There is the Latin expression, Cui bono? which means, "Who benefits? That's what you need to ask yourself about the Oswald shooting. Ruby certainly didn't and couldn't benefit from it. But, the Dallas Police could. They were in trouble. The clock was ticking. Oswald was clamoring for a lawyer. He devoted his whole MPC speech to it. And remember, he didn't ask for someone to contact John Abt. He just said that he was asking for someone to come forward to provide him with legal assistance. And that did so much damage, that the next evening, they had civil attorney H. Louis Nichols meet with "Lee" and offer to get him an attorney, which "Lee" turned down. That was not the Oswald of fame. I have tracked the time. Nichols didn't even start the wheels in motion until 5 pm. By the time he was one-on-one with Oswald in his cell, it was after 6:20, at which time Harvey was already on the 3rd floor, heading to Fritz' office.  The Oswald of fame never met with Nichols and NEVER would have turned down that offer. 

And as much trouble as the Dallas Police were in, the FBI was in even more trouble. They are the ones who came up with the false story of Oswald mail-ordering a rifle from Chicago, and everything they submitted as evidence for it was fake. Do you think it would have been hard for Oswald's lawyer to establish that in court? And then, it was the FBI who claimed to find partial prints on the rifle after the Dallas Police could not. 

It wasn't just that they couldn't let Oswald go to trial, though they certainly couldn't. They couldn't even let Oswald speak to a lawyer- not even once. They would have had to kill the lawyer. 

So, the Dallas Police needed Oswald dead about as badly as Putin needs new recruits who can shoot straight. 

So, what do you think, they just got lucky that Ruby came along and got them out of a jam? Luck had nothing to do with it. The whole thing was planned. And I don't mean planned with Ruby. There was no conspiracy between Ruby and the Dallas Police. And if people would just think about it, they would realize it. The Dallas Police testified against Ruby in a death penalty case. How can you be in cahoots with people who are trying to put you to death? 

There was a conspiracy, but it was against Ruby, not with him. And I wish to God people would realize that there was no way the Dallas Police would let Jack Ruby fire a gun in a crowded place with them in it. They didn't let James Bookhout do it either. It was too risky. The Garage Spectacle was pure theater; it was just an act. Oswald was shot afterwards. 

They didn't need Ruby to kill Oswald. They just needed him to take the blame for it. 

It makes perfect sense that the people who framed Oswald and killed JFK went on to kill Oswald. The same people killed both men. Make it three because the same people killed Tippit too.

To those of you who think that Ruby did it, but the Mafia put him up to it, stop thinking it was your idea. From the beginning, that alternate story was decided on as the right one for naysayers to be encouraged to embrace. That story is very safe ground for the perpetrators, and you are doing their bidding if you extol it. Believe me, they don't mind a bit if you want to say that, and that's because it is polar-opposite to the truth, which is: that Ruby didn't do it at all. 

When I started clamoring that there were no images of James Bookhout, not from the assassination (even though he followed Oswald around like his shadow) not from before the assassination, and not from after the assassination, and that even after his death in 2009 at the age of 95, his obituary lacked an image, I knew why.

But, at some point, Bart Kamp, from England, claimed to go to the National Archives and obtain an image of James Bookhout from the assassination weekend. But remember, that I did find yearbook images of Bookhout with the help of Ancestry.com. So, the image Kamp found has to be consistent with the yearbook images, or else it's bogus, right? 

Well, it's bogus. As you can see on the left, Bookhout had very puffy cheeks. He was that way in the earliest image of him that we found, which was from high school. I think he was maybe 15 at the time. But, the collage below compares his 1937 photo from when he graduated from SMU Law School in 1937 with the image Kamp found. 

So, you see the very puffy cheeks on the left, and then on the right, is the Kamp image. Note how gaunt that guy's face was. And remember that, usually, people tend to get fatter as they age. So, how could he go from fat-faced to gaunt? What, did he go on an extreme diet? Did he become a marathon runner? You see he's smoking a pipe there. Bookhout lived to 95. How many pipe smokers live to 95? Those two are obviously not the same man. And notice how fake the tuft of hair is in front in Kamp's image. It obviously isn't hair. It's just painted on and crudely at that. But, the same goes for the swervy eyebrows on Bookhout. Nobody has eyebrows like that. Some women will shave their eyebrows and paint on swervy ones, but that's the only way you get them. So, a concerted effort was made to alter Bookhout's appearance on the left. Therefore, both images are altered. However, there is no reason to doubt that that is Bookhout on the left, and that means that the man on the right can't be him. 

The Wizard put it well when he said, "There is no way that early law school photo could have morphed into that." 

 

 Mike Cunningham responded to a letter I sent to leading JFK researchers about the latest find about Jack Ruby. Mike asked about Ruby's hat. The fact is that in most of his images, Ruby did not wear a hat. I only know of two images in a hat. One was at the opening of the Carousel Club, and the other was at an Easter parade in Dallas in 1960. All of his other images were hatless. 

However, they definitely needed Ruby to wear a hat on 11/24/63 because James Bookhout had to wear one to hide his face. It may be that George Senator, who was Ruby's "roommate" but really his handler, saw to it that Ruby wore a hat on Sunday. But, if Ruby didn't wear one, then they just slipped it among his stuff. Ruby was stripped down to his drawers as soon as they got him up to the 5th floor. There are multiple sightings for it, including Ruby's lawyer Elmer Gertz, who wrote Moment of Madness, and also Vincent Bugliosi in Reclaiming History. It's weird because I don't think most men would stand for it if police ordered them to strip. Maybe in prison, but this was a City Jail. I think most men would probably say something like, "I'm not giving you my clothes to stand here in my drawers; fuck you." But, Ruby went along. Why? You just can't exaggerate the degree of his compliance and submissiveness, due partly to his nature, (the extreme respect he had for the Dallas Police, his heroes) and also because of the drugs he was on. He was heavily drugged on 11/24. It was reported on WFAA that Ruby was muttering incoherently after his arrest. Of course, that was never repeated. 

Just compare the behavior of Oswald and Ruby after their arrests. Oswald was vocal, defiant, and lucid. He proclaimed his innocence 13x that I know of, where we can hear him. But, Ruby never said anything in the hall. He just went along with everything, with his eyes all dilated from the drugs. Look at the drug-glazed stare on Ruby. Compare his eyes to the focused eyes of the policeman and Detective Boyd Webb. Ruby was high as a kite. 

And by the way, notice how neat and well-groomed he looks there. Supposedly, this was him when they brought him in, on the right:

What, did they have a makeup department, like on a movie set? How did he go from that to the image above it? And what happened to his jacket? Reportedly, they didn't remove his jacket until they got him upstairs. So, how could he be jacket-less in the Jail Office? They didn't think it through. In an operation such as this, the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. 

Mike also asked if there are any images of James Bookhout. Yes, although not many. Most of them are from his school yearbooks: high school and college. But, there is this image of him from 11/24/63.

That's James Bookhout. They blackened out his eyes and did other things to obscure him, but that's him. They don't admit it's him. They claim it's Jack Ruby. But, you know it's not Jack Ruby. Ruby didn't have that much hair. He didn't have such a round face. He didn't have such a short neck. He didn't have such a short forehead. He didn't have such a narrow nose. He looked nothing like Jack Ruby.

So, you see the long neck on Ruby, the long forehead, the longer face. Guys, the killing of Oswald and the framing of Ruby was the biggest psy-op of all time. You were bamboozled by it, but don't feel bad because everyone else was too. The important thing now is to set the record straight. No matter what you have written or said before to the contrary, there is no reason to keep doing it. Jack Ruby was innocent.  

 Come on, people, just look at this. On the left is Ruby heading into the courtroom, three months after his arrest. Look at his hair in back, which is nothing like the long mop on the Garage Shooter. And, notice that the Garage Shooter had a very short, burly neck, but not Ruby.

They can't possibly be the same man, and anyone who can't see that is either extremely obtuse and stupid, or they are covering for the killers. Jack Ruby was not in the garage during the televised spectacle. And that's what it was: a spectacle for the public. You see, they knew that if they just said that Oswald got shot, say, trying to escape, that no one would believe them. They had to put on a show, a demonstration. Everything about it looks choreographed with head-nod cues and spontaneous group actions that were pre-planned. But, what you see here is the bottom line, the raison d'etre for Jack Ruby innocence: the fact that Ruby simply was not the Garage Shooter. If you are going to claim that those two are the same guy, then you are capable of claiming anything. 

I have said before that one thing about the Architects and Engineers that irks me is their belief that 9/11 truth can be achieved through the courts, that courts are going to rule in their favor. Recently, they sued NIST over their preposterous report about the collapse of Building 7, which was never hit by a plane, and whose collapse was reported before it happened. The judge ruled that the veracity of NIST's report could not be raised as a legal issue; that their delivery of a report was sufficient to meet the statute. 

The ridiculousness of that should be obvious to everyone. If the content of the report cannot be challenged, then NIST could have said: "Building 7 fell because of gravity. That completes our report." And by the judge's decree, that would be sufficient too and beyond reproach. What the judge really meant was: "NIST is the U.S. government, and the U.S. government cannot be challenged."

The courts are never going to fairly adjudicate 9/11 truth, and for one simple reason: If Osama bin laden and his gang of jihadists didn't do 9/11, then the U.S. government did. 

So, how can the U.S. government fairly adjudicate 9/11 when they are the real culprits? They, the U.S. government, decreed the official story of 9/11, and if that story isn't true, then it can only mean one thing, that the U.S. government did it. 

It's exactly the same way for the JFK assassination: If Oswald didn't kill Kennedy, then the U.S. government did. And I don't mean "rogue elements" within the CIA. I mean the CIA, the FBI, the Vice President, and others across the spectrum of what Vincent Salandria called "the national security state." That's who killed Kennedy. And it's very likely that those who promote the idea that Mafia killed Kennedy are working for the government. The idea that Mafia did it is so stupid that I won't debate it with anyone. I am not willing to waste my time. Anyone who believes that the Mafia did it needs to stay the hell away from me. 

You know that we are in serious trouble. The soaring inflation that is going on is not due to Putin; it's due to all the money printing. Why did they ever think they could print, not billions, but trillions of dollars and not cause prices to rise? To think that you can get away with it is like thinking you can get away with breaking mathematical laws, not realizing that they can't be broken. What's going on now is the direct result of everything we did to kick the can down the road. All the schemes they came up with to deal with prior emergencies, such as cutting interest rates to zero, did tremendous economic harm, and now we're feeling it.  

How bad is it going to get? I don't know. But, I don't put anything past these idiots. They are capable of doing the most idiotic things. They may even get the bright idea that a war is just what we need to revive our economy. I just hope there isn't a complete collapse. I hope there is still going to be food in the stores. 

But, if there is one thing we should have learned from the last 3 years is that there is no telling what is going to happen. Imagine going back to September 2019, which was just a few months before the insane Covid pandemic began. and I call it insane because it involved a lot of medical insanity. Medicine is more religion than science, especially when it comes to pandemics.  But, my point is that back in September 2019, nobody could have predicted how the next three years were going to go; and how the government was going to respond to it. And the government's response was 95% of what happened. The government and the medical profession did far more harm to people than the virus. 

So, what is going to happen over the next 3 years? I don't even want to try to guess. Just about anything could happen. But, one thing that does occur to me is that, now that things are worse than ever with Russia, that Russia may decide to hit back at us by calling out our lies. For instance, in the past, Russian scientists have mocked the U.S. claim of having sent men to the moon. I heard one say that Russia was going to send an unmanned spacecraft to the moon "to take pictures of that American flag the Americans left behind." 

And what if the Russians do it over 9/11? And what if they do it over the JFK assassination? Even before recent events, Putin went on the air with Megyn Kelly and called the JFK assassination a CIA operation. What would he call it now if he was asked again? Recently, I listened to a speech of his in which he mocked the US for blaming him for the raging inflation in our country. And it made more sense than the stuff we are told here. What if he holds a gathering for 9/11 truthers in Russia? What if he contacts me and asks to join the Oswald Innocence Campaign? In the past, I would have welcomed him. But, since he invaded and attacked Ukraine, even I won't take him because starting a war is never right. 

What I believe is that, on the one hand, the worsening situation in the country is going to distract from truther causes, but on the other hand, desperate times often call for desperate measures, and the enemies of the United States may decide that our "stories" are our weak spot, and it's time for them to go after them. It may be that Russia and China will feel that they have nothing to lose any more by telling us how they really feel about our stories. If that happens and word of it travels around the world, it would very damaging. Because, let's face it: even without help from Russia and China, a large percentage of Americans doubt or outright reject the official stories of JFK and 9/11, as well as other things. 

So, as the saying goes, the possibilities are endless. We may be just as shocked and surprised by what happens over the next 3 years as we were about the last three years. The point is that, as things get worse, the official narratives may be on the chopping block. 

There is a 2019 film about the moon landings that debunks them completely; better than anything else I have seen. It is over 3 1/2 hours long, and you can watch it for free on Youtube. It stomps out every glimmer of hope that the moon landings actually happened. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=KpuKu3F0BvY  \

I have never addressed the moon landings issue before, publicly, and I am not going to get into the nuts and bolts of it. But, I will say that it is as preposterous to claim the Man went to the moon as it is to claim that steel skyscrapers collapsed straight down, through the path of greatest resistance, at freefall speed.   

But, I would like to address the sociology of it because for several decades, there wasn't much resistance to moon-landery. If there were, would they have repeated it? Supposedly, there were a total of 6 manned moon landings between 1969 and 1972. So, something they can't do today at all, they did 6 times in 3 years back at a time that computer science was still in its infancy. But obviously, the first 5 fake moon landings must have been well received for them to want to do a sixth. If there was trouble brewing, if there were leaks in the story, they would have quit before that. 

But, I think we should recognize that it was a different era, where respect for government and media were much greater than they are today, and respect for authority, in general, was too. Consider what happened at the JFK assassination in 1963. You had all these people in Dealey Plaza taking photos and shooting films, and every single bit of that imagery wound up in government hands. Obviously, they had authority figures combing the Plaza and confiscating cameras. Does it seem odd to you that not one person protested having to turn over their private property? I would have refused. I would have said, "This is mine. It's private property. I didn't steal it. I refuse to give it to you. So, take me to a judge."  

And of course, those images were very important. Do you realize that every single one of them was altered? There are alterations in every one of the motorcade films: Zapruder, Martin, Bell, Hughes, Wiegman, etc. And the same goes for the photos: Croft, Betzner, Willis, Altgens (of course) Jackson, etc. The Moorman photo, which is the most famous one after Altgens6, went to the moon, so to speak. It was altered to the point of replacing it. What we call the Moorman photo was not the one that Mary took. The so-called Moorman photo was taken by Babushka Lady. It was shot from a diagonal angle from behind, which was confirmed by a physics professor who has a specialty in Optics. He gives lectures to other physicists about Optics. And he established that the Moorman photo was taken from a diagonal angle from behind. Do this experiment: compare the Moorman photo with the Muchmore film. 

The perspective is very similar, is it not? But, why should it be? Mary was right across from the Kennedys. She said, many times, that she took her photo right when they passed her. Just as they, the Kennedys, their bodies, had reached her, she pressed the shutter. So, it was a perfect perpendicular shot, according to her. But, Muchmore was up by the reflecting pool. She wasn't far from Houston Street. So, she was at the top of Dealey Plaza. So, how could two photographers, shooting from two vastly different locations and angles, capture the exact same image, the exact same perspective? 

And if Mary Moorman took her picture when the Kennedy's reached her, why does her picture show the back of their heads? Who waits three hours in the hot sun to photograph a couple, only to capture the back of their heads? And remember, the limo was approaching her very slowly. Reportedly, it was going just 15 mph. Why would she wait until the limo passed her and then shoot the back of their heads? If anything, she would have snapped the shutter slightly BEFORE they reached her. Because: the idea was to capture their faces, right? But, the likeness of those two images tells you that it is impossible for Mary Moorman to have taken the Moorman photo. 

But, let's leave that and go back to talking about the sociology of the moon landings, and the fact that they must have sold well for them to have repeated them 5 times after the first one. And note that two Presidents were involved in the sham: LBJ and Nixon. By the first one, LBJ was already out of the White House for half a year, but there was a lot of planning that went into it; planning that started under Johnson. So, the scheme originated under Johnson.  Just think, that was another thing that Johnson, a Democrat, and Nixon, a Republican had in common besides the JFK assassination, which Nixon referred to as "that Bay of Pigs thing." 

I don't know when the tide started turning against the moon landings, but I do know that it accelerated with the rise of the internet. But, they pretty much got away with it for 25 years. 

But, that is nothing compared to how long they got away with the ruse of Jack Ruby killing Oswald. They got clean away with it, where, apparently, not a single person in the world doubted that Ruby shot Oswald, until 2013, when the great Maxim Irkutsk, the Russian, posted his video on Youtube "Jack Ruby did not shoot Lee Harvey Oswald." You can still watch it today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oh3zvoj9HVc&t=60s

How did they get clean away with it for 50 years? After all, from the very beginning, by which I mean the day it happened, there were Mark Lane, Vincent Salandria, and Harold Weisberg screaming bloody murder that the official story was a lie, that Oswald was innocent. So, how did they miss what really happened to him, Oswald, when he was conveniently and urgently taken out? 

Well, let's compare. In the case of Oswald, he vociferously denied having done it. We could all see and hear him deny it, and he did it with great passion and conviction. He devoted his MPP address to declaring his innocence and exposing the Dallas Police for denying him a lawyer. And I think to a great extent, those great researchers (Lane, Salandria, and Weisberg) took their cues from Oswald. 

But, what about Ruby? He accepted that he did it, but solely because the Dallas Police told him that he did. His account of what happened was that he went down to the garage; he was jumped by police; they dragged him up to the 5th floor, and there, they told him that he shot Oswald. He said he had no memory of doing it; no mental vision of doing it; and no thought or intention of ever doing it. His entire basis for accepting guilt was: "The Dallas Police said I did it." 

And it was a long time before we heard anything directly from Ruby. He said nothing in the hallway that day or any other day. It really wasn't until the time of his trial in 1964 that the public heard anything directly from him. And it wasn't much. 

So, Oswald denied doing it, and it lite a fire of doubt within the public. Ruby said nothing. All we had to go on was what authorities were telling us. So, why didn't ANYBODY doubt the official story? The answer, I think, is that they just didn't have an alternative. There was a lone shooter. He was identified as Jack Ruby. And the idea that it was really someone else masquerading as Jack Ruby was something that nobody's mind could do. Not even Ruby's lawyers were capable of doing it. It was staring them in the face. All they had to do was look CLOSELY at the images of the Garage Shooter and compare him to Ruby, and they would have easily seen that he wasn't Ruby. But, they couldn't do it because of the disease that I call Americana, the belief that this is a good country, and that degree of police monstrousness is not possible in the United States.

And that is exactly what the perpetrators were relying on: the expectation that no one's mind would be capable of going to what they did because it was beyond anyone's wildest imagination. 

And even now, after having blogged about Ruby's innocence for nearly a decade, I realize that we have just barely made a beachhead. The number of people who have any awareness of it is very, very small. However, it's still satisfying knowing that they are never going to get the genie back in the bottle. That's right: the Genie of Jack Ruby innocence is out and about, and she will never be contained again. 

But, watch that film that delivers a death blow to the moon landings hoax. It's impressive; it's inspiring; and it's refreshing. Bravo. 

  

I tell you, those evil connivers had no limits. I found a video about Sheriff Bill Decker taking Ruby for his polygraph test, and it includes a clip of Ruby that is obviously from an earlier time when he was younger and fatter. It's from 1954 when Ruby was charged with violating his liquor license. You can plainly see that he was younger, more bloated, and more puffy in the face. 

Here's the link to the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GF5Cg1d8EBE&t=24s

And they actually put dialogue into it; the voices of reporter's asking him questions. But, Ruby does not respond, nor does he act like he's heard them.  He seems oblivious to them, like they weren't there, and they weren't. They were just voices that were put in. It's known as a  voice-over. I know about it because I am a filmmaker. The video is labeled January 18, 1964, but they included something from a decade earlier. My blood curdles knowing of the chicanery in the telling of the phony story of Ruby shooting Oswald.  He didn't do it. He wasn't even in the garage at the time. But, he was so helpless and hopeless that they could easily manipulate him into thinking that he did it. Jack Ruby was one of the most pitiful souls who ever lived, and the idea that he was a Mafioso is joke.    

There is a simple experiment you can do that will prove to you that they routinely tampered with Ruby's hair in media films and photos. It was at his trial in 1964. His lawyers were walking him down a hallway to re-enter the courtroom to hear the verdict. His lawyers were on the outside, and he was on the inside. They grasped the shoulder of the man in front of them in order to create a wall, presumably to protect Ruby. It takes 8 seconds for them to make this trek. In the video, it goes from 13:46 to 13:54. BUT, BEFORE YOU WATCH IT, SLOW IT DOWN TO .25 SPEED. If you click on the Settings wheel and then "Playback Speed" you can change it to .25. And then watch it, again, from 13:46 to 13:54. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKpKbdEz_s4

What you see are the changing alterations to Ruby's hair. Back then, they had to do it with paint. They had to paint each frame, one by one. It was art. But, they couldn't be totally consistent. It's just too difficult to make the transitions totally fluid and consistent. So, the result is that his hair jumps around. 

I posted a series of frames from it here: 

https://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2022/09/changing-hair.html

You'll see that two I labelled 5a and 5b, and that's because it jumps from one to the other instantly. It literally jumps before your eyes.  

And note that the whole pattern of Ruby's supposed hair loss is totally unlike the male pattern baldness that men experience. Supposedly, Ruby was bald on top except for tufts of hair in the very front that he kept long and combed back in long strands. And supposedly, he also added a weird part to it. As you look at the pictures, ask yourself how often you see someone with hair like that. 

In male pattern baldness, it usually starts at the temples and is followed by thinning at the crown. So, it's a three-pronged, triangulated attack, like the attack on Kennedy. But after that, the frontal hair goes next; it goes before the hair on top. So, when you see a man with frontal hair and baldness behind it on top, it's usually because he had a hair transplant, like Joe Biden. But, Jack Ruby did not have a hair transplant. It didn't exist at the time. It was done with paint. 

The reason they did it was because the Garage Shooter had such a thick mane of hair in back, which was a wig. James Bookhout was an FBI agent, and they all wore very short, razored hair. So, the wig was part of his disguise. It's obviously not Ruby's hair. But, if they showed Ruby as bald as he was, it would have been ridiculous to claim that he was the Garage Shooter. Who could be bald on top and have this much hair in back? There is absolutely no chance that Ruby had hair like this. IT'S A WIG! 

 

 Ruby's changing hair. 

Did Oswald own a rifle? No, he didn't. He said he didn't, and he didn't. Of course, his accusers say that he lied. But, if you know, as I do, that he did not shoot Kennedy or Tippit, then you know that he had no reason to lie. 

If you were accused of shooting someone, which you didn't do, but let's say you did own a rifle, and the police asked you if you owned one, you wouldn't lie. It's not hard to say, "Yes, I own a gun, but I didn't shoot anyone with it. If my gun was used to commit the crime, then someone else did it, apparently to frame me." That's what you would think, and that's what you would say. And the same goes for Oswald. So, when he said that he didn't own a rifle, he meant it. 

And, it's easy enough to prove that he never ordered a rifle from Klein Sporting Goods. Here is the supposed money order. Notice that it doesn't say c/o Lee Harvey Oswald, who was the sole owner of the P.O. Box. 

This is his application for the box. It doesn't say anything about anyone else being allowed to receive mail in the box.

Since a rifle couldn't fit in the box, they would have had to leave a notice about it. So, he goes to the counter. 

Oswald: I'm here to pick up a parcel sent to my P.O. Box

Postal Clerk: Box number?

Oswald: 6225.

Postal Clerk: Name?

Oswald: Lee Harvey Oswald. But, I placed the order under a different name: A. Hidell. That's who the parcel was sent to.

Postal Clerk looks puzzled.

Postal Clerk: Why did you do that? 

Oswald: Well, it's an alias of mine. I prefer to use it sometimes than my real name.

Postal Clerk: So, you have no legal status to use the name? 

Oswald. Well, I did register with the Selective Service under that name. I can show you my card.

(Officialdom has it that Oswald forged such a card when he worked at the photo lab in Dallas.)

Oswald shows him the card.

Postal Clerk: How old are you? 

Oswald: 24.

Postal Clerk: So, when you registered for the draft, you used a phony name? 

Oswald: Uh, that's correct.

(Note that since Oswald was full-time military before his 18th birthday, he did not have to register with the Selective Service.)

Postal Clerk: What is in the parcel?

Oswald: A rifle.

Postal Clerk acts startled. 

Postal Clerk: So, you ordered a rifle under a fictitious name? 

Oswald: Yes, that is correct. 

Postal Clerk: Please wait here. I need to get the Postmaster. Don't go away. 

Now, think about the fact that police never informed Oswald that they tracked down his rifle order to Chicago. They could have told him about that on Saturday morning. So, why didn't they? They knew that he denied owning a rifle. So, why not checkmate him with the evidence that he did? 

Well, remember that the evidence came from the FBI, not the Dallas Police. But, the FBI told the Dallas Police, and I'm sure Fritz would have posed it to Oswald IF THE FBI WANTED HIM TO. But apparently, Bookhout told Fritz not to broach Oswald with it. I could only guess what reason he gave him, but Fritz did what he was told. 

Then there is all the other stuff the John Armstrong found, such as that Oswald supposedly mailed the money order by placing it in a mail box on a street in Dallas, yet it got delivered in Chicago the very next day, and the fact that the money order was never deposited or paid. We know that because the back of it didn't have any of the stamps that it would have had if it had gone through the banking system. Then, John found a deposit slip of Klein's that supposedly included Oswald's $21.45 money order; but, the deposit slip was dated February 15, 1963, a month before Oswald supposedly ordered his rifle from Klein's. 

Are you getting it now that the whole story of Oswald having ordered the rifle from Klein's is a house of cards? It's ludicrous. 

Now we know why Oswald denied owning a rifle. It's because he didn't own one, and he never ordered one.

But, where this story ends is with Marina. Even though on November 22, she denied that Oswald owned a rifle, stating that he used to, back in Russia, but it got sold, by February 1964, when she testified to the Warren Commission, she sang like a nightingale about Oswald and his rifle and his various exploits with it. 

Are you starting to realize now how crucial her testimony was? That she truly was the star witness of the Warren Commission? How did they get her to say all that stuff? She was MK-ULTRA'd. The only evidence I can point to is her extreme weight loss, plus all the money they funneled to her, plus the use of sex to influence her. 

It's interesting that the Warren Commission tried to get George DeMohreschildt to confirm the existence of Oswald's rifle. But, George held his ground that he never saw the rifle. The way the weird story went was that George and his wife Jeannie visited the Oswalds, and Oswald invited everyone to go into his room to gaze at the rifle. Everyone did except George, who preferred to stay in his seat on the couch- even though he was a gun guy who loved and collected firearms. Nope, he wasn't interested. That was his story and he stuck to it. And if you read his testimony, you really get the feeling that he was uncomfortable. I don't blame him. He knew there was no rifle. 

 

  

Just watch and listen to Jack Ruby, then ask yourself whether he was Mafioso. 

He would have had to be the greatest actor in the world to put this on display if, in reality, he was a Mafia killer.

The fact is that he was a devout Jewish man. He only believed he shot Oswald because Dallas Police told him that he did it. They were the real killers. They manipulated him to go to the garage by getting Karen Carlin to request the money wire. Are you aware that she entered the Witness Protection program afterwards and was relocated to Michigan under a new name?  But, that money wire put him a block away. How did they coax him the rest of the way? First, by having a crowd huddled at the Main Street ramp. It was an incoming ramp, and they could not have been waiting for someone to arrive. No one was expected.  Anyone hoping to see Oswald would have waited at the Commerce Street ramp. 

THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THAT CROWD TO BE THERE EXCEPT TO LURE RUBY.

THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THAT CROWD TO BE THERE EXCEPT TO LURE RUBY.

THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THAT CROWD TO BE THERE EXCEPT TO LURE RUBY.

THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THAT CROWD TO BE THERE EXCEPT TO LURE RUBY.

THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THAT CROWD TO BE THERE EXCEPT TO LURE RUBY.

Then, because of the drugs they got into him, Ruby was extremely vulnerable to suggestion. So, they must have had someone at the WU office casually say, "You should go down to the ramp and see what's going on." And so he did, even though he had his beloved dog Sheba in his car. And then, one of the plants at the ramp must have nudged him to go down to the garage, and so he did. And that's where he was jumped and dragged away. It was before the televised spectacle, the better part of an hour before. 

Are you aware that in his WC testimony, he said he sent the money wire at 10:15? He was quickly corrected, and he didn't fight it, but he never fought anything. But, he was correct. And remember that the first thing they did on the 5th floor was strip him of his clothes. They kept him in his drawers. And when they finally returned his clothes, his paperwork from Western Union was swapped out with ones saying 11:15. 

We were all Pavlovian dogs to believe the official story of the Oswald shooting. But, it's not too late to foil them. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxBrlzi744Y