't know, if he try his best, you know, or how much power he used.

Mr. McDONALD. Is it your testimony that in your opinion if he really had wanted to get out, he would have been able to?

Mrs. PORTER. I think so.

Mr. McDONALD. Thank you, Mrs. Porter. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions at this point.

This was a very shaky story. First, Nixon was not in Dallas in April 1963. LBJ made a visit to Dallas that month, but not Nixon. Second, in her first telling, she simply said that she locked Lee in the bathroom to prevent him from going out to shoot Nixon. But then, it was pointed out to her that you can't lock a person in the bathroom from the outside. It can only be locked from the inside. And by the way, I recently made a movie in which a character locks someone in the bathroom, but she did it by reversing the lock. But, not having done that, Marina made it that she just held the doorknob to keep him from getting out. Well, I presume you agree that little 5'2" 100 pound Marina, plus being pregnant, could not possibly have done that. The final exchange between her and the lawyer is ridiculous, where he wants to establish that Oswald could have gotten out if he really wanted to. Therefore what? He wanted to remain in the bathroom? It's ridiculous.

But supposedly, she then knew that it wasn't just a one time thing with Walker, that he was a homicidal maniac. So, what excuse did she have for not going to the police? And why, after all that, would she follow him down to New Orleans to continue living with him? Why would she subject her daughter to the risk of living with him?

None of it makes sense, and it's because the whole story was a lie. Oswald not only didn't shoot at Walker, he didn't even own the rifle with which he supposedly shot at him. Everything Marina said was a complete lie.

So, the big question is: how did the FBI get Marina to say those things? It had to involve intense mental indoctrination, where they drilled her and practiced her and immersed her in this "Oswald was monster" world. And then they sugar-coated it, with among other things, money. You have to remember how dirt-poor they were, but after the assassination, money started flowing in, from Americans all over the country making donations to her, from news organizations wanting her story, from an Italian film production company that paid her a large sum for the film rights to her story (though nothing ever came of it) then Hugh Aynesworth saw to it that she received a tidy sum for Oswald's supposed "Historic Diary" and more. There are hearsay reports that sex was involved, that federal agents were having sex with her. And I have no proof, but I strongly suspect that drugs were involved. For one thing, Marina got extremely thin. She lost a lot of weight between November and February. Now, before you say it was due to grief, go back to what I said before that. We know that drugs, including amphetamines were used in the MK-ULTRA program. Note that Jack Ruby was on amphetamines, and had lost weight from it. But, he was heavy to begin with. She was slender to begin with. And this was the result.

This compares the Shooter in the Beers photo with the Shooter in the KRLD film. It's the same time; the time of the shot.

Notice that in Beers, the Shooter is stretching, with a great distance between his two feet. (Since his leg was cut off, I added in the part that was missing.) It's very different in KRLD, where his feet are closer together. You can't reconcile these two images. So, what is the explanation for the discrepancy?

I think the arrangement in Beers is phony. I think his left foot was planted much closer to his right foot. But, the problem was that his short stature stood out; he was too short to be Ruby, who was 5'9".

So, they took out their paint, and they lengthened his left leg. In fact, they made it too long. The photographer, Jack Beers, was back by the rear wall, standing on a ladder. So, his position would not have made the left leg loom so large. He wasn't to the right behind the leg; he was back with us. But, by lengthening his leg and making it look like the Shooter lowered himself, it created the illusion that he was taller. Note that the bullet was shot at a downward angle. The bullet entered Oswald at the level of the 7th rib, and it settled under the skin at the level of the 11th rib. You just have to read the Surgeon's Report to know that. So, it was shot downward not upward. But, the shooting was done later. They weren't going to shoot Oswald in the garage. They needed complete control to place that bullet with exact surgical precision. They certainly were not going to do it in the garage.

This is just one more visual contradiction in a sea of them. The official story of the Oswald shooting is a complete lie. Ruby wasn't even there. He was already tucked away on the 5th floor, waiting to be slipped into the story- not that he was aware of it. Ruby was gone mentally. It was the Dallas Police and FBI who did it.

So, now you know that comparing the Garage Shooter to Jack Ruby in his mug shot proves that they were not the same man. And that's true regardless of the various talking points. Such as: "But, Ruby admitted doing it. He confessed." But, he didn't. Ruby accepted that he did it. Big difference. Ruby said that he had no memory of shooting Oswald and no intention to shoot him. He said he didn't have the slightest thought to do it- that whole weekend. He said that all he remembered was going down to the garage and being jumped by police. And at the time, he didn't know why. That's why he said, "What are you doing? You know me; I'm Jack Ruby. I'm not a criminal." Would he say that if he knew he just shot Oswald? Didn't he know that police frowned on that kind of thing? Ruby didn't find out that he shot Oswald until police dragged him up to the 5th floor and told him. And he believed them. Why? It's because he was a very submissive person who respected authority. He respected the Dallas Police. But, how can a person confess to doing something that they can't remember doing and no had thought of doing? It wasn't a confession; rather, it was a resignation. He just resigned himself to having done it. 

But, what about all the detectives and reporters who claimed to see Ruby in the garage? First, there were no reporters who claimed that. They learned it was Ruby the same way everyone else did; from police announcing it. Ike Pappas conversed with Ruby the day before, at which time Ruby gave him his card. But, Ike did not recognize Ruby in the Garage. 

Hugh Aynesworth was just 10 feet away. He said he saw the Shooter zip by him. But, he did not know he was Ruby until the Police announced it. And, he had recently eaten lunch with Ruby. The only ones who claimed to recognize Ruby in the garage were the detectives. But, they lied.  The killing of Oswald was a joint operation of the Dallas Police and FBI, and I am sure that LBJ put them up to it. I'm sure he told them the same thing he told others, that if they didn't do it, there would be a nuclear war and a hundred million would die.  

And finally, "But, millions saw Ruby do it on television." No. Millions saw a short, pudgy, middle-aged white man in a Fedora hat do it on television. But, that really isn't the crux of it. The crux of it is that for 59 years (or all their lives) people have been told, over and over again, and very matter-of-factly, that Ruby shot Oswald. And the only discussion that has been allowed is whether Ruby did it alone or was put up to it by the Mafia or the CIA.  THAT WHOLE DEBATE IS NOTHING BUT A SMOKESCREEN  to hide the fact that Ruby didn't do it at all.  Believe me, they don't mind a bit if you want to think that Ruby was in a big conspiracy. As long as you keep Ruby as Oswald's killer, they, the plotters, are as happy as larks. 

From the beginning, this has been a big psy-op, and I doubt there have been any bigger. We've all been like Pavlov's dogs in his famous experiments. It's time to wake up to the fact that Jacky Ruby was innocent. He was really just a poor Jewish man who had great devotion to his family and to his religion, who did not have a mean bone in his body. He was decent and generous. His capacity for rage? I'm sure it was less than mine. I consider Jack Ruby the most exploited victim who ever lived.  At least Oswald had the chance to defend himself, which he did vigorously. But, Ruby was just to out of it mentally to grasp what was happening to him. He died before ever getting a clue as to what was really going on. 

And to this day, people salivate over Ruby's statement about LBJ being responsible- as if he knew anything. Ruby didn't know a thing. It came from a book that Ruby was given to read: A Texas Looks at Lyndon by J. Evetts Haley. I've read it too. The gist of it is that Johnson put Oswald up to it, which is ridiculous. No one who wanted Kennedy dead would have relied on Oswald to do the shooting. 

And speaking of reliance, do you really think anyone would have trusted Jack Ruby to shoot Oswald? Ruby wasn't an assassin, and he wasn't even a marksman. Stop thinking it was easy as pie, that anyone could do it, and nothing could go wrong. Plenty could go wrong. What if Oswald got wind and took evasive action? What if in the struggle the muzzle got shifted, and Leavelle got shot instead? What if the bullet traversed Oswald and entered Leavelle? The bullet practically did traverse Oswald, although I don't believe it was fired in the garage. That was theater. They shot Oswald afterwards under controlled conditions and surgical placement. 

Ruby was out of his mind. He was a birdbrain; a dimwit; a bumbling idiot. Nobody in his right mind would have trusted him to shoot anybody, let alone be in the path of the bullet, as Leavelle was.  Would you really trust Jack Ruby to shoot a gun in your direction? Do you think Leavelle did? 

This was a huge psy-op in which they wrote a whole different bio for Ruby, making him a Mafioso, a hit man, a pimp, a gun-runner, and more. They came up with false sightings of him- in Florida, at safe houses, with Oswald, with Nixon, etc., and they are much like the false sightings of Oswald. 

Jack Ruby was innocent, and if you don't know that, then you are in the dark about the JFK assassination, and you might as well not know anything.   

 

The Shooter's left leg is cut off in the Beers photo.

But, that can't be right. His left leg is too long. And Beers was way back by the wall up on a ladder, so there's no way the camera's location caused this. To show you what I mean, I drew in the missing part of the leg.

So, according to the Beers photo, that was the Shooter's position when he shot Oswald. But, it's ridiculous because his feet weren't that far apart. Look at him in the Jackson photo.

So, his left foot is right below him there. But, look again at Beers, which was supposedly taken half a second before. 

And nobody ever said that the Shooter stopped short of Oswald and leaned in to close the distance. He wouldn't do that. He would just rush in and shoot him without doing any gymnastic stretch. 

From where Beers was, there is no way the leg would have been cut off. It had to be in his camera field. So, what were they trying to accomplish with that? What were they trying to hide? 

They were trying to hide how short the Shooter was. If they just had his foot down beneath him, you'd see how short he was. He was too short to be Jack Ruby who was the same height as Oswald 5'9". That is another dealbreaker about the Garage Shooter, that he was too short to be Jack Ruby. 

5'9 was and is the average height of a man. How could this guy be 5'9?

He wasn't 5'9", and he couldn't be Jack Ruby. He was too damn short.  

I found this very bright rendering of the Beers photo which shows the Shooter very well. So, I decided to make a collage of it with Ruby.

Start by looking at the right. Notice that his hair is rather long in back. Notice that it could be a toupee'. You're not seeing any hair growing out of his skin. Notice that his neck is very short, and that his hairline practically reaches the top of his collar. That distance can't be more than a fraction of an inch. And notice that he has no scruffy hair growth below his hairline. It looks pretty razored clean, doesn't it? 

Now, look at Ruby on the left. Notice that his is definitely a natural hairline, that it doesn't look like a "rug" like it does on the Shooter. Notice that Ruby has a lot of scruffy hair growth below his hairline, and the scruffiness goes all the way down to his collar. So, he was probably a couple weeks out since his last haircut.  And notice that his neck is longer, that there are at least a couple inches between his hairline and his collar. THERE IS NO WAY THOSE TWO ARE THE SAME MAN. 

It is a very big betrayal of your own mind to deny what your eyes can see. "But, Ruby confessed; millions saw him do it on television; the cops recognized him in the garage.." Etc. Etc. Don't do it. Don't betray yourself. Don't become a stupid, mindless automation. Know what trumps what in the hierarchy of reasoning, of rational thought. The people who did this were counting on you being stupid. Disappoint them. 

The most recent communication from the Architects and Engineers shed light on just how biased the judge was in the case they lost to NIST over the collapse of Building 7. 

In his decision, the judge put the assertions of AEfor911truth in quotes. You know how people do that when they want to ridicule someone's claims. The quotation marks indicate that the writer considers the statements ludicrous and deserving of scorn. 

But, in this case, the judge did that for claims that are not in dispute, that are not subject to ridicule because they are plainly factual. An example is that he put in quotes that "Building 7 was never hit by a plane." 

That was not contentious. It is absolutely indisputable that Building 7 was not hit by a plane. No one claims otherwise. By putting the statement in quotes, the judge was, in effect, saying, "These idiots actually believe that Building 7 wasn't hit by a plane."

It shows just how biased and close-minded the judge was, and really, it exposes his total unfitness to adjudicate the case. 

But, it shouldn't be surprising because it comes down to attitude, and that attitude is common, especially in politicians.  And to me, it demonstrates why the effort to establish 9/11 truth in the U.S. federal court system is a lost cause. Any such case is an attack on the federal government, and the judge works for the federal government. His contempt for the Architects and Engineers is obvious, although it is a contempt born of ignorance, stupidity, and wanton incompetence. Still, it was predictable, and they are not likely to fare better in the future. 

Russia starting the war in Ukraine was terribly misguided. It was the result of one man's paranoia. Anger and paranoia. Putin was angry about Ukraine joining NATO, and he had a right to be. But, it didn't give him the right to start a war. Do you know what gives you the right to start a war? Nothing. If someone else starts one, you have the right to defend yourself. That's it. 

The U.S. had no right to start the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq. Were they as bad as this? Yes, of course. 

So, I understand the gung-ho attitude people have in supporting Ukraine. But, just because Russia made a grievous error and miscalculation, doesn't mean that we should be unrealistic about Ukraine's prospects. They are not going to be able to drive the Russians out of Crimea. That is out of the question. The Russians will do whatever it takes to prevent it, including doing Shock and Awe on Kiev and every other major Ukrainian city. THE RUSSIANS WOULD NUKE UKRAINE BEFORE GIVING UP CRIMEA.

Crimea is Russia's sole port on the Baltic. Ethnic Russians are the majority population in Crimea, most of whom willingly became Russian citizens. Russia built the Kerch Strait Bridge connecting Crimea to Russia at a cost of $4 billion. The West ridiculed it as Putin's Folly, but it was a great engineering feat.

Knowing that Putin considers Crimea absolutely vital to Russia's national security, and that it is a source of great national pride to the Russian people for Crimea to be Russian, there is NO CHANCE that he will give it up. He will use whatever amount of force is necessary to hold on to it. He will rain as much destruction down on Ukraine as is needed to make it logistically impossible for Ukraine to wage war to retake Crimea. In other words, they will be too busy putting out fires and digging people out of rubble in Kiev, Kharkiv and other cities to wage war in Crimea. 

So, the people who are egging Ukraine to fight to take back Crimea, they remind me of Raquel Pennington's corner at UFC 224, who goaded her to go back out for a 5th round against Amanda Nunes, only to suffer one of the hellacious beatings ever, including a badly broken nose. And in that case, she pleaded with her coaches that she was done, but they insisted that she go back out there, only to be brutalized like something out of the Spanish Inquisition. What bastards. I curse them. 

But, that is what is going to happen to Ukraine if they attack  Crimea. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, don't do it. 

 

 It finally happened. Somebody got to Salman Rushdie, attacking him with a knife. Apparently, he was stabbed in the eye because they said he is going to lose an eye. He is currently on a ventilator. They also said his liver is extremely damaged, and the nerves to his right arm were cut. 

It happened  at a literary event in western New York where he was about to give a speech. The young man who attacked him at this event is Hadi Matar from New Jersey, age 24. It is unknown whether anyone put him up to it, or if he acted alone. There is still the "fatwa" issued by Ayatollah Khomeni in 1989 because of Rushdie's The Satanic Verses. 

For many years, Rushdie lived in complete hiding and didn't attend anything. But, I guess the passage of time has led him to let down his guard.  Why didn't he have a body guard with him? Why didn't the Institute where he was speaking not have strict security about who could get in, whether they were armed, even with a knife? 

This is really bad. It's like Oswald being attacked in a police garage under the tightest security. But, that was all for show. In reality, his protectors, the Dallas Police, were his real killers. 

But, on what basis was Hadi Matar allowed to attend this event? Could anyone from the public go in? And why not at least have a barrier around Rushdie, and maybe even bullet-proof glass? Rushdie should never have agreed to do this. His people shouldn't have let him do it. 

You can watch the aftermath of it here:

 https://heavy.com/news/hadi-matar/

It's obvious that it was just a hodgepodge of people. So, anybody could get in. And there was no protection; nothing that would prevent an attacker from attacking. Why didn't they have an armed guard there, or even more than one? 

The Chautaugua Institution has a lot of explaining to do. They were negligent. They had a responsibility to protect him.

https://www.chq.org/ 

It's a small world because it so happens that my latest film, Joe Haladin: The Case of the Missing Sister, was selected to be in the Chautaugua International Film Festival.