Now, I will lay out the latticework of evidence that, in combination, proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Ruby did not shoot Oswald.  Each point reinforces the other points and makes the whole case irrefutable.Ruby could not possibly have had any intention of shooting Oswald for the following reasons:

1 The timing. 10 AM was the only guidance that the Dallas Police ever gave for the jail transfer.  Ruby would have had to show up before that, not a long time after it.

2. The dog. Ruby bringing his dog Sheba proves not only that he had no intention of shooting Oswald but that he had plans for that day. And he said what they were. He said that after finishing at Western Union, he was going to drop Sheba off at the Carousel Club, which was right across the street, because there was someone there who doted on her. Then, he was going to go to this new apartment building he would soon be moving into. I forget the name of it, but it included the word “tower.”

3. The very juxtaposition of an ordinary, routine, and plebian action of wiring $25 to an employee with killing Oswald in a crowd of Police and thereby destroying his (Ruby’s) own life is inconceivable. You just can’t go from one to the other. They are incompatible to the extreme.

4. It means that all the stories that involve pre-meditation in collusion with the Mafia or the Dallas Police are completely untenable. The “mental break/sudden impulse” story is the only one that survives, but even it collapses when you scrutinize it.

5. Like the “Thorburn Position”, the mental break/sudden impulse theory has no patho-physiological foundation. Ruby’s celebrity lawyer Melvin Belli came up with the term “psychomotor epilepsy” to rationalize it, which referred to motor actions that could result from the chaotic discharges of an epileptic convulsion, but it was nonsense. The pointing of a gun and the pulling of a trigger cannot happen from a convulsion. Then, the sheer brevity of this supposed snap in consciousness (several seconds) makes it impossible. Furthermore, we have the films of the shooting, and when you look at the Shooter, you can see that he was surely conscious and acting with awareness, purpose, etc. You can’t possibly attribute what he was doing to a sudden mental break. This is obviously not a man who was in a trance or acting on sudden impulse.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHripG_tgR0

6. Then, there is the character of Jack Ruby. He was a VERY devout Jew. He attended synagogue and counseled with his rabbi. And he said that he NEVER had the thought to hurt Oswald. He said that the word “anger” wasn’t in his vocabulary. He said that sorrow over the loss of President Kennedy was what he was feeling that weekend- not anger or rage.  And the inherent goodness of Jack Ruby isn’t hard to demonstrate. Do you know how George Senator became his roommate? Senator was another resident in the building in which Ruby lived, and he was being evicted for not paying his rent. He had lost his job and had no money. Ruby saw his eviction going on, and he offered to let Senator move in with him, rather than be homeless. Could you do that? Invite a stranger, whom you didn’t know from Adam, to move in with you? I couldn’t do that. My generosity and compassion don’t go that far. And, I think the whole thing was a setup. I think Senator was Ruby’s handler, and it was all a big act. But, the fact that they tried it shows you that they knew about Ruby’s big and soft heart. What about the stories of Ruby beating people up and throwing people down the stairs, including women? THEY ARE ALL LIES.  

7. We know that Ruby did not get to the ramp when Officer Roy Vaughn was there because their accounts of what happened were so different. Vaughn said that Lt. Rio Sam Pierce didn’t stop when he came up the ramp. Ruby said that Pierce was parked at the top of the ramp. Vaughn said that he and Pierce exchanged no words. He said that he quickly checked and saw that traffic was clear, so he waved Pierce through without Pierce stopping. Ruby said that an officer on foot was talking to the stopped Pierce when he, Ruby, got there.  Note also that Ruby knew Roy Vaughn because Vaughn had been to the Carousel Club on police business, and he had once forgiven Ruby’s traffic violation because he was “a friend of the Department.” But, Ruby said that he didn’t recognize the officer who was talking to Pierce. It’s apparent that they didn’t place Vaughn at the ramp until AFTER Ruby was in custody up on the 5^th floor.

8. There are numerous discrepancies between Jack Ruby and the Garage Shooter. The Shooter was shorter than Ruby; he was pudgier; his hair was very different, looking like a mop in back, with all the indications that it was a wig, and there was the fact that the Shooter had a VERY short neck, much shorter than Ruby’s. And their clothing was different, with the Shooter wearing light-colored socks and dressy wingtips, and Ruby wearing jet black socks and high-top shoes. And that discrepancy is what led to the ridiculous claim of changing his underwear. One would have to be an awfully stupid doofus to believe it.

9  Ruby’s inability to remember any specifics about the shooting, in which he had no mental image of having shot Oswald, where it seemed to go from him getting there to the garage and then being jumped by the Police with nothing in-between reveals that he didn’t shoot Oswald.

10 Ruby’s willingness to accept that he shot Oswald was based entirely on the Dallas Police telling him that he did it, and it reveals a respect for authority that goes way beyond the norm. Anyone else in that situation would have spewed rage and fire upon being accused of something that was, not only outside their memory, but also outside their entire sense of self. But, Ruby was so weak, so totally submissive, so pathologically obedient, that it was truly a behavioral psycho-pathology. I’m sure it was decided well in advance that if they needed a patsy for when they killed Oswald, that Ruby would be their man.

Jack Ruby was innocent, and that is absolutely certain. These 10 points say so, and I could have added more.

We talk a lot about freedom in this country, but our freedom only goes so far, and there is no freedom that they couldn’t try to take away. Imagine if things get really bad here. Imagine if there is an economic collapse. Imagine if they impose martial law. How free are we going to be then?

But, there is one freedom you can count on, and that is: the freedom to think. They can’t take that away. And anyone with a free, intelligent, un-enslaved, and unencumbered mind is going to realize that Ruby did not shoot Oswald.   

 I am appalled by the Israeli/U.S. war on Iran, and I posted this comment on Yahoo. It may be removed. 

 I am going to respond to Jor Harman and Jeff Marzano. I said that if the Mafia ordered Ruby to shoot Osawld, then they had to do it after JFK was killed. They could not have ordered it before. They didn't even know it was needed before. Surely, the plotters hoped that Oswald would get killed in the theater.

 Why did Roy Truly brush off Oswald to Officer Marrion Baker? ("Nah, he works for me") and then, just 20 minutes later, go to the Police full of suspicion about Oswald? Just because he wasn't present for a roll call? No way! It was because they didn't want Oswald calmly arrested at the TSBD. They wanted to get him armed first, so that he might get in a shootout with the police. And they hoped that branding him as a cop-killer would increase the itch in somebody's itchy trigger finger. It didn't work out, but it might have.

 Now, keep in mind that I think the whole idea that the Mafia ordered Ruby to shoot Oswald is preposterous. Ruby was a VERY devout Jew. He was so moral, he couldn't even lie, let alone kill. You have to understand that all the stories you've heard about Ruby being a gangster are lies. He was a better person than most people. He was less inclined and more averse to violence than most people. His aversion to shooting anyone was over the top.

 And in this case, we're talking about, not just murder, but the complete ruination of his life. And he enjoyed his life. He enjoyed his business. He enjoyed being a big shot. He enjoyed his family, his friends, his dogs. You think he would have destroyed all that just because the Mafia ordered him to kill someone?

 Well, what about you? Would you kill someone if the Mafia ordered you to do it? And what did the Mafia threaten him with? I hear people saying that they threatened to kill his sister, but there's no evidence of that. It is just a totally made-up thing. It's a lie.

 But, hypothetically, if they ordered Ruby to shoot Oswald, they either had to meet with him that weekend or call him. Well, here is the record of every minute of Ruby's life from the Thursday to the Sunday.

 https://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Jack_Ruby/Timeline_of_Ruby.html

 Go through it and tell me when the Mafia met with Ruby and ordered him to shoot Oswald. They probably wouldn't have phoned it in, right?

 There is no time. Ruby never met with anyone from the Mafia. In most cases, that would settle it, but this is JFK-land, a very evil place, where people won't let go of the preposterous. It's a place where evil stubborness goes on forever.

 And that brings me to what Jeff Marzano said, that millions saw Ruby shoot Oswald on television. Millions didn't recognize the Shooter as Ruby. There were reporters in the garage who knew Ruby who didn't recognize the Shooter as him. For instance, Hugh Aynesworth said that the Shooter zipped right in front of him (his exact words), and he didn't recognize him as Ruby, or have the slightest inkling that he was Ruby. So, how did he come to know he was Ruby? BECAUSE THE POLICE ANNOUNCED IT. Ike Pappas was another reporter who knew Ruby and had Ruby's business card in his pocket, and he didn't recognize the Shooter as Ruby. He was going around asking people if anyone recognized the Shooter.

 So, if these guys who knew Ruby didn't recognize the Shooter as him, how could the millions at home, who didn't know Ruby from Adam, recognize the Shooter as him?

 This should settle the matter, but it won't. People are going to continue saying that millions saw and recognized Ruby shooting Oswald. And again, it's because of this evil JFK world.

 Like Oswald, Jack Ruby was innocent. The same people who killed Kennedy killed Oswald. They had to kill him because they knew that the case they were making against him to John Q. Public and his wife Ditzey would never hold up in court. They not only couldn't try him, THEY COULDN'T EVEN LET HIM TALK TO A LAWYER. Not even once. They would have had to kill the lawyer.

 What I have been telling you is the truth: Ruby got there early. He was pounced upon and taken up on the 5th floor, where he was held during the Garage Spectacle, in which FBI Agent James W. Bookhout pretended to be him. The real Ruby was slipped into the story at 3 o'clock when they brought him down to the 3rd floor and paraded him in front of reporters. That was the switch in the bait and switch. For 62 years, we have all been treated like Pavlovian dogs. I dare say it is time to revolt.

 I know of four stories about how Ruby shot Oswald, which are all wrong. And there is a fifth story- that Ruby did not shoot Oswald but was framed for it- and that one is right. I can prove that the first four don't make sense. And that makes the fifth story, my story, the last man standing. There is no other plausible story.  

So, the first story is the one that got Ruby convicted and sentenced to death. It is that he shot Oswald pre-meditated, in cold blood, and all by himself. It makes no sense because 10 AM was the only time given by the Dallas Police. Who shows up for a 10 AM jail transfer at 11:20, especially when your intention is to shoot the guy being transferred? And who brings their dog along to a shooting when you know the Police are going to grab you, and you are never going back to your car and your life? Not only would Ruby not have brought his dog along, he would have made arrangements for her, and his other dogs, because he loved them. But, Ruby had done nothing to prepare for that.

And who juxtaposes the mundane task of wiring $25 to an employee right before killing someone and destroying one's own life? Once he decided to kill Oswald, don't you think he would have brushed off the mundane stuff? It's like he had an errand list: "take the clothes to the dry cleaner; wire $25 to Karen Carlin; kill Oswald..." It just doesn't connect. 

So, the idea that Ruby did it pre-meditated is totally loony, and the jury that convicted him and sentenced him to death had to be the dumbest jury of all time.  

OK, Story #2 is the one that failed at trial, but actually became the replacement for the prosecution story that won. It's that Ruby did it, but he was in an altered mental state, one that his defense team called "psychomotor epilepsy." He wasn't conscious of doing it; it's like he did it in his sleep. And they used that story in the tv movie Ruby and Oswald in 1978.  When Ruby died in 1967, he was autopsied, including his brain, and the autopsists said he didn't have epilepsy. The movements involved in a convulsion are erratic and chaotic, and one could never pull the trigger of an aimed gun in such a state. The claim is that Ruby suddenly went into that state and then quickly came out of it. He responded lucidly when the cops jumped him. He said, "Hey, what are you doing? You know me. I'm Jack Ruby. I'm not some criminal. I'm not wanted." The idea that he suddenly fell into that state for several seconds and then instantly came out of it is preposterous. What prevails here is that there is no medical evidence whatsoever that Ruby had such a condition. There is nothing whatsoever to support it. 

Story #3 is the one that seems to be the most popular in the evil online JFK world. It is that Ruby did it intentionally with complete awareness, but it was only because the Mafia ordered him to do it. As popular as it is with the shills, it is impossible, first because the Mafia had no reason to kill Oswald. Oswald knew nothing about them. There was nothing he could tell the Police about them. And they were glad that Kennedy was dead, right? So, they had absolutely no reason to kill Oswald.  But, the second thing that makes it impossible is that there was never a time that they could have ordered Ruby to do it. We know everything that Ruby did from the Thursday to the Sunday, 24/7, and he never had a meeting with the Mafia or a phone call with them. There is no possibility that they got an order to him to shoot Oswald. And keep in mind that the shills who keep saying it never cite any interaction between Ruby and the Mafia. And they don't cite any names either. It is a completely empty claim that is devoid of evidence; devoid of substance; and devoid of details. Yet, in the stupid world of JFKing, the shills keep saying it over and over again.  

Story #4 is that the Dallas Police put Ruby up to shooting Oswald. So, the idea is that they were all working together. And in this story, they usually make it that Ruby didn't reach the basement by going down the ramp. They claim instead that a cop opened a door somewhere to let him in. This whole story makes no sense at all. In the Mafia story, they claim that the Mafia threatened to kill Ruby's sister if he didn't kill Oswald. Of course, there is no evidence for that whatsoever; they just made it up; but that's what they glibly say. But, how did the Dallas Police get Ruby to shoot Oswald? Did they also threaten to kill his sister? That seems a bit farfetched for Police, don't you think?  And you know, the whole idea that you're going to kill somebody because someone threatened to kill your sister if you don't do it doesn't add up. I have a sister, whom I love.  But, if someone threatened to kill her unless I killed someone on their behalf, I am certainly not going to kill the person. And neither would you. So, why does anyone think that Ruby would? 

But, the other problem with a collusion between Ruby and the Dallas Police is; how could they trust him afterwards? Even if he said that he would do it, and he would gladly go to the electric chair for them and fry for it (which is hard to imagine) what if he changed his mind? What if he woke up one morning and said, "I can't take it any more. I am going to tell my lawyers everything." 

Don't you see that if Ruby had colluded with the Dallas Police, the Dallas Police would have had to kill him. And I mean right away. 

But, the other ridiculous thing about this theory is that it involved Jack Ruby firing a gun in a small space crowded with Police. How could they trust that nincompoop, that dolt, that brainless moron Jack Ruby to fire a gun in their direction? Didn't they know what can easily happen to the best laid plans of mice and men? Do you really think Jim Leavelle would have gone along with Jack Ruby shooting at Oswald in his, Levealle's direction? That's what makes this the most stupid theory of all, and they're all stupid. 

So, every one of these stories is imbecilic. The only story that makes sense that is that they didn't need Ruby to kill Oswald. They could do that themselves. All they needed him for was to take the blame for it. So, they tricked him into believing that he shot Oswald. The way it happened is that Ruby got to the garage early, about an hour early, where they pounced on him and took him up to the 5th floor. There, they told him that he shot Oswald. I don't know if Oswald was there for it. Maybe he was; maybe he wasn't. But, I know for sure that Officer Roy Vaughn wasn't there for it because he would have heard the commotion. Vaughn was placed to guard the ramp AFTER Ruby was apprehended. 

The essential element in this operation was Ruby's mental degradation. I have no doubt that he was MK-ULTRA'd, and that, surely, involved drugs. However, a special degree of intoxication was needed to guarantee the success of this mission. Ruby needed to be submissive and obsequious to the extreme.  So, besides his usual amphetamines, they gave him a drug called scopolamine, which Allen Dulles learned about from the Nazis that he chummed with for 4 years in Switzerland during WW2. Scopolamine, the zombie drug, takes away your free will. And notice that Ruby looked like zombie. He was stoned. And notice that his eyes were dilated. Scopolamine does that too. 

 RL Schirtz tried to claim that since Lovelady's hairline in the FBI photo resembles Doorman's, they must be the same person. But, the FBI fabricated that. The FBI was bad. J. Edgar Hoover was bad. He was one of the baddest men to ever wield power in this country, and he wielded a lot of power. 

When the photo-altering team saw that Oswald was in the doorway, they made the decision to turn him into Lovelady. But, they weren't going to just tell the world that Oswald was Lovelady. They were arrogant, but they weren't that arrogant. They knew they had to do something Lovelady-ify Oswald. And what they did was more over the top of Lovelady's head, what I call his crown. They had an image of Lovelady from 1957, but they didn't know the date of it. For all they knew, it was recent. And they didn't know that Lovelady was a rapidly balding young man. Nobody told them. 

So, it started with Lovelady's hairline from 1957, which they moved to Oswald. You can see how identical it is. Did I mention that Lovelady was a rapidly balding young man? He was one of those guys who, every time he took a shower, he clogged the drain with hair. So, after they did that, they doctored Lovelady's hair in the FBI photo that they took of him on February 29, 1964. There are several versions of it, but I'm using this one with the most hair, in which they really gave him a mop. At around the same time, and possibly on the same day, Mark Lane captured his pirated image of Lovelady, which shows how bald Lovelady really was at the tender age of 26.  That FBI photo of Lovelady is NOT reliable. It is a propaganda image used to sell the lie that Lovelady was Doorman. And why did the FBI do that? They did it because the FBI was the government, and the government killed Kennedy. I keep telling you that; that the U.S. government killed Kennedy, and it is the truth. It wasn't Oswald, and it wasn't the Mafia. It was the U.S. government, including its intelligence agencies, the CIA and the FBI. 

 

 What I have been telling you, that Ruby got to the garage early; was pounced upon; then taken up to the 5^th floor and held there through the Garage Spectacle; then slipped into the story later when they took him to the 3^rd floor and paraded him in front of reporters, is the truth, and no other story works.

If Ruby had planned to kill Oswald, he would have gotten there on time. 10 o’clock was the only guidance ever given. If Ruby had done it on his own, how could he have known that the Jail Transfer was going to happen at 11:20? You think he was clairvoyant?

And if he planned to shoot Oswald in a crowd of Police, he would have known that he was going to be arrested and never return to his life, so he would not have brought his dog along. And he would have found a new home for his dogs and settled all his affairs, knowing that he would not be returning to his life. But, he didn’t do that.

All that’s true even if you think the Mafia ordered him to shoot Oswald. But, the Mafia story is impossible because we know every contact that Ruby had, by phone or in person, between 11/22 and 11/24, and he was NEVER contacted by the Mafia.  They didn’t meet with him, and they didn’t phone him.  

Here is the timeline of Jack Ruby from Thursday to Sunday, hour by hour, minute by minute, and there are no gaps in it. He was NOT contacted by the Mafia, period.

https://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Jack_Ruby/Timeline_of_Ruby.html

Some people think that that Ruby and the Dallas Police were working together, that they opened a door for him and cued him about when to come. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, that is stupid!  Don’t you understand what a dingbat Ruby was? That no one in their right mind would want him shooting a gun in their direction? He was loony! And what about afterwards? How could they trust him to keep his mouth shut and put on an act to his lawyers? Could they count on him to keep the act going until it was time to flip the switch on the electric chair?  Of course not! They would have had to kill him, and they would have killed him.

Sometimes, life is like chess, where you have to make a certain move to avoid checkmate.   And this is one of those times. Ruby did not shoot Oswald, and he wasn’t even there. He was tricked into believing that he shot Oswald, and the whole world was tricked. But, it wasn’t even executed well. They didn’t even get the clothing right.  Bookhout wore light socks and wingtip shoes, while Ruby wore black socks and high-top shoes, which made them have to claim that they changed every stitch of clothing on Ruby’s body for his overnight stay, including his shoes, socks, and underwear. And you believe that sh_t?

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph.

 As we continue to probe the monstrous crimes of the U.S. government the weekend of November 22-24, 1963, (and it was the U.S. government that did all the killing: not Oswald, not the Mafia, and not Jack Ruby) I feel compelled to address the current colossal crime of the U.S. government: the war on Iran. I feel I have to do it because not doing it is like ignoring the elephant in the room. 

And I'll start with some practical advice. If you think this war is going to go on for a while, then eventually end, and then everything is going to go back to normal, you are sadly mistaken. Normal is gone. The world is NEVER going back to what it was. The whole global order has been disrupted. The crushing effect on the global economy means that high inflation, high unemployment are guaranteed, but, it's going to be worse for Americans because of the decline of the U.S. dollar. So, you better be ready for it.

But, let's be real: this war isn't close to ending; it's escalating. The worst may lie ahead. The big question is whether Israel and/or the U.S. will resort to nuclear weapons if all else fails. What a wretched irony that would be considering that Iran using nukes was the justification for the war. My opinion is: yes, Israel would nuke Iran, if necessary. If it came down to either losing the war or using a nuke, they will use a nuke. I rate the chance of the U.S. doing it a little less, but not much. After all, the U.S. is the only country in the world that has already used a nuke. And since the decision would be Trump's, then yes, I think he is fully capable of making that monstrous decision and rationalizing it. He is rash, by nature. Don't you realize that? 

The tragedy of this catastrophe is that it was so unnecessary. Iran is not and never has been a terrorist state. The accusation is based mostly on the fact that Iran has given money to Hamas and Hezbollah. But, so has Saudi Arabia and the other Arab states. It was given to help Palestinians and Lebanese. 

One of the most frequent citings of a terrorist act by Iran is the attacks on Jews in Argentina in 1992 and 1994. Get out a world map or better yet a globe, and look at the distance from Iran to Argentina. Jews live unpersecuted in Iran. They have their temples, their Kosher markets and restaurants, etc. They even have rabbical schools to train rabbis, and it all goes on unfettered. And they have a special representative in the Iranian Parliament. Iran's treatment of its Jews is nothing at all like Hitler's. So, why would Iran go to Argentina to kill Jews? What's in it for them, then or now? Nothing. It would be awfully stupid for them to do it, and Iranians aren't stupid. They invented hypersonic missiles, which we haven't done.  I don't think there is a snowball's chance in Hell that the Iranian government sought to kill Jews in Argentina.   

What I think it really comes down to is hate: racist hate. For decades, the culture in the United States has been sliding towards hating Iran and Iranians. We've been feeding that hatred. Just the other day, Trump said that "the Iranian people are quite nasty." Wow. What a thing to say. 

Just imagine if Putin had bombed Ukraine the way Trump has bombed Iran, where schools, hospitals, and residences have been hit. Putin has hit some civilian structures and killed some civilians in Ukraine, but not in the magnitude or in the concentration that Trump and Israel have been killing civilians in Iran. And you know that the "decapitation strikes" have not been precise and limited. Without the least hesitation, Israel has been willing to kill whole familes to take out one scientist, and the U.S. has followed them down that road. The same thing happened in WW2. When the U.S. joined the war, we sent our airmen to England, and they joined the British bombers in saturation bombing of civilian centers in Germany. Most all the Allied bombing against Germany in WW2 were attacks on civilians. Strategic bombing was largely abandoned for terror bombing. If you haven't read about the bombing of Dresden, you should do it before you die. 

It's very appropriate that I bring this up because at the time, neither the UK, the US, nor USSR were signatories to the Geneva Conventions which banned the targeting of civilians in war. But, the U.S. did sign it in 1949, though alas, the number of civilians we killed in the Korean War, and then in the Vietnam War, were in the millions. The total civilian death toll in George W. Bush's "War on Terror" is also in the millions.

But, the fact is that it's getting worse because in this war, the attacks on civilians started right away: on the very first day. It's widely admitted now that the killing of 175 people at the girls' school on the first day (most of the victims being young girls) was done by the U.S. Trump abjectly denied it for as long as he could. And Hegsted kept saying, like a mantra, that the only one who targets civilians are the Iranians. 

But, let's be crystal about something: the excuse that you had bad intelligence, or that the school was close to a military facility, and the notion that saying that exonerates you is false. it does not. You have a responsibility to spare civilians. You have blood on your hands, and you are guilty. In Afghanistan, we bombed 9 wedding parties, knowingly and methodically killing everybody: the bride, the groom, children, families- all in the hope of killing a few Taliban fighters. There is a 4-letter word for that: EVIL.

I hate to say it, but moral degeneracy has taken over in America. Even Trump's political opponents, the Democrats, are criticizing his war over stretegy, cost, and legality, but not the inhumanity of killing Iranians. I pointed that out to Chat GPT, and this is what it said:

 You’re right—most of the public political statements from U.S. politicians focus on legality, constitutionality, or strategic prudence, not on the moral dimension of killing civilians. Very few high-profile American politicians openly frame such attacks as immoral or equivalent to atrocity, which can make the system look morally complacent, especially from an external perspective.

This distinction is important:

• Legal/constitutional objections: “This isn’t authorized by Congress,” or “It’s not an imminent threat.”

• Strategic objections: “This could escalate into a quagmire,” or “It undermines diplomacy.”

• Regime change criticism: “We shouldn’t try to overthrow their government.”

But explicit moral condemnation of civilian deaths is almost absent from mainstream discourse. Even anti-war voices often couch their argument in law or strategy rather than human rights or ethics.

It’s a sobering reflection on how political frameworks can normalize violence when morality is subordinated to legality, nationalism, or realpolitik.

*          *          *          *         *         *          *            *             *

I believe in Karma, and I believe that the repercussions of this monstrous war, which we started, and during peace negotiations no less, are going to be horrendous for us.  And I think that the deranged people who did it: Trump, Hegsted, and their top military leaders, have committed gross crimes against humanity. But, I also think that it involves trends and attitudes and "group think" that go back many years, and involve many more people and institutions. 

This is what Trump just posted on Truth Social: “Watch what happens to these deranged scumbags today." Heaven help us. 

 

 I feel compelled to express my thoughts about the atrocious U.S./Israeli war on Iran because, otherwise, it would be like ignoring the elephant in the room. What they've done is utterly grotesque, abominable, and monstrous. And really, it is catastrophic. I could also say that it is insane, considering that Trump raged about not getting the Nobel Peace Prize. But, in his derangement, he probably thinks he still deserves it. 

Consider the claim that Iran has been a "state sponsor of terror." Is it true? The claim is based mainly on Iran having given money to Hamas and Hezbollah. But, Saudi Arabia has also done that, as have other Arab states. And many countries accuse Israel of terrorism and genocide in Gaza and elsewhere. And the U.S. was accused of terrorism by the ICC for bombing wedding parties and pistachio pickers in Afghanistan.  

And when you look at specifics, it gets even worse. Often cited are the attacks against Jewish targets in Argentina in 1992 and 1994. Get a map out, or better yet, get a globe out, and look at the distance between Iran and Argentina. What possible benefit was it to Iran to kill some Jews in Argentina? The Iranians aren't stupid. Look at their missile technology. And the fact is that Jews live unpersecuted in Iran. They have their temples. They have their Kosher restaurants. They have a representative in the Iranian Parliament. So, why, Why, Why would Iran go halfway around the world to kill some Jews? They are not that stupid. 

And speaking of stupid, it doesn't get more stupid than Donald Trump. Twice, he has interrupted negotiations with Iran to savagely attack them. And, this time, like last time, Trump is already clamoring for a ceasefire. It's very clear that he wants the war to be over. But, this time, Iran is saying no, and Donald Trump is bewildered.  I find it amazing that he even expects them to consider a ceasefire, considering what he did after the last one, and I consider it a sign of his severe mental deficit. 

In the decapitation strikes with which Israel and the U.S. began their savage war, they knowingly killed a lot of innocents. They would bomb an apartment building to kill one scientist. Everyone else was "collateral damage", including the guy's wife, his kids, his grandkids, and his neighbors.  And sad to say, it wasn't the first time. During the Iraq War, George W. Bush bombed a restaurant in Baghdad, a cheap place where you could get a chicken dinner for $2. They dropped a megaton bomb on it and wiped out the whole city block. They killed Iraqi families sleeping in their beds, including many Iraqi children, all in the hope of killing Saddam Hussein, which they didn't do.

And I brought that war crime up in my film, MY STRETCH OF TEXAS GROUND, which was my first. It is the only anti-war feature film of the 21st century. You can watch it for free on Youtube. 

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSGWzsmxWPg&t=1s   

Chat GPT is very pro-Amerian and pro-Israeli, but I have found that you can argue with it. At first, they didn't want to admit that the U.S. bombed the girls' school. But then, they came around to this:

The available evidence currently points toward a U.S. strike

Multiple reports citing officials briefed on the investigation say that U.S. investigators believe it is likely U.S. forces were responsible for the strike on the girls’ school in Minab.

Preliminary findings reportedly indicate:

• A U.S. Tomahawk missile likely struck the area.

• The intended target was a nearby Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps facility.

• Outdated intelligence may have caused the school to be mistakenly listed as a military target.

Because of this, many outlets describe the incident as a likely U.S. strike that hit the school by mistake.

 I am sickened by the fact that most of the criticism of Trump's war from Congress has focused on legality, authorization, and strategy rather than explicitly condemning the war as immoral, inhumane, and wicked. And I see it as evidence of the advanced moral degeneracy in our government. They all seem to have the conviction that America has the right to kill anyone.  

Finally, I will leave you with this: If you think this war is going to go on a while and then end, and then things are going to go back to normal; that by Opening Day of Major League Baseball, this war is going to seem like a blip from the past, you are sadly mistaken. THIS WAR HAS CHANGED EVERYTHING. IT HAS SHIFTED THE AXIS OF THE WHOLE WORLD ORDER. And what's coming next is not going to be pretty or easy or comfortable because the ramifications of this war are going to hit us all very hard and for a very long time. Brace yourself. 

 A Michelle Bube responded to my post about Lovelady and the shirt he wore on 11/22, which he wore again on 2/29 to pose as Doorman for the FBI, and she was arrogant and dismissive. She said we know it's not Oswald, and "we have witnesses that verify that." My post was about the shirt Lovelady wore on 11/22, and she didn't address any of the points I made or the images I presented. This was my response to her:

Michelle Bube: You don't know how to think, Michelle, and you don't know how to debate either. Specific points were made here, and you wrongly think that you can glibly dismiss them, as if you're holding a trump card that you can play at will. You're not. You don't know that it's not Oswald, and you are not the Queen of Siam. You don't get to make proclamations.

And although the WC got a few people to say that Doorman was Lovelady, there were 75 people who worked in that building. Since everyone who testified was screened in advance, it was a simple matter of finding ones who would say it. So, if they screened someone, and that person said that Doorman was Oswald, then he or she would not be allowed to testify. Carolyn Arnold said that she saw Oswald at the doorway, peering through the glass shortly before the shooting. She wasn't allowed to testify.

Furthermore, the photographic evidence trumps the lip-flapping. Lip-flapping is what got dozens of innocent men and women, who were sent to Death Row, exonerated by DNA evidence, thanks to the Innocence Project. The Innocence Project has also exonerated over 20 people who were executed by the State. Every single one of those wrongful convictions was the result of spurious lip-flapping, done either maliciously or mistakenly.

It was definitely Oswald in the doorway, and not because I say so, but because the evidence says so; the images say so. This is an image of Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady less than a minute after the assassination. If you look closely, you can see that Lovelady was wearing a short-sleeved shirt. The shirt had red and white stripes, but the red was more like pink because the shirt was old and faded. Lovelady wore that shirt on 11/22, as we can see; then he told the FBI that he wore that shirt, which they put in writing twice; and then he posed in that shirt for the FBI when they took photos of him.

This is a brand-new collage I just made to refute you, and I'm starting to think that it is one of the most powerful collages I have ever made. I am going to post it widely now, here on Facebook and on my blog, and I am going to mention you. So, I'm going to make you famous.

 I put the arrow on Lovelady's shirt because I suspect that someone pushed his shirt out to artificially create a spread that would mimic the one we see on Doorman. You can see that the other side of Lovelady's shirt remained in the midline. It isn't sprawled at all. So, the spread on the other side may have gotten some help with some nudging, and it probably did.

And what you see Oswald doing on the right, the way he is clasping his hands in front, left over right, is exactly what he was doing in the doorway in the Altgens photo. And we have other photos of him standing that way. He was even doing it in the garage during the Garage Spectacle as they were walking in. So, it was a deeply entrenched habit of his to do that.

However, the irony is that Lovelady had the opposite habit: to clasp his hands BEHIND his body, as you can see him doing on the left in his posing photo.

And what would be the point of trying to duplicate the shirt-spread if he wasn't wearing the same shirt? There would be no point. The FBI put it in writing twice that Lovelady said that he wore a vertically striped shirt and blue jeans on 11/22. And we can see that he wore it in the Couch film, which was discovered by Gerda Dunkel.

There is simply no doubt that Lovelady wore the short-sleeved, vertically striped shirt on 11/22, which is why he posed in it. It is true that later on, he started posing in a longsleeved plaid shirt. I could make a collage of him doing that, and maybe I will. But, Lovelady was pressured to do it, and I'm sure he was threatened.

And I tell you, with very strong conviction, that I believe that Lovelady was killed in January 1979, and hear me out. It was reported that he died of a fatal first heart attack at the age of 41. Although it is possible for a person to have a heart attack that young, or even younger, it is also very rare. It's even more rare for it to be fatal.

There is no doubt that Lovelady was a smoker at the time of the JFK assassination, I don't know if he was still smoking at the time of his death. He was slender at the time of his death. But, when I consider the unlikelihood of him having a fatal first heart attack that young and combine it with the ominous timing of it happening just as the HSCA Final Report was coming out, alarm bells go off in my head.

 Usually, the Kennedy-killers use the FBI photo of Lovelady as their go-to photo to compare to Doorman. And it's no wonder because it was altered to make him look like Doorman.

There are two versions of it. The original one, that J Edgar Hoover sent to the Warren Commission with a letter, has a hard face. In it, Lovelady looks like a thug. So, the HSCA used shadow to soften his face, which is the one on the left.

But, neither one of those images are authentic. To get to something that is real and uncorrupted, we have to go to the Mark Lane photo of Lovelady. It is, in fact, the ONLY image of Lovelady that we can rely on. And notice how little hair Lovelady had at the time. That was a lot of balding for a guy who was only 26 years old. But, that's the way it went for him. I wish it was the worst thing that ever happened to him.

 Oswald’s presence in the doorway was instantly recognized, and it should have induced the photo-alterers to destroy the Altgens photo, which they easily could have done.

But, these were arrogant men, and they decided instead to claim that he was Lovelady, who was standing right next to Oswald.

To turn Oswald into Lovelady, they replaced the top of his head, from the forehead up, with that of Young Lovelady from 1957. They had the photo, including Lovelady’s unique hairline, and they thought it would be enough to stamp Doorman as Lovelady. They were wrong.  

But, the other problem was Oswald’s unique Russian shirt, and they had to do two things to obscure it. The shirt was very tattered, and it showed. So, they had to put the black man, Carl Jones, over it, using the image of Jones that was captured by Phil Willis at 3 pm. And to cover the unique construction of the shirt collar, including the button loop that it had, they put that freaky man wearing a tie in over him in an optically impossible way that sheared Oswald’s face and his shoulder.

On the right, it shows what Doorman looked like before they altered him. I wasn’t able to take out the bogus image of Carl Jones, but what that did was hide the tattered shirt and also Oswald’s hand-clasping. Oswald had the habit of standing with his hands clasped in front of his body, like a Jehovah’s Witness at the door. We have many images of him standing that way that weekend, and he was doing it in the doorway.

Since I couldn’t take out Carl Jones, I instead inserted an image of Oswald standing with his hands clasped, so that you can see what he was doing in the doorway. In your mind’s eye, just shift that over to Doorman, and you’ll get the picture.

OUR GOVERNMENT DID THIS. It was undoubtedly a team from the CIA’s “National Photographic Interpretation Center” led by Dino Brugioni. It was the same government that launched its cruel, savage, monstrous, obscene, and depraved war on Iran, that has forever destroyed the pretense that the U.S. is civilized, and the same goes for Israel. I would call it beastial, except that that would be an offense to beasts.

The United States government killed Kennedy, and then they killed Oswald. It wasn’t the Mafia. It was the U.S. government.

 Aaron Paterson posted the clearest image of Bill Shelley that I have ever seen. I suspect it got some help from AI. But, because of it, I decided to make a collage of Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady on 11/22/63.

It was in 2013 that Gerda Dunkel found Shelley and Lovelady in the Couch film. They both said that, very soon after the shooting, they joined the throng of people who poured into the railroad yard, and we can see them doing it. You can see the excellent match of Shelley, with his pompadour hair, to Aaron's Shelley.

And that's Lovelady next to him, wearing the striped shirt that he told the FBI he wore on 11/22.  I put an image of Lovelady in his posing shirt for the FBI beneath it, so that you can see that they match.

It has to be Shelley and Lovelady in the Couch film because they both said they were there at the time doing that. Furthermore, if that's not them, then they still have to be there. It means that besides the couple who look like them, and are dressed like them, that they also have to be there. It means you would need two sets. But, there is only the one set. Therefore, it has to be them.  

And you can see that Lovelady's shirt is short-sleeved. So, he could not possibly be Doorman. So this, by itself settles the matter; Lovelady was NOT Doorman.

I added that diagonal black line because the three images to the right of it are the only images we have of Billy Lovelady on 11/22. There are others that are claimed, but they are all bogus. They don't look like Lovelady, and they don't look like each other either. And, they involve impossibilities. Since Lovelady left for the railroad yard right away, he was not milling around in front smoking 10 minutes later.

And Lovelady never said that he encountered Oswald at the DPD. He was asked, under oath, where he last saw Oswald, and he said it was at the TSBD. Never did he, or his chatty wife Patricia, ever claim that he was in a media frenzy with Oswald at the DPD.

 What it means is that, not only was Oswald the Doorman Man, but that the U.S. government went to a lot of chicanery and subterfuge to try to sell the idea that he was Lovelady. And the reason they did it was because the U.S. government killed Kennedy. It wasn't Oswald; it wasn't the Mafia; it was our own government. The same U.S. government that killed over 100 Iranian schoolgirls a week ago killed JFK, Tippit, and Oswald on the weekend of 11/22-24, 1963.

Yesterday, a man named Scott Tozier, who served for over 20 years in the U.S. Army, posted that Jackie and the driver Will Greer both shot JFK at the same time. 

How could a loyal soldier of the U.S. Army say that? Will Greer was one of JFK's Secret Service agents. If the Secret Service killed Kennedy, it means the U.S. government killed Kennedy. 

But how, after serving the U.S. government for over 20 years could Tozier glibly say that the U.S. government killed Kennedy? Doesn't that seem incongruous? 

It's not incongruous to me at all. Just because Tozier said it doesn't mean that he believes it. One would have to be insane to believe it. It is what you call a psy-op. It's about creating noise, sowing confusion, and engaging in mockery. It is about ridiculing everyone who challenges the government's story of the JFK assassination. 

Next thing he'll be saying that Kellerman got a shot in too. 

And this kind of thing happens all the time. These JFK groups are crawling with operatives.  But, I have to hand it to Tozier. In all the years and decades I've been doing this, I never before heard anyone claim that Greer and Jackie both shot Kennedy and simultaneously.  

You went too far, Tozier, and it was stupid. You exposed who you are and what is going on.  

I wonder how many Americans realize what is happening right now. How do they think this horrific war, that Israel and the U.S. started, is going to end? Do they think that, at some point, a ceasefire is going to be declared, and everything will go back to normal? Well, they're wrong. It's never going back to normal. 

Israel's and Donald Trump's war is sinking the world into the abyss. The worst case scenario is World War 3. But, even if we can avoid that, there will be no avoiding the economic and chaotic consequences of this war.

And the naked evil of war has never been as transparent as it is in this war. The U.S. bombed Shajereh Tayyebeh Elementary School, killing 175 people, most of them young girls. When asked about it yesterday, Trump said that "Iran did it. They have no accuracy whatsoever."

It is the single most evil thing any American President has ever said, since the founding of this country. And after he said it, right away I began drawing the parallel to the claim that Jackie shot JFK, which is just as evil and just as preposterous. 

I don't know if there are any real people who believe that Jackie shot JFK, but the vast, overwhelming majority of those who say it are dis-info ops, like Tozier, who are just muddying the waters, creating cognitive dissonance, and mocking the whole effort to challenge the government's story about the JFK assassination.

So, saying that "Jackie did it" is just pure evil. However, the claim that Greer did it is based on a specific bogus claim that the Zapruder film shows him turning around and shooting JFK. They claim that in the frames before 313, you can see that he has a gun in his hand. It's a lie. There is no gun in his hand. 

 

But, was the Secret Service involved in killing Kennedy? Absolutely. There is no excuse for what Greer did, and what he didn't do, which was speed off as soon as he realized that JFK was under attack. You can see Greer viewing the situation, and it wasn't the first time. In 286, he turned and saw what it was. So, why didn't he speed off then? It's because he wasn't going to speed off until JFK took the fatal shot. 

And the same goes for Kellerman. Look at 312 again. Notice that Kellerman is just sitting there, facing straight ahead, and doing nothing. Prior to that, he did turn around. You can see him doing it in 286. Greer and Kellerman are both turned and looking at the action. 

And that image of Mary Moorman in 312 is totally fake. Supposedly, she HASN'T taken her photo yet. Even though she started setting up for it long before the Kennedys reached her, she still hasn't done it. And she is facing the street squarely, even though the Kennedys have passed her. Supposedly, she is going to take her photo in 1/6 second. But, if she did, she couldn't possibly capture the Moorman photo. As the Physics Professor told us, the Moorman photo was taken diagonally from behind. The photographer wasn't facing Elm Street. The photographer was turned diagonally towards the limo which had pssed her.  It was taken from the angle that Babushka Lady took her photo. The Zapruder film is telling us that Mary Moorman could not possibly have taken the Moorman photo. 

People, we are immersed in evil: the evil of this savage, monstrous Trumpian-Israeli war, the evil of lies about the JFK assassination, and much more. Alas, all we can do about the war is condemn it and denounce the people who are doing it, but it's not going to stop it. 

But, we can do something about the lies about the savage, monstrous acts of the weekend of November 22-24, 1963. That we can expose, and those lies we can destroy. So, let's just do it. Please like this and share it, and thank you.    

 

    

 

 I consulted with a Physics professor, with a specialty in Optics, about the Moorman photo. He is a tenured professor who teaches at a prominent university, but I won't tell you his name because I don't want him to be harassed or worse. He drew this mathematical diagram of the Moorman photo, on the left. 

He said it is very significant that the line of the limo is not parallel with the bottom of the photo; that it is diagonal to it. He said that proves that the photo was taken diagonally. Another tell-tale sign of that is that the Kennedys aren't centered in the photo. He also said that the fact that Hargis looms so large compared to the Kennedys reveals the location of the photographer. He said that it is obvious that distance from Hargis to the Kennedys was additive to the distance from the photographer to Hargis. He said that you could draw a straight diagonal line from the photographer to Hargis and then on to the Kennedys. That is how they were aligned, and that is what caused the proportions that we see. 

So, when he said that, I showed him the Muchmore frame, and asked, "Do you mean like this?

His eyes widened.  He said yes, that is exactly it, that BL took the Moorman photo. He said that Muchmore (whoever that was, as he was not a JFK person) shot from about the same angle as BL, but from much farther back, and that's why Hargis and Martin don't loom large in the Muchmore frame because they weren't close to her camera. But in the Moorman photo, BL was very close to those motorcycle cops. The professor also agreed with me that the laws of physics demand that Martin had to be in the Moorman photo the same way he is in the Muchmore frame. In the Moorman photo, Martin is obscured under the thumbprint. 

Finally, I asked him, "Are you absolutely sure that the woman labeled MM didn't take the Moorman photo?" And he laughed out loud. I really mean that he laughed loudly, and I'll never forget it. He said, "Absolutely not. She would have had a triangular relationship to the Kennedys and Hargis; not a linear one."

What I have been telling you is the truth, that Mary Moorman did not take the Moorman photo. Mary's real photo captured JFK right before he was shot in the throat. But, he had already been shot; in the back, and he was slumped from it, and his face must have looked distraught. And Jackie was already aware that something was terribly wrong, and she was tending to him. Yet, according to the official story, nothing had happened yet.

So, they had to replace Mary's photo, and right away, they came up with the lie that she took several motorcade photos.  She did not. She only took the one. But, she took hers early, and they were going to replace it with one taken later, after the final shot. So, they needed the story to be that she took more than one photo. 

And remember: it was the FBI that did this, and the FBI is the U.S. government. The U.S. government killed Kennedy, and then, because they killed Kennedy, they had to kill Oswald. That is the frightening truth, and it's a nightmare. But, we have to face it, and there has to be a reckoning.