You may be aware that I have a movie coming out on New Year's Day called DOVEY'S PROMISE. It's a true story with a JFK connection; a courtroom drama about the Towpath Murder Trial of 1965 in which the victim was Mary Pinchot Meyer, who was JFK's last mistress. She was murdered in Towpath Park in Georgetown, eleven months after he was.

Her attacker grabbed from behind and grappled with her. Then he took his gun out and shot her in the head. Then, he let her go because he expected her to fall to the ground. But, even though she had a bullet lodged in her brain, she took off and went 24 feet before collapsing. Then, he went and took her by the arms and dragged her back to where it began. And then, he took his gun out again and shot her in the back. And he angled the shot, so that it would hit her aorta. And she died instantly from that.

And it has a parallel to the Oswald assassination because his shot ruptured his aorta too. He didn't die instantly like she did, but by the time he reached the hospital, he was, for all practical purposes, dead. He was about as dead as Kennedy was when he reached the hospital, which was pretty dead.

Oswald was completely exsanguinated. He had lost all his blood. Parkland doctors transfused 6 liters of blood into him. The body only has about 5 liters. So, it was more than a full body supply.

They also starting using hemostats and electrocautery to stop the new blood from bleeding out. And they did succeed in restoring some blood pressure to him. He didn't have any when he arrived. But, then his heart starting failing. He went into cardiac arrest. His heart couldn't pump that new blood because it was already irreversibly damaged from its own lack of blood. They tried massaging his heart. But, after a while, they realized it was futile, and they declared him dead.

But, like Kennedy, Oswald was dead on arrival. Even a chicken will run around with its head cut off for a while, but it's dead. Sometimes a body can still have some manifestations of life, even though it is hopelessly dead and shutting down. It just hasn't turned all the lights out yet, and that was true of both Kennedy and Oswald. Both were DOA.,

So, the bullet severed Oswld's aorta and vena cava, and that meant that he had a fountain of blood spurting inside of him. And the only thing he should have done after being shot that way is collapse.

So, Oswald slapping his left arm to his chest, like King Kong, in the Jackson photo is a contrivance . We see it there, but we don't see it in any of the films. They did that just to cover up the area so that the absence of trauma could be explained. That photo was taken at a photo-shoot an hour before, and there was no shooting.

But, I hope you'll take this as a reminder about DOVEY'S PROMISE because it really is a great courtrooom drama- the best since A FEW GOOD MEN. And, I assure you there is no better way for you to start the new year than by watching this great film. You can watch the trailer here:

https://vimeo.com/ondemand/dovey

 If you are wondering why the phony arm on Leavelle, with his hand in Oswald's pants, and why the phony arm on Oswald being slapped to his chest, with the humongous freako hand, it's all because this was supposed to be taken after the shot. However, there was no shot because it was taken at a photo-shoot before the Garage Spectacle. And since there was no shot, Oswald wasn't traumatized, and neither was his clothing.

So, that meant that they had to cover up the entire area. "Nothing to see here, folks." It's all covered up. So, no blood, no wound, no torn clothing, no nothing. Anything and everything that could possibly have been affected by the shot is covered up.

So, the fact that you don't see the slightest sign of any trauma is because there wasn't any trauma, and they covered up the whole area with arms akimbo.

So, that's how they came up with the idea to have Leavelle with his hand in Oswald's pants. No police officer would ever do that, and no police officer has ever done it. And Oswald certainly wouldn't stand for it. Recall what happened in the Texas Theater when Officer McDonald made a move for Oswald's pants to get his pistol. Oswald slugged him in the nose. Of course, McDonald returned the favor, slugging Oswald in the eye.

But, this weird arrangement at the core of the Jackson photo is due entirely to there being no shot and no trauma and having to cover up the whole area of impact.

 If you watch this NBC footage of the Oswald shooting, you will notice several things, and this is in the order that they occur.  

1. The arm of Jim Leavelle with his hand in Oswald's pants is fake. You can see that it looks ridiculous. His forearm isn't even anatomical; it curves. No one could do that with their forearm. If you tried to reproduce it, you'd find out that it's impossible.

That ain't real, folks. And by the way, I outsmarted them.  NBC made it impossible to do a screen-save, so I just took a picture of it with my cell phone. 

2. The muzzle blast is very weak. For a snub-nosed revolver in a small, confined space with walls on three sides? It could easily cause permanent tinnitus. 

3. There is no muzzle flash. 

4. Considering that it was a contact shot or nearly so, shouldn't Oswald's sweater have been burnt? 

5. Notice that Oswald goes down way too fast. It's like a vacuum the way he falls to the ground. It's like: Whoosh! and he's gone. 

6. The voice of Tom Petit has the wrong affect. He's talking about Oswald being shot with the affect of a baseball anouncer at a slow game. "There's a high fly to right field. Reggie Jackson is underneath it. And that makes it one out." 

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/nbc-5-archives-footage-of-lee-harvey-oswald-being-shot-by-jack-ruby_dallas-fort-worth/207417/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR2Y3vMamGq8r35fgWL31SL_qyWHo8P-WuCymeaIZvDtycY2vOholrQAggk_aem_0QzPehsJSbMh3SzRuU4lMA

  Look at this ridiculous Jackson photo. It's supposed to be after the shot. So, a shot just went off in that small, cramped space. It was practically like shooting a gun inside. That's how loud it was. Then Oswald audibly groaned, and he apparently slapped his arm to his chest (not really, but that's what the photo shows).

So, how could Detective Roy Lowery (on the left, next to the wall) still be clasping his hands in front after all that? And he told the Warren Commission that he saw everything, that he saw and recognized Jack Ruby standing there, that he saw the gun, and he saw him make his move. And that all happened before the shot went off. Yet, after the shot, he is still standing there, relaxed, with his hands clasped in front of his body?

Even Will Fritz is reacting. His arms are going up. It's pretty fake looking, but at least it's something. So, why isn't Lowery reacting, both as a cop, and as a human being with a startle reaction? But, there isn't one person in the whole photo exhibiting a startle reaction.

What about the guy on the far right who is supposed to be Detective Blackie Harrison? He's not Harrison. He's actually Leonid Brezhnev. Just kidding of course, but he looks more like Brezhnev than he does Harrison. But, he's supposed to be reaching for the Shooter's gun. While smoking a cigar? And doting on it with a gesture like Groucho Marx?

NBC reporter Tom Petit is on the right in the white trench coat. He's not reacting either. He doesn't look the least bit stressed or startled, even though a shot just happened. Shouldn't he be shocked and stunned?

Jim Leavelle in his Easter suit said the same thing as Lowery, that he saw and recognized Ruby on the side and saw the gun and saw him coming in. He said that he jerked Oswald behind him to protect him, but you can see that Oswald is not behind him. He said that he thumped Ruby on his left shoulder with his right hand, but that was a lie too. He never did that. But, since he saw the Shooter in advance and was aware of what was happening, doesn't it seem like he should have responded by now?

I'll mention just one more guy: the cop in the white hat in the far back. Notice that he seems to be looking directly at us. He's not looking at the action in front of him. He's looking through that at us. The reason he seems to be looking at us is because he was looking at the camera. Our view and the camera's view are one and the same. Therefore, since he was looking directly at the camera, it seems like he is looking at us. But, he was a cop too. He must have heard the shot. So, why isn't he going into action to respond?

This photo is preposterous. It was staged, and I mean before the televised spectacle. And we know how they did it. Just read the testimony of Dr. Fred Bieberdorf. He said that at 9:45, they cleared out the garage. All the reporters and cameramen were told they had to leave. They were told that they could wait in the press room on the 3rd floor. And they didn't let them back into the garage until 10 minutes before the jail transfer. It happened at 11:20, so that would mean 11:10. So, that's an hour and 25 minutes. And what they did during that time was first: grab Ruby. He showed up about 10:20. He sent his money wire at 10:17. That's what he told the Warren Commission. They hustled him up to the 5th floor, and they had to settle him there. I know that two of the detectives who were involved in that were Thomas McMillan and Blackie Harrison. And that's why they had to recruit Leonid to fill in for Blackie in the Jackson photo.

So, while Ruby was being handled on the 5th floor, and it may have taken some convincing to get him to accept that he shot Oswald, the others took their iconic photos in the garage. And the reason they had Leonid smoke a cigar was to cover the lower part of his face. Someone must have thought that there was something weird about his chin area, and that it needed to be covered up for him to pass as Blackie. So, that's the idea they came up with.

Hey, I'm a filmmaker, and I know very well that sometimes, you have to make sudden decisions to cope with unexpected problems. And there are always unexpected problems.

So, here's what I think happened: Blackie was up tending to Ruby when they shot this. Afterwards, they informed him that they had to have Leonid smoke a cigar to cover his chin. Therefore, Blackie had to smoke a cigar. So, even during the melee', he continued smoking his cigar.

You know that in an emergency, with the need to subdue a violent criminal before he kills again, a cop is going to ditch his cigarette or cigar. As he's moving in, with one of his hands, he will dash it to the ground. He's not going to keep smoking at a time like that. But, in this case, they had to tie Blackie to Leonid, so they told him to smoke and keep smoking.

So, who was Leonid? He may have been Jim Hosty. And if so, that would put two FBI agents in the garage: James Bookhout and James Hosty.

This ridiculous photo won the Pulitzer Prize, and that is crazy. It's a farce! I attribute it to the fiat power of the State. Fiat is from the Latin: "to let it be done." Think of Yul Brenner in THE KING AND I: "So let it be written; so let it be done."

 

This is how men's hair looks in back, all but the Garage Shooter, who is wearing a wig. And if he weren't wearing a wig, it would take a long time of primping and designing to get his real hair to look like that. Jack Ruby never did that. Why would he, when he had very little hair? Why would he get artsy about his hairline in back?

And notice that the other guys in the photo had actual necks. Jack Ruby had one too. But, the Garage Shooter was practically neckless. It was like his head was plopped on his shoulders.

There isn't a snowball's chance in Hell that guy was Jack Ruby. The deception is over! The Garage Shooting was staged, and they already had Ruby tucked away upstairs on the 5th floor. And several hours later, they coyly inserted him into the story, bringing him down to the 3rd floor to display him to reporters and cameramen. And poor Ruby was so gone mentally from the drugging and the manipulation that he was in a maze and a daze of confusion and helplessness.

People fell for it in 1963, but this is 2025. There's no excuse to fall for it today. They needed Oswald dead because the case against him was such a pack of lies that they couldn't let him see a lawyer- not even once. They had to get him dead before he spoke to a lawyer because that lawyer would have been infused with the knowledge that Oswald was framed and innocent. One short session with him is all it would have taken. They needed to permanently silence Oswald. And they did; law enforcement did. Ruby was just their helpless patsy, whose mental faculties were so weak, and whose pathological respect for authority was so great, that he was helpless to stand up to them.

So, who did it? The leading actors were the Dallas Police. It was their show. And I'm sure it was one of them who put the bullet into Oswald, possibly Officer RC Nelson, who was Tippit's partner, who was there. But, it also invovled the FBI, since James Bookhout, the star of the show, was an FBI agent. It also involved the Secret Service because it was SS Agent Forest Sorrels who minded Ruby up on the 5th floor while the Dallas Police were busy with the spectacle. And, while that was happening , other Secret Service agents were busy rounding up Marina, which they started doing BEFORE Oswald was killed. They finagled her out of Ruth Paine's house on Saturday and had her planted in a motel on the outskirts of Dallas, the Executive Inn, that night. I'm sure they guarded it all night. The next morning, they took possession of her bright and early- before Oswald was shot. She was already in the Secret Service custody when Oswald was shot.

But, the prime-mover behind the whole thing had to be Lyndon Baines Johnson.

It's been 61 years of lies, and it's time for the truth.

 Fritz was in the ridiculous Jail Transfer procession, which had everything but the Pomp and Circumsance music (DAH....dah-dah-dah...Dah-Dah) and then he turns around and nods at the trio of Leavelle, Oswald, and Graves. I've put together this collage in which you can plainly see the nod.

Then, Detective Thomas McMillan also turned around and nodded. Didn't they know that talent isn't supposed to do that, especially when the camera is rolling? It's something that crew does, not the actors. I'm a filmmaker. I know.

 Look at this Willis photo. It was taken right before JFK was shot in the throat. He was already shot in the back with the ice bullet. And he's not waving at the spectators. Why? It's because he was shot in the back, and massive changes were taking place in his body that were disabling. He wasn't the same man. He was completely in the throes of the nerve agent.

But, that's not what I want to talk about. What I want to talk about is: WHY AREN'T THE SPECTATORS WAVING AT HIM?

Look at the people beneath the freeway sign. Not one of them is waving at him. What happened to all the excitement of people waving at the President? So, did they have a sense that something was wrong? Maybe, but there is another possibility, which is that those people weren't there.

I have written about the Willis photo before. I pointed out that Umbrella Man's umbrella is too small. It looks more like the size of a Japanese parasol. I don't think it's a legitimate image.

But, let's remember that they could have started shooting JFK much sooner. They could have shot him when he was on Houston Street. So, why didn't they? It's because there were too many people there. They didn't want that many eyes on it. The Kill Zone started at the freeway sign. And they made sure it was only lightly populated down there, so that there would be few eyes on it.

According to Officaldom, nothing has happened to JFK yet in the Willis photo. He hasn't been hit at all yet, according to them. So, why would he have stopped waving? He wouldn't have.

Now, I don't trust that image of JFK in the Willis photo. It doesn't look photographic to me. It may be have been painted, replacing what was there.. But, I know for sure that he wasn't waving. And that's because he had already stopped waviing. He wasn't waving in the Croft photo, which came long before. And he wasn't waving in the Betzner photo either. So, he had long ago stopped waving. And if some of those people were added, they may have avoided putting in wavers because he wasn't waving. They may have thought that it would look odd if there were hands outstretched waving at him, and he wasn't responding. It would highlight that there was something wrong with him. So instead, they gave us the non-waving President and the non-waving spectators, even though, supposedly, nothing has happened yet.

But, there is one more thing that is very significant. Notice that Jackie is turned and looking at her husband. SO, SHE HAS STOPPED WAVING AND INTERACTING WITH SPECTATORS TOO. She knows that something is wrrong with him. He's got a weird look on his face. She described it to the Warren Commission as a "quizzical look."

There isn't anybody waving in the Willis photo. When you put it all together, you realize that something terribly wrong has happened already. And the story that he hasn't been hit yet is a lie.

 To those who recognize that the Single Bullet Theory is complete, utter nonsense, you’re right. But granting that, what happened instead? Once you drop the SBT, what does it default to? And how do we find out?

We find out by starting with what the autopsy doctors found. We can’t go to the Parkland doctors because they missed it completely.

In his summary, Humes said there was a 7 x 4 mm oval entrance wound in the upper right posterior thorax. He provided measurements of its location from the mastoid process and from tip of the right acromion process of the scapula. But, the anatomical landmark he needed to use for reference was the spine. So, why didn’t he locate it as per distance from the spine?

But fortunately, other doctors present did so, and they all said it was adjacent to T3.  All but one, that is; the exception saying it was next to T4.

Humes said that the angle of entry was 45 to 60 degrees. That is impossible because it would have meant the shot was taken from a helicopter. The angle from the 6^th floor was only 18 degrees. Humes probed the wound with his pinkie, and other doctors did too. It appeared to be shallow and end abruptly. Military officers would not let them dissect the wound.

When it was found out the next day that there had been a wound in his throat, it was decided that it must have been one continuous wound. But, they still had JFK’s body, so why didn’t they go back and confirm it?

But, never mind all that. What matters is that a shallow wound in JFK’s back is all they found. And there is no reason to think it was anything but that.

But, why wasn’t there a bullet in the wound? Some have said that it fell out, but absolutely not. The only way it could have fallen out was to go back out through the holes made in 3 layers of clothing, and that is impossible. But, two persons claimed that that’s what happened. One was a friend of the driver of the Secret Service car, Sam Kinney. After Kinney died, this friend said that Kinney told him that he found the bullet on the floor of the limo and that he put it on the stretcher. Later, the same claim was made by SS Agent Paul Landis, except he said he found the bullet stuck in the back of the limo seat.

We need to dismiss these lies because they are just part of the evil of the JFK assassination. There is no chance that either of them is true.

However, there is another theory that preceded either one of them. It is that the back bullet was removed at the “pre-autopsy.” David Lifton alleged it. But no, that isn’t true either, and for multiple reasons.

First, if the back wound had been tampered with, the autopsy doctors would have recognized it. Digging a bullet out of the body isn’t easy. You have to get forceps around the bullet and yank it out. And that tears and disrupts the tissue. They saw no signs of that.

But, the whole idea that there was a metal bullet lodged in there is absurd and impossible. The bullets form the Carcano rifle had a flight speed of 2000 feet per second.  If one struck him in the back at that speed and then came to rest in an inch and a half, that rate of deceleration would have been impossible. There is a lot of energy in a bullet traveling 2000 feet per second, which has to be dissipated before the bullet can stop. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. That’s Newton’s Third Law of Motion, and it applies. The bullet would act on the body, and the body would act on the bullet. And all that energy would have been taken out on both. A bullet stopping that fast would get severely deformed, and JFK’s back would get severely traumatized. That did NOT happen.

So, what did happen? What happened is that JFK was not shot in the back with a metal bullet. He was shot in the back with an ice bullet. And the reason the bullet didn’t go very far inside him is because it was ice.

Ice is hard, but it is also unstable.  “Ice shatters easily because when it experiences a rapid temperature change, the outer layer warms and expands faster than the inner layer, creating internal stress that causes cracks to form and spread quickly, essentially shattering the ice due to this ‘thermal shock’ phenomenon.”

Also: “Excessive minerals in the water cause ‘grain boundary cracks’ – where there are so many grains in the ice that it finds it easier to fracture than expand. Oxygen in the water similarly creates weak spots in the ice.”

Also, there is the fact that: “Hydrogen bonding in ice causes it to expand because when water freezes, the hydrogen bonds between water molecules arrange themselves in a crystalline lattice structure with open spaces, resulting in a lower density solid (ice) compared to liquid water, causing it to take up more volume and expand.”

We all know from practical experience that freezing causes water to expand because that’s what causes pipes to rupture when frozen. That’s why you have to drain the pipes or cover them sufficiently to prevent it.

So, there are multiple reasons why ice is hard but also unstable.

I have memories from childhood of digging ice cubes out of a tray and having one explode. It would startle me but also intrigue me because it would seem like the ice cube vanished. Actually, it exploded.

And that’s what happened to JFK, and in his case, it was deliberate. The ice bullet was formulated to enter his back and burst. And there is no doubt that it existed. It was laid out to the Church Committee in 1975 by CIA Director William Colby. You can read about it here:

https://allthatsinteresting.com/heart-attack-gun?fbclid=IwAR3vFu-FY6m_SMg7XJIjiwOG-JMafuKciu_kvsLgvNZDezqOJo3LDIt_3io

At the hearing, Colby referred to shellfish toxin being used because a huge stockpile of it was found- enough to kill thousands of people.  But, Kennedy’s reaction, as seen in the Zapruder film, suggests to me that it may have been strychnine that was used because of the way his muscles seized up. He went into tetanic spasm. And it was progressive. It got worse as he sat there. It started in his arms, where he couldn’t put them down. But then, his back and his neck seized up. 

He may have died even without getting the fatal head shot because the tetanic spasm may have spread to his respiratory muscles, and he would have suffocated. That’s how Jane Stanford died in 1905 when she was poisoned with strychnine.

But, the other weird thing is that JFK suffered a complete mental collapse. He couldn’t speak, and it wasn’t because of the throat shot. It was because his mind collapsed. It was like a chemical lobotomy. There were probably multiple toxic agents in the frozen cocktail.

It was a preparatory shot, taken from low in the DalTex building, soon after the limo made the turn from Houston to Elm. By the time of the Croft photo, he was already hit, and they had to alter that photo immensely to hide it. Just think: In the last 3 photos before the throat shot, which are Croft, Betzner, and Willis, JFK had stopped waving. Why? Because he had been shot in the back and was being affected by the toxic payload. They had to cut all that out of the Zapruder film with the help of the phony freeway sign.

I know that, upon first hearing this, it sounds far-fetched. But, read that article about the CIA heart attack gun. They had it in 1963, and there is no other scenario that fits the facts. A metal bullet could not have stopped as fast as that missile did in JFK’s back, leaving a shallow wound. It didn’t stop; it burst on penetrating, as it was designed to do. 

The purpose of this preparatory shot was to turn JFK into a sitting duck who would take no evasive action. And Jackie saw the effects of it. She told the WC that the first she knew that something was wrong was when she turned and looked at her husband and saw that “he had a quizzical look on his face.” I’m sure he felt very strange at the time, like he had never felt before, and massive changes were occurring rapidly in his body.   

There is no alternative to this scenario. It is what happened.

 I watched this again, and I noted that the shot doesn't go off until the 29 second mark. And since NOBODY reacted to the Shooter until AFTER the shot went off, it's fair to say that the melee' doesn't start until then. And how long does it last? 12 seconds. By the 41 second mark, it's over. Both Oswald and the Shooter are gone. They are inside. And, all the principals who were engaging with them are also inside. Graves, Leavelle, Fritz, Combest, Lowery, etc.- they are all gone.

But, that's a hell of a lot to happen in just 12 seconds.
Consider Oswald. He was, supposedly, on the ground, unconscious and fatally bleeding internally. Supposedly, Leavelle and another man picked him and carried him inside. Strangely, when asked who the other man was who helped him carry Oswald, Leavelle said he couldn't remember. But, it would have been very difficult. For one thing, Leavelle was, supposedly, handcuffed to Oswald, which meant that his left wrist and Oswald's right wrist were only an inch apart. It meant that wherever Leavelle moved his left wrist, he had to take Oswald's right wrist with him.

If you're going to carry a man, you have to support his weight, which means that you have to get your hand and arm underneath him. But, how much underneath him could Leavelle go when Oswald's right wrist had to come too? This is how Leavelle did it in the movie RUBY AND OSWALD.

But, is it even possible if you're handcuffed to him? I don't think so. You couldn't take Oswald's wrist that far without hurting him. It couldn't have been done that way on 11/24/63. Oswald had collasped and was lying flat on the ground.

So, how could they have gone from that to this? THE SENSIBLE THING WOULD HAVE BEEN TO REMOVE THE HANDCUFFS, AND THEN LIFT HIM. And if Leavelle didn't realize that before he started, he surely would have come to realize it. And he would have stopped; removed the cuffs; and then continued. And remember that he was supposedly working with the other guy. So, what would they have done? They would have started by talking about it. "So, how do you want to do this?" "Look, I'll grab him here; you grab him there, and we'll lift on the count of three." Something like that.

They would have had two objectives: first, to move Oswald without traumatizing him further and causing him to bleed more, and second, to do it without causing him more pain. So, they needed a plan. They needed to think it through. And it was not something they could do instantly. And once they lifted him and started moving with him, others would have gotten out of their way, held the door open, etc. So, it would have affected the whole movement of men in that space.

Meanshile, you had the other group of men who were wrestling with "Ruby." What was the antagonism between them and "Ruby" supposed to be? Was he supposed to be resisting them? If so, then why did he dive into their arms? And how did they know what they were doing? They took him in through the corner door, but how did they know that? Did someone yell, "Let's take him in through the corner door!" We didn't hear that, or see that, so we can't assume it. We're left with no one saying anything, yet everyone knowing that that's what they were doing.

So, there were these two separate and distinct processes going on: the penguin dance of getting "Ruby" inside through the corner door, and the carrying of Oswald into the Jail Office, presumably through the double doors, done by Leavelle and an another man, whom he couldn't remember, picking up Oswald, without first removoing the handcuffs, and that trio of men moving like one object in the midst of other men, who presumably got out of the way and opened a path for them. Now, we didn't get to see either of those processes. All we got to see was pandemonium. But the question is: WAS IT POSSIBLE TO DO ALL THAT IN 12 SECONDS?

I tell you no. I tell you that it would have taken Leavelle and the man he forgot most of that 12 seconds just to decide how they were going to lift and carry Oswald. The idea that they could get it done (figuring out how to do it and then doing it) within 12 seconds is preposterous. So, watch it again and remember that the clock starts ticking when the shot goes off. And remember that for the first few seconds Leavelle devotes himself to struggling with "Ruby." He grabs him by the nape of the neck. He doesn't finish his involvement with that until the 33 second mark. So, that leaves 8 seconds until it's all over.

So, how could it go from Leavelle standing over Oswald's unconscious body, handcuffed to him, to him and another man getting Oswald inside in 8 seconds?

Are you starting to see now how untenable the story is? Watch it again with that in mind.

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/nbc-5-archives-footage-of-lee-harvey-oswald-being-shot-by-jack-ruby_dallas-fort-worth/207417/?fbclid=IwY2xjawHN-AVleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHY97vm0bdatOgQ70FUVbbyeRDJ5LlP6X6lPWiRXCJDNEU3MH8AFyHnXN-A_aem_ZwWDZoIIEsyE_WMDXnp4pQ

 Apparently, I have power over Corporate America because NBC has removed all traces of their 1993 retrospective on the Oswald shooting. Not only is it down from Youtube, but all references to it are gone from everywhere. It's as though it never happened.

Ah, but I remember it well. It included Fred Rheinstein, who was in charge of the original NBC coverage of it in 1963.

But, in looking for it, I came across this showing of the orignal footage, and I decided to watch it because all the ones on Youtube are EXTREMELY blurred. I was hoping that this one would be better quality, and it is.

And what it shows is that the Shooter shot Oswald while he was in motion. He shot him as he moved from the side of him to the front of him. So, the Shooter crosses in front of your eyes, from left to right, as he is shooting. You'll see that starting at second 26 in this video.

The reason why it is significant to me is that it proves that that long lunge that we see in the Beers photo can't be real. The Shooter definitely did not do that, and this video proves that he didn't do it TO DO WHAT HE DOES IN THIS VIDEO, HIS FEET HAD TO BE CLOSE TOGETHER. And that confirms what I have been saying for years, that the Beers and Jackson photos were taken a photo-shoot beforehand.

So, watch this, the famous NBC footage of the Oswald shooting, and you will see the Shooter jump across the screen from left to right, where his feet could not have been far apart. The agility to do it doesn't exist when you are in a stretched lunge.

So, watch this. It's probably the clearest rendering of the NBC footage of the Oswald shooting that we have.

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/nbc-5-archives-footage-of-lee-harvey-oswald-being-shot-by-jack-ruby_dallas-fort-worth/207417/

 Rain Greenfield lamented that we don't have straight-on shots of both their faces: Ruby and the Shooter. Ah, but we do. The image of the Shooter's face on the right is from NBC. It's from their 1993 30 year retrospective on the Oswald shooting. They implied that he was Ruby, but he's not.

When you compare them, you see that Ruby, on the left, had a long face, whereas the Shooter had a round face. Ruby had a long forehead, while the Shooter had a short forehead. The Shooter has raccoon stripes instead of eyes, but somone dd that to him. It also appears that the Shooter has a broken nose, but they did too- to hide the fact that James Bookhout had a very narrow nose with pinched nostrils. Ruby had a pyramidal nose.

The whole program used to stream on Youtube, but they removed it after I started ranting about it.

In this shot, Bookhout was surrounded by three detectives: Boyd, SIms, and Hall, who were previously Oswald's escorts. It is definitely an image of the Garage Shooter because who else would be surrounded by Boyd, Sims, and Hall?

 You might as well say that JFK and Nixon were the same man, if you're going to say that Ruby and the Garage Shooter were. There is as much disparity between Ruby and the Garage Shooter as there is between JFK and Nixon. You think that JFK's hair looks different from Nixon's? Welll, Ruby's hair looks as much different from the Shooter's. If this were anything but the JFK assassination, NOBODY would think that Ruby and the Garage Shooter are the same man.

JFK assassination foruming exists in its own evil, un-real world.

What do you think would happen if we found a group of people who knew nothing about the JFK assassination? Who never heard of Jack Ruby? And we just showed them this image of Ruby and the Garage Shooter and asked them if they are the same man on the same day? What do you think they would say? They would say, "Is this is a trick question? They are obviously not the same man."

 These two images were taken just hours apart on the same day. You can see Ruby's hair in back on the left. Does it look anything like the Shooter's hair in back on the right? Not even close. They are obviously different men. And saying that they are the same man is a blatant act of evil arrogance.

 A sign of the bizarro world we're living in is Roger Reynolds insisting that these two are the same man. So, I'll get specific. Their heads have completely different shapes. The man on the left has a rather long head, while the man on the right has a rather round head. The man on the left has a rather long neck, while the man on the right has an extremely short neck.

You can see the top of the shirt collar on each of them. So, measure the distance from the top of the shirt collar to the hairline on each of them. On Ruby, on the left, it's a long distance. On the Shooter on the right, it's practically no distance at all. It is the shortest neck I have ever seen. It's almost like his head is sitting on his shoulders.

And of course, their hair is very different. Ruby, on the left, has typical tapered hair in back. The Shooter, on the right, has long hair in back that is very well groomed. He doesn't look scruffy at all. His neck looks razored clean. And his long hair looks like a wig. You don't see any hair growing out of his skin. On Ruby, on the left, you can see hair growing out of his skin.

We have many imagees of Ruby, and in none of them does his hair look like the Shooter's. And it looks nothing like the Shooter's here.

The disparity between these two men is so great, that if one is going to say they are the same man, it means that any two men can be said to be the same man- that it is just a matter of saying it.

It is absolutely preposterous to claim that these two are the same man. And considering what is at stake, it is evil to say it. The simple truth is that these two CAN'T be the same man.

 Which of these hairdos do you like better on Ruby? Of course, they're both real. I know they look very different, but it's all a matter of light and shadow. Whether it's Yul Brenner or John F. Kennedy, you'll see this much difference in anybody's hair. Just ask JD Jeffery. He's teaching a course about it.

 You should watch this video of Jack Ruby because he is moving his head constantly, which made it very difficult for the artist to manage his hair.

The result is that, at times, it looks like he's got a thick, full head of hair, then at other times, he's showing a huge lake of baldness. It goes back and forth and in-between, constantly changing. Check it out because it shows what they did to Jack Ruby, the most wronged man who ever lived.

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

 Mike Morgan just posted this fraudulent image on the left, in which someone used a black marker or paint to thicken Ruby's hairline in back, and they also enhanced Ruby's hair overall.

Ruby was practically bald. He had nowhere near as much hair as that. But notice despite what they did, that the two images are still very disparate. On Ruby, it doesn't even look like hair at the bottom. And on Bookhout on the right, it looks like hair, but it's a wig. There is no way that could be the real hair of Ruby or any other man at that time. It was 1963, and that hair is too long, too neat, and too orderly. It's orderly like a wig. So, on the right, we're seeing James Bookhout in a wig, and on the left, we're seeing a highly manipulated image of Jack Ruby. THIS IS NOT SUPPORTING OF THE OFFICIAL STORY. IT IS DAMNING OF IT.

 Jim Thompson posted this crop from the Jackson photo and said that he can see Ruby in it. But, he is NOT seeing Ruby in it. He is seeing FBI Agent James W. Bookhout pretending to be Ruby.

I have inserted an image of Ruby next to him, and I could get an elementary school student to see that they are different men. Ruby, on the left, had a longer head, a longer neck, and his hair in back was very different. And, he had a scruffy hairline in back, not the neat, orderly, square hairline of Bookhout's wig, which is comical. It's a goofy wig.

It was 1963, and men didn't wear their hair like that. Jack Ruby certainly didn't. Can't you see that there is TOO MUCH GROOMING involved with the Shooter's hair in back? Too much primping? IT WAS A WIG!

Again, I could get a grade school kid to see that they are different men. The jig is up for the modern-day Kennedy-killers. They are going down like Assad.

 I thank Dan Sleeman for sending me these two images. The one on the left is of Ruby at his trial in 1964, and the rendering of his hair in it is ridiculous. It's like he had a Mohawk with baldness in-between. So, just a low rim of hair and a Mohawk. The one on the right is from shortly before his death in 1967, and he's got a full head of hair. Have you ever haerd of male pattern baldness going in reverse? Which rendering is real? Neither. They are both fraudulent. But, it is staggering how brazen they were about falsifying his hair. And it was all done just because Bookhout wore a thick, moppy wig in the basement when he masqueraded as Ruby.

 You should watch this video of Jack Ruby from April 1960, so 2 1/2 years prior to the assassination. He was at the Dallas Easter Parade. At 1:12 in the video, you see him remove his hat and comb his hair. He combs the right side back and then the left side back, and then he puts his hat back on, without ever combing the top. What does that tell you? It should tell you that he didn't have any hair there, or at least not enough to matter.

And the little tuft you see in front in this frame is surely fake. Men do not go bald like that. And if he did have hair there, why would he keep it so short? It's ridiculous. So, even this is altered. But, you can see just how bald he was on top. And it was 2 1/2 years before November 1963. A man can lose a lot of hair in 2 1/2 years. So, we know for sure that he had less hair than this in November 1963.

https://vimeo.com/246004252

 So, why did they keep enhancing Ruby's hair? It's because the Garage Shooter seems to have so much hair. It looks like a thick rug, and it is a thick rug. So, how could he be bald underneath that hat? He couldn't be, and that's why they had to enhance Ruby's hair.

On the left is Ruby, and you can see how low is rim of permanent hair was. He was about as bald as a man can get with a rim that low because you don't lose that hair no matter how long you live.

You see how huge the lake of baldness was on Ruby on the left. So, could the man on the right be just as bald underneath his hat? It's not very likely, is it? And that's why they took to enhancing Ruby's hair for the rest of his life, and I mean in every photo of him that got published. It was a gargantuan task, and the problem was that it involved so many different artists doing it, all who did it a different way, that it turned into a hairraising carnival. There are no two images of Ruby that are exactly the same in respect to his hair.