Here are two examples of a CGI figure that was inserted into a real video.  You may have to hit the Play button twice. 

Now that you've seen that, look again at the video of the roof-jumper. Which is better? I think the two above are much better than the roof-jumper. Really, they did a crappy job with him. And the whole purpose of the black outfit was to make it easy. If they had to juggle colors, it would have been more work. And notice how uniform his coloring his. His clothes, his hat, even the skin of face, it's all the same charcoal color, the lazy bastards. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdDtlNf7neI

Look how spindly the jumper's legs are before he descends.

After that, he fills out. Isn't that special? 

In this one below, he is supposedly putting down his rifle. 

Then, as he's falling, his legs become impossibly long. 

The part in which he is running gets really bad. Look how crude that is. 

Also, there is a person walking on the path who walks  behind a tree and then disappears. 

 Please consider this. When an artery gets severed, the body imposes an arteriospasm to curtail the blood loss. Below is from Google AI. Now, what we see happening to Charlie in the graphic video, shows the complete absence of any arteriospasm. The blood is pouring and gushing out of him like a fountain. It's like a river of blood flowing out of him. So, why didn't his body cramp that artery?

People have pointed out that it looks fake, and that the blood doesn't even seem to be sticking to his skin or his clothes. Is it fake?

I suspect that it's fake, but, I'm not saying he wasn't shot. I'm saying that he was shot in the neck with a less powerful weapon and ammo, and that they decided to make it look like a tsunami of blood because "people will expect a 30-06 to cause a lot of damage, so let's give them a lot of damage."

You can watch it here. https://www.bitchute.com/video/G3O4AE8Hpi8f and it's graphic, so be warned. I have never heard of blood pouring out of the body like a shower, as we see there. Have you? With all the wars that have been fought, have there been any reports of struck soldiers bleeding like that? Ever?

AI Summary

Arteriospasm is a temporary constriction of an artery that occurs when it is severed. This response is part of the body's immediate reaction to prevent excessive blood loss. Here are some key points about arteriospasm:

Mechanism of Action

When an artery is damaged, the smooth muscle in the arterial wall contracts, leading to vasoconstriction.
This contraction helps to reduce blood flow and minimize bleeding at the injury site.
Duration

Arteriospasm is typically a short-term response.
It may last from a few minutes to several hours, depending on the severity of the injury and the body's healing processes.
Clinical Significance

While arteriospasm can be beneficial in controlling bleeding, prolonged spasm can lead to ischemia (insufficient blood supply) in the tissues supplied by the affected artery.
Management

In cases of severe arterial injury, medical intervention may be necessary to restore blood flow and prevent complications.

 Oswald complained about not having a lawyer 13x on tape, and then he devoted his entire MPC address to it. And he never once said anything about wanting John Abt. He just asked for legal assistance.

So, do you really think he would have turned down an offer from Attorney H Louis Nichols to provide him a lawyer? Do you agree that he would have had to be out of his mind to turn down such an offer? Even if he did want John Abt, and we never heard it from him, Abt could have joined the team later. Wasn't having a Texas lawyer better than having no lawyer at all?

So, I tell you that Oswald never met with H. Louis Nichols. They waited until Oswald was taken down to the 3rd floor for his Saturday evening interrogation. Then, they put an Oswald double in his cell, and that is who met with Nichols, who turned down his offer.

Note that we have no evidence from Oswald that it ever happened. No reporter ever asked him why he refused the offer. And if you listen to him at the Midnight Press Conference, you get the distinct impression that he wanted a lawyer; any lawyer. He wanted help.

Nichols didn't even decide to go to City Hall until 5 pm. And when he got there, he spotted Chief Curry on the 3rd floor, who invited him into his office. There, they chewed the cud for quite a while. He said that two FBI agents were also present. Then, Curry told him that it was time for him to go up and meet Oswald. So, what time do you think that was? I'm thinking about 6:30. Well watch this video. It shows Oswald on the 3rd floor being taken to the Homicide Bureau, and the clock says 6:24. So, they waited until Oswald was removed; then thyy brought Nichols up to meet with the Oswald double. The Oswald of fame never refused an offer of a lawyer. For him to have done that after what he implored on Friday night would have been crazy, and he wasn't crazy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04aL80prg7U

Charlie Kirk was wearing a bullet-proof vest, and you can see it through his t-shirt here.

 And don't tell me that that roof-jumper was real because his image is way too freaky and cartoonish. Look at his legs on the left below. 

The 3 outfits of Tyler Robinson

I refer to the last as his Columbine outfit. Why do his legs look so freakily thin on the left? Why does he appear to be in shorts when he wasn't? There is so much irregularity and distortion in the roof jumper clip that I suspect it was CGI'd. Everything was real in it except the roof jumper, who wasn't there. He was digitally inserted. 

Jim Fetzer is at it again. Now, he's claiming that Charlie touching his nose was a signal to start the fake assassination stunt. But, isn't that something that people do sometimes? 

So, all that blood we saw pouring out of his neck was in a tank on Charlie's back? That is so ridiculous. Watch this video of him throwing MAGA  hats into the crowd at the beginning. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNbjNXngj8Q

So, this is him heading to sit down. There is no tank of blood on his back. He is wearing a bullet-proof vest; a flat bullet-proof vest. 

You can't compress water. There is no way that all that blood that poured out of his neck later came from a tank on his back. THERE WAS NO TANK ON HIS BACK. It was just a bullet-proof vest.

Now, I do NOT support the official story about Tyler Robinson shooting him. But, I don't doubt that Charlie Kirk is dead. There is NO WAY he would have participated in faking his own death. To do what? Hide in seclusion for the rest of his life? And what, his family too? He was willing to do that to them?  

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph! What the hell is wrong with people to think such a thing?  

This is the shooter on the roof and then starting to lower himself a few seconds later. Why does he look like a stick man on the left? Look at his legs. He looks like a cartoon. 

What is the techno-babble reason for that appearance? You admit that it's laughable, right? 

So, I have my own problems with the official story, but make no mistake: Charlie Kirk is dead. He NEVER would have participated in faking his death, and it is an offensive and fiendishly so to suggest that he would have. FETZER AND COMPANY ARE TRASHING HIM. 

You saw what happened to Jimmy Kimmel for saying what he did; his show got  cancelled indefinitely. But, to claim that Charlie Kirk faked his own death? That is 10x worse. Make it 100x worse. 

Charlie Kirk is gone. He was assassinated. Who did it remains to be determined; both who fired the shot and who was behind the whole plot. But, it was definitely a plot to kill him, not put him in seclusion for 60 years. And let's just say that the unraveling of the truth is going  to be even bigger than the Epstein case.  

If Fetzer were a brighter man, he would realize that the people behind Charlie's murder couldn't be more pleased with Jim's noise about Charlie having faked his own death. Unwittingly, Fetzer is working for them. He's just too dumb to realize that he's doing their bidding. And that's  because any time you challenge a false narrative with another false  narrative, you are doing the bidding of the perpetrators.  

James Fetzer is claiming that the Charlie Kirk assassination was faked, that he wasn't really shot, that it was fake blood. I am here to denounce that. I think it is outrageous. And I deeply regret that he is saying it. 

Fetzer doesn't start with that claim. He starts with the claim that Israel was behind it. He cites a lot of the killing that Israel has done, and he says that Charlie was becoming a problem for Israel, such as by questioning their October 7 narrative. 

Fetzer cites that the rifle that Tyler Robinson reportedly used can't be broken down in its normal operation. There is a special tool that you can buy in the after-market that enables you to break it down. But, did Tyler Robinson even have that tool? 

I want to make it clear that I am very troubled by the official story. There is a lot that bothers me, such as that the crime involved three different outfits of clothing. And there is much more that bothers me. But right now, I want to focus on only one thing: whether Charlie Kirk is dead, and he most certainly is dead. 

So, let's get  to Fetzer's bogus argument for why Charlie is not dead. It starts with this image of Charlie. Fetzer says that he's wearing under his shirt a pump and chamber that contains fake blood. 

 

 In reality, he is wearing a bullet-proof vest. But then, Fetzer shows a close-up of the same image, and in the close-up, there is a grey line.

I see the grey line, but you can't tell me that he was walking around with that showing. That looks like a digital element to me that was added to the image. Who would be stupid enough to display such a thing? Surely there were people who got a look at him from behind. Wouldn't they see it? 

Then, Fetzer goes to this:

I tell you that that is not an object. It's just Photoshopping. There is also a grey line on the far right. Neither one of those grey lines are real. 

Somebody concocted that digitally. It doesn't look the slightest bit real. It isn't photography; it's digital art. 

Next comes the images of Charlie being shot and the copious bleeding, where the blood poured out of him. I admit that I have never seen anything like it before. Fetzer is concerned that he didn't let go of the microphone instantly. It took a second or so for it to fall out of his hand. However, he was leaning back, and your hand is rather like a mitt. The mic was small and sitting in the mitt. So, I can see how it might not fall instantly.  And it fell soon enough. 

So, you can see the mic falling bottom center.  It's right below his hand. The blood does look weird, I admit. And there is a weird mask-like distortion over his face. So, could it be a manipulated image? It might be, and it probably is. But, it is no reason to doubt that he was shot. There were approximately 3,000 people there who saw it, and they did not doubt that he was shot. I have been writing about the photo and film alterations in the JFK assassination for over 25 years. It is the most photographically altered event in human history. Nevertheless, JFK really was really shot and killed, and it would be foolish to doubt it. 

Fetzer and company used the term CGI a lot, for computer-generated imagery. I don't know if that term applies here, but it's very possible that the footage was edited and manipulated for public consumption. But again, we have to keep our eye on the ball. The JFK films were massively altered, including the Zapruder film. But, it doesn't mean that JFK wasn't really killed. 

Then, they showed the images of Erica mourning over Charlie's body, in which his hands looked yellow and waxen. Yes, it's strange. It's unexpected. Keep in mind that I don't accept the official story of who killed Charlie Kirk, but I am not here to go into it. But, since I don't accept it, it follows that there is a lot of lying going on. And when they lie with words, they will often lie with images. However, it is most likely true that the yellow hands was the result of the embalming fluid and the lighting. If it was faked, why would they make his hands yellow? 

Then, they pointed out that when Trump was first asked  about it, he spent more  time talking about the new ballroom he is building at the White House. Yes, that is weird too, but it doesn't mean that Charlie isn't dead. 

Now, the problem with Fetzer and his clowns is that they don't know how to think. They don't understand that there is a hierarchy when it comes to evidence, and that some things matter more than other things, and they trump those other things. 

In this case, they are assuming that Charlie was involved in faking his own death, that he was willing to wear the pump and reservoir with the fake blood. There is zero chance of that. He loved his life. He enjoyed doing what he was doing. And he probably had great ambitions. He may have planned to run for President. He probably did. So, what was he trading his great and promising life for? To live in hiding for the rest of his life? And doing what? Twiddling his thumbs? Why would he prefer that life? Why would he agree to go along with such a horrible fate? Plus, doing it would have ruined not only his life, but his wife's life, and his children's lives. But, he loved them, and he never would have done anything to hurt them. And you can't even conjure up a reason why he would have gone along with it, not in your wildest imagination. It's just preposterous. 

Charlie would not have played ball. Period. There is zero chance that he would have cooperated. And that means that the whole thesis is dead in the water. And I don't give a rat's ass about the orange hands, the microphone, or the grey line, as strange as they are because there is no way that Charlie would have gone along with it. You hear me, Fetzer? He NEVER ever ever would have gone along with it. 

And, they took him to Timpagogos Regional Hospital where doctors operated on him to try to save him. Here's a picture of it:

 Now, if Charlie wasn't shot, he had no need to go to the hospital. It would have made no sense to take a healthy Charlie to the hospital. So, what do Fetzer and company think about it? I have to think that they assume that he was never taken there. But, the doctors and nurses and staff and administration of Timpanogos Regional Hospital had to find out that it was being claimed that he was brought there. So, wouldn't they object? Wouldn't they scream bloody murder or the equivalent of "Soylent Green is people!"? But, they haven't done that, and therefore, it must be the Charlie was really brought there, and they really did operate on him, trying to save him, but he died. 

This is exactly like with Trump. He was immediately taken to Butler Memorial Hospital in PA where doctors treated his ear. They cleaned it and bandaged it. They didn't have to stitch it. But, they took cat-scans of his head, and they gave him antibiotics. And they talked about it. There is no chance that they were in on a fraud. Therefore, the people who claim "ketchup ear" about Trump are completely full of it. He really did have a minor trauma to his ear. I don't know if it was a bullet or if it was some kind of shrapnel. But, he was hit with something that caused a slight trauma to the top of his right ear. There was no ketchup involved. 

And it's the same way in the Charlie Kirk case. He was seen immediately by doctors who confirmed that he was in a catastrophic state from which they tried to save him but couldn't. And Charlie's supporters had a vigil for him outside the hospital that continued into the night by candlelight.  

Look: you just can't claim that those doctors were involved in a lie, a fraud; at least not those doctors. It's like with JFK. None of the Parkland Hospital doctors were in on the conspiracy. They were just doing their job. McClellan and Perry and them were not covering for anyone. And I'm sure the same is true for the Timpanogos doctors.

As I said, Fetzer started at the beginning talking about Israel, and that Charlie had become a problem for Israel. So, let's say that Israel wanted to get rid of him. And it certainly is true that Israel commits more assassinations than any other country on Earth and probably more than all the other countries on Earth combined.  

But, if Israel wanted to neurtralize Charlie and remove him from the picture, why wouldn't they kill him? What would be the reason to not kill him? What did they need him alive for? Nothing. What could he do for them? Nothing. If they didn't kill him, it would mean that they would have to hide him for the rest of his natural life.  Why do that? Why would that be better than just killing him?  And being 31 years old, he could live another 60 years. And they would have to monitor him that whole time and make sure he remained seculded and unnoticed and undiscovered, as well as support him, provide for his family, etc. Why on Earth would they do that when they could just kill him? And they did kill him. 

Fetzer is not only not a good thinker, but he surrounds himself with other idiots, and they all just reinforce each other. And they seem to have fun doing it. They hone in on things that they think are important, while ignoring much larger and more conclusive elements that really are decisive. 

Charlie Kirk is dead. He NEVER NEVER NEVER would have gone along with any scheme to fake his death. And remember that that is the first move they made in this chess game: to assume that Charlie was involved in faking his own death. And that is insane. 

Again, I do not support the official story. Everything they are saying about Tyler Robinson doing it is filling me with angst, doubt and dismay. Yes, I do think he is yet another innocent lone-nut patsy like Oswald and Sirhan. But, Charlie Kirk is dead. Don't follow these idiots who say otherwise because they are morons just having fun with their delusions. 

  

 

 This is James Bookhout's draft registration card that Mike Morgan posted, showing his height as 6 ft. But, by enlarging it, I noticed that there was other writing there that 6 ft is written over. This is the only entry on the draft card that has this effect. The rest of it is clean. So, they apparently tried to delete what was there and replace it with 6 ft. It looks like they revised the weight ledger too.

James Bookhout was short. He said he couldn't see JFK on Main Street because there were people in front of him. And James Hosty wrote in Assignment: Oswald that Bookhout moved a pedestal of some kind from the Homicide Bureau to the doorway so that he would be high enough to see Hosty, whom he was looking for. A tall man wouldn't do that. Like the Garage Shooter of Oswald, James Bookhout was short. And the Shooter was the shortest man in the basement, that we know of.

 Do you think the Crimeans don't support Russia? Do you think they want to go back to being Ukrainian? 

I received this from a friend who is Russian/Ukrainian. One of her parents was Russian, the other Ukrainian. She emigrated to Canada, which is where I met her. That was years ago, and she still lives in Canada. 

But, this summer, she and her son went to Crimea on a vacation, and she sent me beautiful video from a beach resort where they stayed. And she sent me this:

 This is weird, and it is freaking me out. I have the whole 1931 Woodrow Wilson Yearbook digitally. And besides the ROTC group photo that includes Bookhout, it has an individual photo of him.

But, he looks way too old in that individual photo. This collage includes an image of him from 1933, so 2 years later, which I have compared to the image of Bookhout from the 1931 yearbook. So, we are supposed to believe that the image on the right came 2 years before the image on the left, even though he looks much older and more mature.

It is ridiculous. He has to be much older on the right. So, in the that digital yearbook, they replaced whatever image of Bookhout that was there with this other image that was probably from college. It's him all right, James Bookhout, but certainly not from 1931.

Yearbooks come out in the Spring, and in the Spring of 1931, James Bookhout was 16 years old. How old does he look on the right? I'm thinking maybe 23?

 The plot thickens. Now, Mike Morgan is pointing to the '32 Yearbook from Woodrow Wilson High, which identifies a tall, slender student as Bookhout. But, he's not.

Remember, it is just a digital ledger. It doesn't mean that if I found a physical copy of the yearbook that it would read the same.

So, on the top left, I put a sample of how they would sign their names over their images in the yearbook. So, Jo Alice Fair signed hers, and Tommy Pollins signed his. So, the guy that Morgan is claiming to be James Bookhout in the ’31 Yearbook was Tommy Pollins.

Tommy is in another regiment photo in the '32 Yearbook, but he is identified as James Bookhout. But, we can see that he is Tommy. I finished with a comparison of Tommy in the '31 regiment photo to him in the '32 regiment photo. That's the same guy. If you deny it, you are claiming that Tommy Pollins and James Bookhout were identical twins. I call this my Tommy Pollins proof of life collage.

You should realize that there is no length they won't go to keep the lie going that Ruby shot Oswald. They'll do anything. They would kill again over it. And I ponder that every day of my life.

 I've got some good detective work here. It was a common practice back then to write your name over your image in the yearbook. Someone did that over the figure in the photo whom Mike Morgan and Denis Morrisette claim is James Bookhout. But, that guy was Tommy Pollins, and I found another image of him to confirm it. And I also put an image of Jim Bookhout next to Bookhout's image in the Cadet photo, and the genetic likeness, with the round face, stands out. So, James Bookhout was short, just like the Garage Shooter, who was the shortest man in the garage. Jack Ruby was 5'9". That's what it said on his driver's license. The Coroner measured him after death lying on the table and said he was 5'8". But either way, it is definitely taller than the Shooter. Jack Ruby did not shoot Oswald, and there is no doubt about it. We have been lied to for 62 years. The truth is that LBJ put the Dallas Police up to killing Oswald.

There is a very interesting hornet's nest that Mike Morgan stirred up. We know that James Bookhout is in this ROTC photo from Woodrow Wilson High in Dallas from 1931. His name is listed at the bottom of the page. I say he is the short, young boy who is circled. That boy is definitely the shortest, and by a wide margin. But, I say he is also the youngest because he looks to be the youngest. Some of them look like young men, but he still looks like a boy.

So, it's a regiment that has 3 battalions: first, second, and third. The regiment has a commander, who is highest. And below him is the executive officer. And it's the same way for each battalion. The highest rank is battalion commander, followed by executive officer, followed by adjutant, who is an administrative assistant or secretary.

So, James Bookhout had the lowest rank as third battalion adjutant. But, this is high school ROTC, and it's very likely that the ranks were age-related, meaning the younger boys came in at low ranks, and over time, they climbed the ladder. So, it's likely that the commanders were the oldest boys- the seniors.

Knowing that James Bookhout was only a sophomore at Woodrow High in 1931, I wouldn't expect him to have a high rank. And he doesn't; he was an adjutant. But Owen McKenzie was a Battalion Commander- the highest rank. So, he must have been an older boy, who climbed the ladder. Through experience and performance, he was promoted to battalion commander.

So, we know that James Bookhout was young, just 16, and he was an adjutant. But, Owen McKenzie was a commander. So, he had to be one of the older boys. Can you imagine that baby-faced kid being the battalion commander? I can't. He was not Owen McKenzie, as Mike Morgan claims. He was James Bookhout.

And you can see that he was short. And the fact is that he does correlate very well with the later images of Bookhout, going all the way up to November 24, 1963.

So, does anyone else besides Mike Morgan want to claim that the short, pudgy kid was the battalion commander? This is JFK-land, so it wouldn't surprise me.

 I am reading James Hosty's book ASSIGNMENT: OSWALD. It is terrible. It's just a pack of lies. I mentioned that he said Bookhout had to stand on a pedestal in the hallway to find him, and that was not a lie. But, that is his only reference to Bookhout in the whole book. Bookhout attended every one of the interrogations. Hosty only attended the first one. So, wouldn't it seem like he would cite Bookhout about what Oswald said at the other ones?

But, he didn't want to talk too much about Bookhout because he knew the truth. Yet, he foolishly included that remark about him standing on a pedestal. It was like him screaming, BOOKHOUT WAS SHORT! BOOKHOUT WAS SHORT! BOOKHOUT WAS SHORT!

Another example is that he admitted visiting Marina twice in Irving, on November 1 and November 5. He said he did it because it was a "classic counter-espionage concern." Could either of the Oswalds be Soviet intelligence agents, he wondered.

But, the Oswalds got here in June 1962, and the FBI never showed any interest in Marina then. They did talk to Oswald right away. They had sessions with him in Dallas as soon as he got there. So, why would they start suspecting Marina of counter-espionage a year and a half later? What happened? What was she doing to arouse suspicion? The answer, of course, is nothing.

I know the real reason why Hosty went to talk to Marina: it was to assess her. He needed to find out how submissive and respectful she was: to Authority. He knew they were going to kill Kennedy and then would have to kill Oswald. And, they knew that Marina was going to be VERY important in the aftermath. Would she support the government's narrative? Would she get onboard with Oswald having ordered a rifle, and shooting at General Walker, and going to Mexico City, and being a monster, through and through? Of course, he wasn't a monster, and he didn't do any of those things, but could she be manipulated and brainwashed into believing it, on some level, and saying so?

Hosty needed to find out how plastic she was, and he knew that it would depend on how docile she was, and how prone she was to respect and submit to Authority.

I'm sure she was perfectly respectful and compliant, and maybe even trembling and fearful, which was all good. If she had been hostile, defiant, and uncooperative, and if they expected her to be antagonistic after the assassination, and defend her husband and deny his guilt, I just don't know what they would have done. There is zero chance they would have deported back to the USSR becasuese then they would have had her. So, I don't know what they would have done.

And Hosty could also have been appraising her desire for money. We know that a lot of money was given to Marina after the assassination; the equivalent of well over a million dollars today. It may have been closer to $2 million in today's dollars. So, he may have been trying to feel out how receptive she would be to a green poultice.

But, there was zero suspicion that she was a spy. That was a lie. And there was zero information about Oswald that they needed from her. HOSTY'S INTEREST WAS IN HER, not Oswald. You can be sure of that.

Hosty was the one who filled in for Black Harrison in the staged Jackson photo. Here is a comparison of him to "Brezhnev" as I call him. And notice how perfectly identical the noses are. And Blackie Harrison's nose was not like that. What are the odds that James Hosty and Blackie Harrison would have identical noses? Noses come in all different shape, sizes, and forms.

There will be more coming about Hosty's book.

David Boyer asked me how they managed to keep Bookhout undercover after the assassination, and who managed it? Well, the FBI did. They put Bookhout on leave for a year, with pay. So, he didn't have to report to work. And perhaps he changed his look after the assassination, within reason. But, the CIA was also involved. They are the ones who cleaned up the photographic record- removing every image of Bookhout. And I do mean every single one. Here is an example of what they did.

This photo was taken right after the first interrogation, so about 4:00 on Friday afternoon. 

They were leaving Fritz' office and going to the first lineup. The man whose hat is circled is Bookhout. He was not wearing that hat. That white Stetson hat was like the uniform of Fritz' men, and Fritz didn't have any men who were as short as that. That man is short. He is shorter than Fritz, and Fritz was short. Fritz is directly behind him in the photo, and you can that Fritz was taller.

Notice that the short man is carrying a notebook. Bookhout was the only one who brought a notebook to the interrogations. At that first one, Bookhout and Hosty were the only ones there besides Fritz and Oswald, although Oswald's escorts may have sat in.

So, this is a process of elimination, It was a very small group of men. And there is no one but Bookhout that that short guy could be.

And he really wasn't wearing that hat. He couldn't have because it was right over his face. He would not have been able to see. And doesn't he look like a guy who would need to stand on a pedestal in the hallway to find Hosty? Bookhout wasn't tall; he was short. And the tired old lie that he was 6 feet tall has run out of gas.

To my adversaries, I ask: if he's not Bookhout, then who is he? And why was it necessary to cover his face? He's not Hosty. Hosty wasn't that short. And there is nobody else who was in Fritz' office at the time. So, by default, that is James Bookhout, and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

So, who is who in this photo? Let's analyze it from a journalistic perspective. And I did take a course in journalism in college.

It starts with "Dallas Ranger Captain Bob Crowder" but I think that was a mistake. They meant Texas Ranger. But, why did they start with him? It's because Crowder was the most famous, the most celebrated person in the photo. He is also the most central figure in the photo.

The guy on the left edge isn't even all there. He is partially missing. He is cut off. You wouldn't start with him. You would start with the guy who is most visible, most captured and most featured; who is most in the spotlight.

I tell you, emphatically, that no one would describe that image by starting with the guy who is on the edge and partially cut off.

Now, let's look at the way it is divided. There are two units there. There is the unit of Crowder, alone, and there is the unit of Clements and Bookhout together. In the photo, there is one man who is standing alone and uncoupled, and there are two men who are apart from him and very close to each other. There is no doubt who Clements is; he is the short man in the middle. But, who is he paired with? Who is he closer to? He is much closer to the decrepit old man on the edge.

Again: 2 units, one being Crowder; the other being the two FBI agents. It's very clear that the division, the distinction, and the separation of the units is between the central figure and the other two.

And again I point to the stance of the central figure, which was Crowder's stance, with shoulders back and squared, a very strong stance. Crowder was a tough guy. He was the symbol of the Texas Rangers. He stood that way because displaying strength was like his emblem. But, James Bookhout was an FBI lawyer. He wasn't an Elliot Ness kind of FBI agent.

Very few men stand like that, and there is no reason to think that James Bookhout did. But, Bob Crowder was a hero. He was a larger- than-life kind of guy. And we have other photos of him standing like that.

I'd bet that Bookhout was standing there on the left side. And remember: he was short. So, it was easy to place that tall, decrepit guy right over him.

There is no doubt that the tall, vigorous-looking guy was Bob Crowder. However, since they were turning him into Bookhout, they altered his image. They fattened his cheeks, since Bookhout had fat cheeks. They tampered with his nose and with his hair. Bob Crowder was totally grey by then. He was 68 years old. But, even a 54 year old man has a lot of grey. The only way a 54 year old man is going to have jet black hair is if he dies it. So, that isn't realistic either. It was a blatant attempt to create a false image of James Bookhout, and they did it because Bookhout was the Garage Shooter of Oswald, and there were no images of him from the JFK assassination. And I'm the one who pointed out that there were no images of Bookhout. I did that in 2013.

So, for 50 years, no JFK researcher noticed that there were no images of James Bookhout from the JFK assassination, even though he followed Oswald around like his shadow.

And I'll remind you that the claimed photo of Bookhout in Fritz' office enjoying his pipe on 11/22/63 (a much shorter man) was discredited by the Chief Archivist of the United States, Colleen Joy Shogan, and I thank her for that.

The fact is that there are no images of James Bookhout from the JFK assassination or thereafter for the rest of his life. The only images of him are his school yearbook photos, which were doctored. I am calling on Constable Jim Bookhout to release family photos of his father, for the sake of truth and justice.

 Both Robert Jackson and Jack Beers testified to the Warren Commission, but it's very strange. Jackson was only asked about the JFK shooting. There isn't a word about the Oswald shooting. The word "Ruby" does not occur in the transcript.

The reality was that the FBI pre-screened all the WC witnesses. And the FBI told the WC who they should interview, and who they should not interview. It really was controlled and managed by the FBI.

And I suspect it was the FBI's instruction to the WC to only question Jackson about the JFK shooting.

I am not going to address what Jackson said about the JFK shooting because my interest right now is in the Oswald shooting. Jackson did make statements about it, and he did interviews, but not to the Warren Commission.

So, that leaves Beers, who was questioned briefly about the Oswald shooting. He said that he got to the garage at 9:15 and that he stayed until shortly after the shooting, until 11:25. That's over 2 hours and almost all of it was spent waiting. That's a long time to wait.

Dr. Fred Beiberdorf said in his WC testimony that the police emptied the basement at 9:45. So, why didn't Beers mention that? I suppose it was because he was allowed to stay and take his famous photo at the photo-shoot.

Beers was asked where he stationed himself, and he said that he was at the railing and that he climbed up the railing to take his famous photo. Robert Jackson, in his interviews and statements over the years, said that Beers stood up on a ladder to take his photo. Why did he say that?

Beers was asked if he saw a police car drive out the Main Street ramp, and Beers said he did, that it backed out. And that got clarified. Five times the word "backed" was used. But, it did not back out. We have the KRLD footage, and we can see that Lt. Rio "Sam" Pierce drove out going forward. Beers didn't mention Pierce, but he wrongly said that the squad car backed out So, why did he say that?

And I realize that Fritz' car was backing up right when the shooting occurred. But, Beers could not have been referring to that because Fritz' car was a white Ford Galaxie, his personal car, and Beers was talking about a black squad car.

Beers said that he knew Jack Ruby and had met him 18 months before. He had been to the Carousel Club, and he spent 8 hours there once taking photos for an article about a stripper school that Ruby was running. He said that he did not recognize Ruby in the garage.

Mr. GRIFFIN. You indicated in your interview with the Federal Bureau of Investigation that you felt sure that if you had seen Ruby in the basement you would have recognized him?
Mr. BEERS. Yes, sir; I know his face that well; yes, sir.

So, Beers did NOT recognize Ruby in the garage, and no reporter or photographer claimed to recognizae him in the garage. Only cops claimed to recognize Ruby in the garage. BUT, THE DALLAS POLICE LIED, AND THEY KILLED OSWALD.

This photo demonstrates the arrangement. So, there was one long ramp that went from Main Street to Commerce Street. There was a recess off it, what I call a cubbyhole, and that is where the shooting took place. You can see the railing that Beers stood up on to take his picture.

 This is James Hosty's handwritten note in which he stated that Oswald said he ate lunch in the 1st floor lunch room and then went outside and watched the Presidential Parade. He abbreviated Presidential to P.

 This is what you call checkmate. There are two very tall guys in the photo. Both are circled. One of them was Texas Ranger Bob Crowder. We know his height was 6'3". The other man is about the same height. It's pointless to argue about who was taller. So, if one was 6'3" the other was also about 6'3".

But, the claim about Bookhout is that he was 6 foot even. So, neither one of these men could have been Bookhout since they are both significantly taller than 6 feet.

I drew in arms for the old, decrepit guy since he didn't have any. I suppose his hands could have been clasped behind his back. But, there is a big difference in the way the two giants are standing. The man on the right is very vertical and straight-backed. Bob Crowder was famous for that stance. His other pictures show him that way. I inserted one of them. The man on the left has a rounded back. He's stooped. But, the postural match says that the man on the right was Bob Crowder.

But regardless, both of them are very tall. Neither one could have needed to stand on a pedestal in a hallway to find anyone. And both are clearly much taller than 6 feet, which is the claimed height for Bookhout. So, there is no way that either of those super-tall guys could be Bookhout.

But, the caption says that Bookhout is there. Well, if that caption is real, it means that Bookhout was standing next to Clements Manning, and they put that old, decrepit guy over him to cover him up. But, I have already proven that neither one of those 6'3" guys could be James Bookhout, since no one has ever claimed that he was that tall.

 Look at this image. What does it look like to you? To me, it looks like Oswald making eye contact with the Shooter. So, Oswald knew the Shooter. But, who could Oswald have gotten to know in those two days? It could only be someone from law enforcement; someone who attended the interrogations.

So then, I asked myself: who attended the interrogations? And it had to be someone who attended them consistently. There was only one other person besides Fritz who attended all of them, and that was James Bookhout. Hosty only attended one. Sorrels only attended one. Hines only attended one. Fritz and Bookhout were the only fixtures at the interrogations, other than Oswald himself.

It was 2013 that I got to that point. And then, I realized that I needed to look at Bookhout. And it should have been easy to find him because he followed Oswald around like his shadow the whole weekend. But, when I discovered that there wren no images of Bookhout from that weekend, that is when Eureka hit me that it was Bookhout.

And not only were there no images of Bookhout from that weekend; there wre no images of him at all. Not even his obituary had an image. That's when I joined Ancestry.com to find an image of Bookhout. And I didn't find one. So, I talked to them, and they told me that if I paid an extra fee, an expert of theirs would search for me. So, I paid it, and it was their expert who found the yearbook images of Bookhout.

Like the Garage Shooter, Bookhout was short. Do, you realize that the Garage Shooter was the shortest man in the garage? If there was anyone shorter, he never got got photographed. The Garage Shooter was the shortest man we know of in the garage.

So, he was short. And Bookhout too was short. The very fact that he had to stand on a pedestal to find Hosty tells you that he was short. Look at the other photo which shows the two images that were later claimed to be Bookhout.

Look at that towering guy on the left. Is there any chance that he had to stand on a pedestal in the hallway to find Hosty? No. That is inconceivable. And the other man wasn't even tall. He was barely any taller than Fritz who was short. I put 5'7" for Frtiz, but he may have been only 5'6". But, even if he was 5'7", how could Pipe Man be the same man as the tall, towering figure at the bank robbery exhibit?

Don't you get it that the Bookhout excuses are falling apart? I mean the excuses for why there are no images of him. The excuses for why he had to stand on a pedestal. And why didn't Bookhout go to Parkland Hospital? He was interested in everything that Oswald did that weekend, and he went everywhere that Oswald went except to Parkland Hospital.

Did you know that Bookhout went on an extended paid leave of absence from the FBI after the assassination? And he told the Warren Commission that it began before the assassination. What was he on leave for? Did he have a sick wife? A dying parent? Was he going on sabbatical somewhere? He never said. But, he did go on leave right away afterwards. It was to hide his resemblance to the Garage Shooter. He was the Garage Shooter.

James Bookhout was the one who masqueraded as Jack Ruby at the Oswald shooting, and there is no fact in the JFK assassination that is more certain and more important than that.