What does this collage tell you? It should tell you that there is something terribly wrong with the story that Jack Ruby shot Lee Harvey Oswald because if he did, they would not had have to mess with Ruby's hair. The fact that they had to doctor Ruby's hair tells you that the story must be a lie. It's as simple as that. 

Even the bald head on the left side is doctored. Strands were added. And notice that the bottom right has a lot more strands than the bottom left. That's a pretty night and day difference right there. But, what they did on the right side looming large is beyond the pale. How did they think they could get away with that? Was the artist slap-happy? Was he drunk? 

This collage is a smoking gun that Ruby was innocent, and the Dallas Police and the FBI killed Oswald, with the support of the whole friggin' Establishment, including all of the Mainstream Media.  Jack Ruby was a  poor,  innocent, very devout and virtuous Jewish man. He didn't have a mean bone in his body. He was good, like few people are. 

This is a collage showing Jack Ruby's hair, and I suspect that, even as bald as he looks, some enhancement was done, that some of those strands on top are fake. For instance, compare the top right to the bottom right, and notice the additional strands on the bottom right. How easy would it have been for an artist to do that? 

Notice how far down the fringe of permanent hair is on Ruby. That's low even for a bald guy. The only way a guy with that low a fringe could have strands of hair top-center is by way of a hair transplant, which didn't exist at the time. So, even these images of sparse hair were enhanced. But, compare to the press photos, such as this one.

But, why did they do it? They did it because the Garage Shooter seemed to have such a mop. And it was a mop; it was a wig. James Bookhout had a standard FBI haircut, which was very short and very razored. For the Garage Spectacle, he wore a toupee'. This certainly isn't Jack Ruby's hair. 

 

This is a conversation between Jack Ruby and his lawyer, Melvin Belli that is based on real statements that Ruby made, and real statements that Belli made, and the assumption that Ruby made the same statements to his attorney that he made elsewhere, which is a very reasonable assumption because Jack Ruby was very transparent. The scenario that Dallas Police killed Oswald and framed Ruby by having someone else there who looked like him, and also did things to get Ruby there to the garage too- it was impossible for their minds to go there. It would have been like expecting first-graders to grasp Calculus. And ultimately, it came down to their, the lawyers', belief in America, that badness only goes so far in America because this is America. It's not Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, or Red China. 

Melvin Belli: Jack, I want you to tell me exactly what happened. What do you remember?

Jack Ruby: Well, I went down to the basement just to see what was going on, and suddenly, the cops jumped me. They grabbed me and pushed me down. I had no idea why. And that's why I complained. I said, "What are you doing? I'm Jack Ruby. You know me. I'm not some criminal."

Melvin Belli: So, as far as you knew, you hadn't done anything. 

Jack Ruby: That's right. Then, they hustled me up to the 5th floor. And that's when they told me that I shot Oswald. I was shocked. I was flabbergasted. I had no memory of doing it. I never had any thought of doing it. So, I was stunned. It was like I was living in a bad dream. I couldn't believe it. 

Melvin Belli: Do you remember hearing a shot?

Jack Ruby: No, I do not. 

Melvin Belli: Do you remember reaching for your gun?

Jack Ruby: No, I do not.

Melvin Belli: Do you remember seeing Oswald?

Jack Ruby: Yes, but only briefly. It all happened so fast. 

Melvin Belli: What do you remember thinking when you saw Oswald?

Jack Ruby: Just that he looked smug. Or I should say arrogant. 

Melvin Belli: What did you feel emotionally when you saw him?

Jack Ruby: Well, I didn't feel like shooting him. I was just glad he was in custody, and I hoped that he got the punishment he deserved. 

Melvin Belli: Which was what?

Jack Ruby: I don't know. I didn't define it in my mind. If you are wondering if I imagined him being electrocuted or swinging from a rope, the answer is no. 

Melvin Belli: So, you're saying that you never had any violent thoughts about Oswald, not then, and not any time that weekend. 

Jack Ruby: That's right. I never did.

Melvin Belli; And no one ordered you to shoot Oswald?

Jack Ruby: Of course not. 

Two hours later when Belli was conferring with Ruby's other attorneys. 

Melvin Belli: He denies any memory, thought, or intention of shooting Oswald. His admission of having done it is based entirely on what he was told. What do you make of it?

Joe Tonahill: He isn't right in his head. Look: we know he did it. He was there. He was arrested. There are the films and photos of him doing it. So, there's no doubt that he did it. Are we on the same page about that?

Melvin Belli: Reluctantly, I have to say yes. The images don't lie. That's him in the fedora hat. 

Elmer Getz: Of course it is. I can imagine the police doing a lot of bad things, but they didn't frame Jack Ruby. It is what it is. We can see it with our own eyes. However, we shouldn't assume that Jack is lying. His mind is playing tricks on him. 

Melvin Belli: So, you think he did it without knowing it, in a total  mental vacuum? 

Elmer Getz: I think he had a mental break. I think he lost it. 

Melvin Belli: Well, I'll talk to our medical people and see if they can come up with a medical term for it. All right, so our assumption is that Jack is telling the truth, that he doesn't remember anything, and he must have a medical condition that caused him to shoot Oswald without any presence of mind.   

Joe Tonahill: I'm afraid that so. I don't see any other argument we can make to defend him.

Melvin Belli: All right, so he shot Oswald without his conscious mind being present. We can plead him not guilty on that basis. 

Joe Tonahill: You mean, on the basis of being of unsound mind.

Melvin Belli: Yes, that's right. He did it, but lacking mental capacity. Therefore, he is not guilty on the basis of mental defect.  

Elmer Getz: I can tell you right now: he is not going to like it.  

Melvin Belli: Well, we have to do what is in his best interest. He was there, and very reliable witnesses, the most reliable: police officers and detectives, saw him do it. And  the film and photographic evidence prove it, unequivocally. Who else but him could have done it? 

Joe Tonahill: Nobody else. 

Melvin Belli: So, there is no basis on which to deny that he did it. His state of mind at the time is the only thing we have to work with.

Elmer Getz: We just have to explain to him that this is the only defense available to us, that we have no other options.

Melvin Belli: No, we don't. So, I'll get started with our medial people to come up with a diagnosis. Hopefully, they can come up with an impressive term that we can use, one that will engender sympathy for him. Elmer, will you talk to Jack and see if you can get him to accept what we're doing? You know him better than I do. 

Elmer Getz: I can do that.

*    *      *       *       *        *       *       *         *      *

RC: The truth of what happened was beyond the imagination of these lawyers. They couldn't even consider the truth for a moment, as a speculation, and then rapidly dismiss it as preposterous. Even getting that far was impossible. It was really a matter of complete, total, mental blindness. They were completely obtuse as to what really happened, and they couldn't get a glimpse of it, not even for a nanosecond. And it's not much different today. Most people, including most JFK researchers, including those who reject the official story, are 100% sure that it was Ruby in the garage shooting Oswald, because he admitted doing it; there are the images of him doing it; and there is no other person who possibly could have done it. All those beliefs are false. Jack Ruby was innocent, and his framing is the most frighteningly successful scam of all time.  And that is as certain as the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent. Ultimately, the same people who killed Kennedy killed Oswald, and it was their plan from the beginning. Oswald was NEVER going to go to trial. It's very likely that Lyndon Johnson appealed directly and personally to his friends at the DPD to "end the national nightmare."   

 

I know that many people recoil when they hear me state that Jack Ruby was innocent. But, if they would just consider these facts, they'll get over it, and they can get on the right side of history.

1. It was broadly announced that Oswald's jail transfer was going to occur at 10 AM. So, why would Ruby wait until 11:20 AM to show up? Who shows up an hour and twenty minutes late to a killing?

I know there's a JFK buff named Tom something who claims that Ruby was in cahoots with the Dallas Police, and they somehow signalled him about when to come. But, that is ridiculous because Ruby could not have been in cahoots with the Dallas Police. If he was, they would have had to kill him promptly. How could they trust him to keep his mouth shut if he knew of their complicity? And why would Ruby participate in a conspiracy in which him frying in the electric chair was the desired outcome? It is not only super-ridiculous to think the Dallas Police would trust Ruby to keep his mouth shut about their complicity, it is equally ridiculous to think they would trust him to shoot Oswald in the first place. Ruby was a scatterbrain. He was a talkaholic. He was declared legally insane. And there was no record of him ever shooting a gun at anyone or anything. Not even in the Military. He was a mechanic in the Military. The idea that they would trust him with shooting Oswald is insane. They didn't need him for that. They just needed him to take the blame for it. 

2. Why would Ruby juxtapose sending a $25 money wire to an employee with shooting Oswald? If he was going to shoot Oswald, he had to know that he was destroying his life, right? That includes his business and everything else; all gone forever. Even a "to do" list has got to make sense, and sending a $25 money order to an employee and then going off to kill someone in a complete act of self-destruction makes no sense.  

3. Why, after he supposedly shot Oswald and police pounced on him did Ruby say, "What are you doing? You know me. I'm Jack Ruby. I'm not some criminal." Why would he say that if he just shot Oswald? Didn't he know that Police frown on that kind of thing? He said it because he got to the garage early, and the Police just pounced on him. He hadn't done anything, and that's why he said what he did.   

4. If he knew he was going to shoot Oswald, why did Ruby bring his beloved dog Sheba along and leave her in his car? Didn't he know he wasn't returning to that car? Shouldn't he have found a permanent home for her and his other dogs beforehand if he knew he was going to shoot Oswald? It makes no sense for him to have brought her along to a planned killing. 

5. The claim is often made that the CIA or the Mafia ordered Ruby to shoot Oswald, but when? We know Ruby's whereabouts every minute from Thursday the 21 until Sunday the 24th- and beyond. We know every single phone call he made or received. So, when, where, and how did the CIA or the Mafia contact him when no window for such a contact exists? 

6. There is absolutely no doubt that Ruby lacked any personal desire to shoot Oswald. He said repeatedly that the thought never crossed his mind. He denied being angry at Oswald. He told reporters that the prmary feeling that dogged him that weekend was "remorse" over the loss of the President. 

7. Ruby had an almost pathological admiration for the Dallas Police. He worshipped them. They were his heroes the way ball players and movie stars are looked up to by others. The idea that he would have usurped their operation is preposterous. He had no arrogance towards the Dallas Police. 

8. There is no reliable evidence that Ruby was a Mafioso. There are hearsay claims that Ruby was at this Mafia meeting, that Mafia meeting, that he was at the Murchison party the night before JFK was killed, etc.  etc. All of that is just lipflapping that should be categorically rejected. Ruby ran two independent nightclubs in Dallas that were not Mafia assets. There is no bankable evidence that Ruby belonged to the Mafia or ever did anything on behalf of the Mafia. Ever. 

9. It is often claimed that Ruby shot Oswald because the Mafia threatened to kill his sister if he didn't. There is no evidence for that whatsoever. There isn't even hearsay evidence for it. There isn't the slightest lip-flap for it. There is nothing for it.  It is simply a fabrication, i.e., a lie. 

10. But, what about the idea that, OK, Ruby didn't go there to shoot Oswald, but once he got there and saw Oswald, he was overcome with an irresitable impulse to shoot Oswald which happened spontaneously- at the spur of the moment? Isn't that what his lawyers argued?

Not exactly. They went further than that. They claimed that he lost consciousness and awareness, that it happened in the midst of psychomotor epileptic fit, where instead of his muscles spasming uncontrollably,  he performed the precise and delicate movement of pulling the trigger of a gun- all as part of his seizure. Basically, they claimed that he did it within a sleep-walk. It was preposterous then, and it is preposterous now. Medicine will tell you that a person pulling the trigger of a gun as part of a seizure is impossible. So, why did Ruby's lawyers claim it? They claimed it because Ruby told them that he had no thought of shooting Oswald, no memory of shooting Oswald, and no mental linkage whatsoever with doing it. So, they figured he must have been asleep when he did it. In reality, he had no memory of doing it because he didn't do it. You can only form a memory of things that actually happened. Ruby said that all he could remember was that the reached the basement and then the police jumped him. He remembered it that way because that is exactly what happened. Nothing more and nothing less.

Jack Ruby was innocent; completely, totally innocent. And if you don't get on board with that, then you are cleaning the toilets of the men who killed not just Oswald but JFK. If you want to be slaves to them, go ahead, but don't pretend otherwise. JFK truth makes extolling the innocence of Jack Ruby a necessity. Unless you defend Jack Ruby, you're not one of the good guys in this historic battle for truth. All else that you espouse is for naught if you don't get it that Jack Ruby was innocent. 

Somebody went to Dealey Plaza and did the same thing I did: they reshot the Zapruder film and showed how the freeway sign would really have been captured. 

But, they did it unwittingly because they didn't go there with a surrogate sign like I did.  Instead, they continued filming until they captured a similar freeway sign that is actually there. 

 So, that is farther down the road, and "Zapruder" is facing the other way; he is turned west instead of east. Still, we can use that as a surrogate for the Stemmons freeway sign. We just have to horizontally flip it.

All right. So now we're going to take that sign and drop it into his view of the top of the hill.

So, there's the view that mimics the famous approach of the sign we see in the Zapruder film, although without the zoom. Still, let's drop the sign in.

That location is about right, and the angle is exactly right. It's 90 degrees to the road, as all road signs are. Now, let's compare it to Zapruder film, and we're considering the amount of view obstruction that the 90 degree sign offers.

You can see that in the Zapruder film, the sign is not at 90 degrees to the road. It is turned towards the road, which reduces the angular difference between it and the road. The Zapruder sign may be only 45 degrees to the road. It may be even less than that. It is definitely not a 90 degree road sign. It is a glaring anomaly. The first time people saw it, they should have realized it was bogus. They should have screamed Bloody Murder from seeing that ridiculous and obviously fraudulent freeway sign. So, why didn't they see it and react to it? It's for the same reason that they didn't react when they saw a headless man in the Altgens photo.

There was so much sunlight reaching that man's face that he felt compelled to visor his eyes with his hands. The light was blinding him. It hurt! And I know because I have stood there in that spot on a warm, sunny November day at 12:30 and felt the intensity of the sun as it was blinding me, and believe me, I wanted to visor my eyes too. But, how could his entire face be blackened out just from visoring his eyes? Show me one other photo like this in the entire world. You can't. This is the ONLY one. So, why did people accept it?

The reason they did, and the sad truth is, that people defer to the State. They accept its images, and they believe its stories, its lies. They did then, and they do now. And by the way, if you are wondering who that guy is, whom we call Black Hole Man, he was Billy Lovelady.   

   

Cliff Varnell said:

Terrific work, Steve!

Humes, Boswell and Finck got it right the night of the autopsy: JFK was hit with

blood soluble rounds.

The Dal-Tex shot was the second shot. The first shot was from Black Dog Man

circa Z190 striking JFK in the throat with a paralytic.

The second shot was the kill shot, a toxin. They weren't aiming for JFK's head -- they

were aiming for his heart, missing a few inches to the right.

Close enough for government work.

*      *      *       *       *       *      *       *         *         *          *

Jack White said: 

I do not dispute the "soluble bullet" or "paralytic bullet" theories.

However, I do not believe there was a real Blackdogman.

Jack

This was an exhange on Education Forum, and I notice there are, to this day, many people who claim that the throat shot preceded the back shot. But, it is not true. 

Let's think it through. We see JFK reacting to the throat shot in the Zapruder film when he emerges from behind the phony sign and raises his hands to his throat, which he did because his airway was blocked. It wasn't a reflex, but it was semi-automatic and not consciously thought. It was a panic reaction.  Here is Z-230: 

So, he had to have been shot in the throat right before this. His hands were going up when we first see him at 225, so he was shot in the throat before that when he was out of view behind the sign. What exact frame is anyone's guess. Here is 222. Maybe it was then. 

So, when was he shot in the back? I have to believe he lurched forward when he was shot in the back, but they cut that out. And Dan Rather said on 11/25 after watching the Z film that "The President could be seen lurching forward: the first shot had hit him." We don't see that, so they must have taken it out. But, let's try to figure out where it was. 

Here is 162, and JFK is OK.

No chance he has been shot there. He looks relaxed. His arm is down, and his face is plain view. Notice that LBJ's car is still in the intersection of Elm and Houston. 

Now, here's 175. JFK is waving, and we see his face as good as we ever do. He has not been shot in the back. 

In 188, his arm is up; his head is turned to the right, and he is engaged with the spectators. No reason to think he's been shot in the back.  

But, 193 is very distorted. Notice how JFK's face is more distorted than Connally's. That's night and day. Connally looks photographically normal; a bit blurry, but otherwise normal. JFK looks weird and unrecognizable. That's a doctored image.

In 198, his hand is now covering his face like a blob. He is reacting to the back shot with a facial expression they did not want us to see; so they covered his face with his hand. 

So that settles it: between 188 and 193, JFK was shot in the back.

And upon further study, I am prepared to say that the back shot occurred at Z-190 because of the sharp difference between 189 and 190. 190 is the first frame that suddenly goes weird with the hand over the face. 

So, if he was shot in the back at 190 and shot in the throat at 222, that would be slightly less than 2 seconds between the two shots, but it was much longer than that. They compacted the Z-film. He rode down the hill, slowly, having been only shot in the back. There was at least 8 seconds between the back shot and the throat shot. They hid it completely. You just can't go by the Z-film. 

I have the November 29, 1963 LIFE magazine with the first published frames from the Z-film. In it, they jump from Z-162, which I showed you above, to Z-220, where the limo was starting to emerge from behind the sign. All those frames in-between were omitted because they weren't doctored yet. They must have shown the lurch that Dan Rather talked about, and JFK's startled and distressed look after being shot in the back. It may have taken them a long time to figure out how to fix the film.

Dan Rather went on to say that when JFK was shot in the head, that his head moved violently forward, and he demonstrated it.

 

We don't see that in the Zapruder film. We see JFK frozen in spasm; Jackie huddled close to him, and then it's 313 in which he's shot in the temple, and his head goes violently back and to the left. But, why don't we see this shot that Dan Rather demonstrated? They must have taken it out. Remember: they were limited to 3 shots because that's all the shells they claim were in the Sniper's Nest. So, at that time,  on November 25, their story was that one shot hit Kennedy in the back; another hit Connally; and a third hit Kennedy in the head. They couldn't allow for two head shots because they didn't have enough bullets. But apparently, JFK was shot twice in the head. 

Jim, there are conflicting images of the bullet hole in the windshield. One is high, above the rear view mirror, and towards the driver's side. It is often shown with spiral arms like a star. 

Then, there is one that is much lower.

That one is only a little above the hood of the limo. It was described by one of the Secret Servie agents. But note that if the shot was taken at a downward angle from a high elevation, such as Triple Underpass Bridge, then the bullet would never have reached Kennedy's throat in the back seat. 

Then, there is the Altgens photo which features two bullet holes. So, take your pick.

I have been saying for a long time that the Altgens photo was taken when the limo was high on the hill and long before JFK was shot in the throat. So, that imagery of him, with Jackie holding his arm, that is going on forever and looks more like a vacuum wand than an arm, is definitely fake. People say it corresponds to Z-255, but it's not even close. In 255, she has her right hand on his upper arm, but in Altgens, his forearm continues jutting out, and she has both hands on it. It's weird. It's not even anatomically correct. 

So, what is the truth about the bullet hole? I don't claim to know. I am an agnostic about it. I don't know what to believe. There is conflicting evidence from witnesses about the location of it. I've shown you that there is conflicting photographic evidence. 

But, I will say that it would have been awfully stupid of them to shoot at Kennedy through the windshield when he was riding in a convertible. They had options. This operation was planned well in advance. They had ample opportunity to shoot him from behind and from the north side of Elm, the side he was on. So again: why shoot him through the windshield? And why create irrefutable proof of a shot from the front when you were claiming a different story, that all  the shots came from behind? 

And I do think the shot to his throat was deliberate. I don't think they were aiming for his head but hit his throat by mistake. And I don't think that anyone would expect to be able to place a bullet in his throat from a great distance and shooting through glass. It was too small a target to hit from a great distance, let alone through glass. 

So, I don't think the shot that hit him in the throat went through the windshield. All claims that it did are rank speculations. It is much more likely that it didn't happen that way.  

Why, if they were going to claim there was a lone gunman shooting from the rear, did they shoot JFK in the throat from the front?

It must be that they planned from the start to claim that the hole in his throat was the exit wound of the shot to his back. That is what they claimed that very night, or at least by the wee hours of Saturday morning. And, I'm saying that it was planned that way before anything happened. 

There is no alternative to that because it's the only way to convert a frontal shot into a shot from the rear. 

And why did they shoot him on the right side of his back? I could understand the left side because that's where the heart is. But, a shot on the right side wouldn't necessarily be fatal. With rapid medical and surgical attention, he could have survived that quite easily. Connally was shot through his right rib cage, and the bullet traversed him, and he survived handily. 

So, do you think the shot to his right back was a mistake? I don't. Not for one second do I consider that they were aiming for his head but hit him on the right side of his back instead. Kennedy was hit in the back high on the hill with a lot of people around. They did not want to kill him there in front of so many people. The Kill Zone was farther down, by the grass. So no, they weren't aiming for his head. They hit him exactly where they intended to hit him. The purpose of that shot was to deliver the nerve agent to immobilize him and incapacitate him, so that he  would be an easy mark once he entered the Kill Zone. 

 

This time of year, I keep a wool cap on my bedpost in case my head gets cold at night when I'm trying to sleep. However, if I wear it, I don't pull it down over my ears because that would be too much heating. I found that folding it down over my ears about doubles the heating effect.  

It's strange in the Altgens photo that there is a boy who is wearing a wool cap when it was sunny and 71 degrees at the time.

Observe that he did have the hat folded down over his ears. That's surprising because children usually don't chill as easily as adults because they have better circulation and faster metabolism. So, why is he dressed like that when even Jackie complained about the heat?

The boy wasn't there. His image and that of his mother were added to the photo to obscure the man in the fedora hat. I don't know for sure who he was, but I suspect he was FBI Agent James Bookhout, who masqueraded as Jack Ruby at the Garage Spectacle two days later. That was reason enough to cover him up, but in addition, he wasn't facing the motorcade. He had his back to the motorcade, and he was turned and looking at Oswald in the doorway. 

How do I know? It's because that's his hat we're seeing. We're seeing him from behind. It's not showing his face at all. If he were facing the motorcade, we'd be seeing his face, and his hat would be much less in the picture. For example, here is Al Roker watching a Thanksgiving parade.

Below, there is no face showing on Fedora Man. And look at the line of his shoulders. He is turned about 45 degrees left, looking at Oswald, as the President of the United States is riding by. 
 

So, they had to obscure that, so they used the mother and boy to do it. They, apparently, went into it with a catalog of images they could emploit. And notice that the boy is looking down. He's not looking at the motorcade either. What could he possibly be looking at? What is he distracted with? His image is totally disconnected from the story of this photo. It's a fake. 

Jim Fetzer, the claims of Bob Livingston do not amount to evidence. That was just him flexing his imagination. No one but you takes his claims seriously.  And you, of all people, should know that it does not rise to the level of bankable knowledge. And it's not about explaining just the throat wound; it's about explaining Kennedy's whole patho-physiological presentation, which neither a bullet nor a piece of glass can do. 

That you can hold fast to a casual conversation with someone from 1993 and consider it unassailable in 2023 is incredible. Imagine if it happened in medical research that someone posited a conversation with someone decades before as proof of something. You would be laughed at and considered insane.  

Since no bone was struck, there is no basis to conclude that a metal bullet fragmented. And you can't claim a bone fragmented because the only fracture found was a hairline fracture of the transverse process of a vertebra- I forget which one.  

Something is wrong with you that you keep saying that fragments were found, when they only exist in your imagination. And an appeal to authority is considered a logical fallacy, in case you don't know it. 

The fact is: we don't have definitive evidence about a hole in the windshield. There were two different locations cited by witnesses. And even the photographic evidence for it is conflicting. I have told you repeatedly that the hole in the windshield in the Altgens photo cannot possibly be real because it was taken when the limo was high on the hill, long before the throat shot happened. I know the Altgens photo shows JFK and Jackie reacting similar to how they did in Z-255, but it's only a crude semblance of it. 

In the Altgens photo, JFK's fist is too large, and Jackie has both hands on his forearm, which goes on forever like a vacuum wand.

In the Z-film, she had one hand on his forearm, and her other hand was on his upper arm. And between her two hands was his extremely flexed elbow. 

It is very different from what we see in the Altgens photo, which is nothing but a crude paint-job.  

And if you just look above at 255, you'll see that no one in his right mind would take such a shot: having to hit a tiny spot at the bottom of his throat, while shooting through glass, and at a great distance. There are limitations to everything, Jim, including marksmanship, and nobody would take such a shot.  

The fatal head shot involved the use of a frangible (explosive) bullet. That's the bullet that fragmented, as it was designed to do. So, with a bullet exploding inside Kennedy's head, it could go in any direction. 

Your attempt to connect Kennedy's later brain damage to the throat shot is completely unfounded, unwarranted, and forensically unsound. 

And nobody agrees with you, Jim. Nobody but you claims that some of Kennedy's brain damage came from the throat shot.

I am posting this on my blog, Jim. I've had it with your stubbornness. It's all about you not wanting to revise your books and videos. Well, they are wrong, and that's tough. 

Dr. Alen Salerian is right that there could have been no bullet with the throat shot because if there were, Dr. Perry would have found it. Remember that it was just a few minutes after the shot that he was in Kennedy's throat, and he could find no bullet. The trauma he found was the entrance wound, the damage to the left side of the trachea, and a slight contusion at the top of the right lung. He didn't find a bullet, and he didn't find any sign that the bullet had traveled anywhere.  

And let's remember that Kennedy was in a panic when he emerged from behind the phony freeway sign. HIs airway was obstructed. He put his right hand over his mouth and coughed, and with his left hand, he yanked on his tie. And that did it. It cleared the obstruction. It would not have been so easy to clear had it been a metal bullet causing it. The reason it got resolved so quickly is because it wasn't a bullet but rather a dissolvable flechette. 

This is undeniable. To claim that he was shot in the throat with a metal bullet is untenable. To claim that he was shot in the back with a metal bullet is untenable. To claim that the bullet fell out is ridiculous. These were preparatory shots, and the effects they had on Kennedy were due to the toxins introduced, rather than physical trauma. Kennedy didn't speak, and he couldn't speak. The claim that he yelled "I'm hit!" is a total, utter lie. If he were capable of saying that, he would have been capable of saying more than that. 

I know that not everyone is a doctor, but you have to look at Kennedy as a doctor would. You have to assess him as a patient, and the impairment that he exhibited, both physically and mentally, was extreme. And when I say physically, I mean functionally. He really was having a seizure in that limo. And as I watch it in the Zapruder film, it looks very much like what happened to Jane Stanford, where her muscles started seizing up from the strychnine. 

And, as with Jane Stanford, it was a progressive thing. This is a comparison of z-262 and z-268, so all this progression supposedly took place in a third of a second.

You can see the progression in his shoulder hunching, and even the gripping of his masseter muscle in his face is more pronounced on the right. He is a wreck there, and don't assume he wasn't in pain. THERE IS NO WAY HIS PHYSICAL TRAUMA CAN ACCOUNT FOR THIS. It was chemical. And there is no excuse for the medical profession not recognizing this for what it is. If this had happened in any other context but the JFK assassination, they would have. 

Jim Fetzer has brought to my attention an FBI memo from 1964 about a radical right-wing activist named Oren Potito who organized a public meeting in which he made certain claims about Jack Ruby. 

  

So, let's review the ridiculous claims of this con-man. First, he claimed that Ruby and Oswald knew each other, as Communists, and that Ruby got Oswald the job at the "state school building" so that he could kill Kennedy. There is no evidence that Ruby knew Oswald or ever heard of him before 11/22/63. And you should realize that a lip-flap is NOT evidence. Anyone can flap their lips and say anything. And in this case, there was a devious campaign to create a phony, fabricated identity and past for Ruby. And in a way, it was genius because officially, Ruby was going to be another lone assassin, but they also composed the alternate story, in advance, that he was deep in the Mafia and involved in killing not just Oswald, but JFK. The reality was that Ruby didn't kill either one. He wasn't even in the garage during the televised spectacle; he was already tucked away on the 5th floor. 

But, the FBI knew that there were going to be people were going to doubt the official story of HOW Ruby did it, but they didn't want them doubting THAT he did it. So, they wove this alternate story that made Ruby a Mafioso, a Communist (in this case, although in other versions, he was a rabid anti-Communist, running guns to anti-Castro Cubans, infiltrating Communist organizations, working for Richard Nixon, etc.) The reason they made him out to be a Communist in this case was to tie him to Oswald. Ruby did not know Oswald. He never met him and never heard of him. And the idea that the JFK conspirators relied on Ruby to get anything done to kill Kennedy is a joke. Ruby was a mental case and a blabbermouth. Nobody in his right mind would trust him to do anything, let alone kill the President of the United States. 

Emphatically and repeatedly, Ruby denied knowing Oswald. He denied it on a polygraph test, which he technically passed. And remember that it was he who adamantly requested the polygraph test. He also offered to swallow truth serum. So, you know he had no intention of lying. He didn't ask for it because he thought he could "beat the machine." On what basis would he have thought that?

He also denied being in the Mafia and being a gunrunner. He said that the closest he ever got to doing business in Cuba was that he considered selling Army surplus supplies to Cuba, including jeeps, but his lawyer talked him out of it. 

The more astute researchers know that Oswald never went to Mexico City. Yet, there were witnesses who claimed to see him there, and a woman, Sylvia Duran, the secretary of the Cuban Consulate, who claimed to have an affair with him. But obviously, since Oswald did not go to Mexico City, he did not have an affair with her. 

Drumming up phony witnesses to tell their lies is something that the U.S. intelligence agencies (FBI and CIA) have always done. And they did it lavishly, both for Oswald and Ruby.  

Now, the first bullet was NOT the one that entered JFK's throat. The first bullet was the one that entered his back, high on the hill, when the limo was still adjacent the TSBD and before the Altgens photo was taken. And it wasn't really a bullet. It was an ice flechette that contained what has been called a "paralyzing nerve agent," but the more accurate description is a spasmodic nerve agent. 

So, JFK rode down the hill having only been shot in the back. And it was a very shallow and trivial wound. In itself, the trauma was neither physically nor mentally disabling. So, why didn't he do something? Why didn't he take evasive action to protect himself and the others in the car? And keep in mind: there is no doubt that the physical damage from the shot was very minor; it was just a shallow puncture wound in the muscle and fascia.  The reason he didn't do anything is because the drug or drugs in the flechette were mentally incapacitating, and they acted fast. 

As for the throat shot, it was actually pretty minor as well. It damaged the lower rings of the trachea on the left side and caused a very slight contusion of the lung. These were reported by Dr. Malcolm Perry. But, he fished around looking for a missile, and he even cut the right strap muscles in order to facilitate the search, but of course, he found nothing. And remember that this was before any alleged and supposed "pre-autopsy." So, there really was no missile. So, that was a flechette shot too, although a different kind. It's very likely that the throat shot was taken by Umbrella Man, who used another kind of flechette that also dissolved but was not made of ice. 

The claim that the throat shot was taken from the Triple Underpass Bridge is complete nonsense. There were 18 railway workers up there, 14 of whom were vetted personally by S.M. Holland, the railway supervisor. The other hare-brained idea is that the throat shot was taken at an angle from a storage unit at the divider island between Main and Commerce streets. That is absurd because it would have been hard enough to hit Kennedy in the head from that distance, but the idea of hitting a tiny spot at the bottom of his throat is a wild fantasy. Such accuracy from that distance is impossible. That shot had to be taken from up close, and the claim that Umbrella Man did it is well supported by photographic malfeasance in Betzner, Willis, and more.  This is what we know about the development of the umbrella gun: 

Mr. Charles Senseney, a CIA weapon developer at Fort Detrick, Maryland, testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee in September 1975 where he described an umbrella poison dart gun he had made. He said it was always used in crowds with the umbrella open, firing through the webing so it would not attract attention. Since it was silent, no one in the crowd could hear it and the assassin merely would fold up the umbrella and saunter away with the crowd.

Video footage of the assassination of John F Kennedy shows this umbrella gun being used in Dealey Plaza. Video evidence of the events of November 22, 1963 shows that the first shot fired on the fateful day had always seemed to have had a paralytic effect on Kennedy. His fists were clenched and his head, shoulders and arms seemed to stiffen. An autopsy revealed that there was a small entrance wound in his neck but no evidence of a bullet path through his neck and no bullet was ever recovered that matched that small size.

Charles Senseney testified that his Special Operations Division at Fort Detrick had received assignments from the CIA to develop exotic weaponry. One of the weapons was a hand-held dart gun that could shoot a poison dart into a guard dog to put it out of action for several hours. The dart and the poison left no trace so that examination would not reveal that the dogs had been put out of action. The CIA ordered about 50 of these weapons and used them operationally.

Senseney said that the darts could have been used to kill human beings and he could not rule out the possibility that this had been done by the CIA.A special type of poison developed for the CIA induces a heart attack and leaves no trace of any external influence unless an autopsy is conducted to check for this particular poison. The CIA revealed this poison in various accounts in the early 1970s. The CIA even revealed the weapon that fired those darts that induces a heart attack at a congressional hearing.

Considering that the throat shot entered JFK's neck in the center but damaged the left side of his trachea, that tells you that it must have been taken from the right. And again, it had to be taken from close up to hit such a tiny spot in his throat. All that points to Umbrella Man as the shooter. 

 

The claims of Oren Potito were nothing but engineered noise, designed to mislead and deceive. Not a word he said was true. He was just another intelligence mole planting disinfo so that present and future reseachers would be preoccupied with diversionary nonsense. It's a pity that, to this day, some still fall for it.