So, you think these two are the same guy, do you?

Do you , or do you not, notice that the guy on the left has a gaunt face, while the guy on the right has a puffy face. So, how did James Bookhout go from gaunt to puffy over 5 years or so? There is this image of young Bookhout in which his face looks a bit puffy:

But, what would that mean? That he went from puffy to gaunt back to puffy?

And what are the chances that an FBI agent had hair that unruly? Did I mention that Bookhout was an FBI agent? That's the F, B, of I. And exactly what his his hair doing there? Which way is it going? Have you ever seen hair as unruly as that? Because I haven't. And I have unruly hair.  And how come the glass of his glasses on his left side (our right) seem to be popping out of the frame? Have you ever seen an image like that before? Because I haven't. 

It's funny how the other guy was built very much like Texas Ranger Bob Crowder, who was also in the picture.

So, if you are going to say that that guy on the right is James Bookhout, then you still have to find Bob Crowder in the picture.

So that leaves the guy on the left in the clipping, by default, having to be Crowder, but look how straight and erect Crowder stood on our left. Do you not understand that their whole posture and bearing are vastly different? And that's not something that changes from one day to the next. It involves very deepseated habits. 

Now, let's consider the providence of this claim, of having, in 2017, found two images of James Bookhout. Prior to this claim, that is, prior to 2017, there were NO images of James Bookhout from the JFK assassination. So, the gaunt guy smoking the pipe, standing in the center of Fritz' office, was the first and only image of James Bookhout from the JFK assassination? 

But, if it was that easy for Jim Murray of Blackstone to capture this broad image of James Bookhout, why aren't there many images of Bookhout from the JFK assassination, when we know that Bookhout followed Oswald around like his shadow? And especially if you accept that James Bookhout wore such a light suit because it was certainly unusual for FBI agents to do that. Notice in the above image that all the others are dressed in dark suits. So, wouldn't an FBI agent in a light suit stand out over and over again?

But, getting back to the providence of it all, Bart Kamp said that he got the above image from NARA, and then Steve Roe found the clipping about the FBI bank robbery exhibit, and that it was Denis Morrissette who declared them both a match to each other and to Bookhout.  

But, I know who Steve Roe is. He is a Brit, and he's very active on the JFK forums. And he stands for Oswald's guilt as the lone gunman and sole perpetrator, in other words, the official story. 

Denis Morrisette is a JFK blogger who doesn't like to espouse too much; he mostly just presents images and audios. But, my impression is that he supports the official story. Put it this way: he is very friendly with people who espouse the official story. 

Bart Kamp is a Prayermanite, meaning that he's a member of Greg Parker's group of idiots. And he is also a member of Dealey Plaza UK, but note that there are OIC members who also belong to Dealey Plaza UK, such as Bernard Wilds and Peter Mellor.  

But, my point is that why would there be collaboration between these three people? Supposedly, Steve Roe and Bart Kamp are at opposite extremes of the JFK spectrum. And you realize that it is an extremely polarized spectrum? Don't Oswald accusers hate Oswald defenders and vice versa? You might think that "hate" is a strong word, but this is the JFK assassination we're talking about. It is the JFK debate we are talking about. So no; hate is NOT too strong a word. And when you see collaboration between guys from opposite sides of the spectrum, it's concerning; it doesn't wash.  It doesn't make sense. That's because: this is the JFK assassination we are talking about. 

And who declared Denis Morrissette an expert? This was his prior pick for James Bookhout, which he published on his website about JFK law enforcement officers:

But, Denis has since removed the image on the right, and replaced it with the 2017 images, and is just declaring them to be Bookhout with no discussion, no vetting, no validation, no nothing.

 So, was Jim Murray up on a ladder when he took that? Because: the camera does seem to be looking down into the office. The desk appears awfully low. But, you can't tell me there was a ladder there. So, what was he standing on? Or, did he just hold his camera as high as he could and shoot down? But, why would he do that? Why wouldn't he just shoot straight into the room at eye level? But, the picture really is ridiculous. The pipe smoker is just standing there piping away. But, this is Fritz' office, and it is the day of the JFK assassination. So, how could anyone do that?   Just stand there enjoying a pipe? Every other man in that office is honed in on Fritz, looking at him and listening to him. But, the pipe smoker has his back to Fritz and is ignoring him. He is in his own little world. And you think that's Bookhout? That he would behave like that towards Fritz?

This is a tribute from Denis Morrissette on his JFK Investigators page.  

Thanks to all my friends who helped me on this: Linda Giovanna Zambanini, Steve Roe, Chris Simondet, Fred James, and many others. Special thanks to Robin Unger for his great online JFK assassination photo collection.

So, Denis thanked Steve Roe and referred to him as a friend. I'm not surprised. And, I recognize the name Fred Jones. He's another a rabid attacker of Oswald defenders on Facebook.  Linda Zambanini I recall from back when Education Forum was more than an ember. 

But, what a rotten thing for Denis Morrisette to just declare these images to be Bookhout. He doesn't even couch it as a theory, a speculation. No, he goes all in and full bore, just declaring them to be Bookhout.

Are you sure, Denis? Because, by your own admission, you have been wrong before in your Bookhout calls. AT LEAST TWICE, THAT I KNOW OF, YOU HAD IMAGES UP OF HIM WHICH YOU LATER HAD TO TAKE DOWN. But, this time, you think you've got it right, do you? How certain are you? Would you bet your life that those are images of Bookhout? Because I would bet my life that this is an image of him:

And it's ironic how I got to this image. On the Education Forum, someone bemoaned the fact that there were no images of James Bookhout from the JFK assassination, none. And why should that be?, he asked. And then, some guy, and I forget who, put the link up to the above video clip, and said to go there because you'll see Oswald talking to Bookhout in the hall. Well, this short guy is the only guy Oswald talks to in the hall. I wish I could remember the man who referred me to this. I can't find the page any more. None of my searches take me to it. What I remember is that he was an older guy, and he was a long-established member of the Education Forum. 

How stupid is it to give a guy ridiculously thick and swervy eyebrows and then decide, "It looks stupid, but if I do the same thing to his father, the rubes will buy it." 

It's a case of the stupid playing the stupid. And it is Bart Kamp's collage. Why did he include a picture of James Bookhout's father? He showed images of a lot of JFK law enforcement guys, but he didn't show anybody else's father: only Bookhout's. So, why Bookhout's? It was because of the ridiculous eyebrows. It was a Benjamin Braddock thing. "Look at Elaine. Drinking a glass of water. Elaine isn't screaming. Elaine is calm. There's no need to call the cops, Mr. McCreery." 

So, you think James Bookhout really had eyebrows like this, do you?

Alright then, look at this: 

No swerve to the eyebrows, right? So, that settles it, doesn't it? Not to mention that the short, upturned, piglet nose is no match to Bookhout either. There aren't too many adult males with a nose like that. Maybe when they were 3 years old, but noses, like every other part of the body, tend to mature- except on this guy. 

So, what reason is there to think that this is James Bookhout?

And, you want to compare fathers and sons? Here's Bookhout's son:

Who can fix my broken bike?
Whose strong hands can hold me tight?
When I need someone to make things right,
It’s my dear old Dad.

Who does things that help me grow?
Who shows me so I will know?
When I need someone to catch or throw,
It’s my dear old Dad.

Who helps me know right from wrong?
Who works hard all day long?
When I need someone to sing along,
It’s my dear old Dad.

At night before I go to sleep,
I thank the stars for giving me,
The greatest man in history,
It’s my dear old Dad.
It’s my dear old Dad.
It’s my dear old Dad.

This man is very stupid. His name is Bart Kamp.  He is British, and he is an advocate of Oswald in the doorway- as Prayer Man. 

But, he is also, reportedly, the guy who found the image of pipe-smoking Bookhout. And I am curious to know where he claims to have found it. He gave a speech recently, and in it he addressed Bookhout, starting with his joint report with Hosty about the first interrogation, and then his solo report about it after Oswald died. 

And what he does is parse the words. You see: Bart Kamp doesn't think the encounter with Truly and Baker ever happened. So, he takes a sentence from Bookhout's report (and according to him, it's all Bookhout) of Oswald saying that he ate lunch in the first floor lunch room and then went to the 2nd floor to get a Coke to claim that Oswald got his Coke to have with his lunch, and that his Coke drinking occurred BEFORE the assassination, not AFTER.

So, what's wrong with his reasoning? Well, first, you don't anything that Bookhout said as gospel. You're really going to trust James Bookhout to accurately report what Oswald said? You can't trust a word that came out of his mouth. And that is not to say that everything he said was necessarily false. I'm sure he reported some things accurately. But, every single thing he said is suspect, and it has to be carefully determined what parts are true and what parts are false. 

There's good reason to accept that Oswald said he ate his lunch in the first floor lunch room because 1) it was customary for him to eat there- every day 2) multiple people confirmed seeing him eat his lunch there, including on that very day (Jack Dougherty) 3) it was typical for the warehouse workers to eat there and for the office workers to eat upstairs 4) there was a daily newspaper in there which Oswald liked to read. 

So yes, that particular statement has a solid foundation. It's not like Bookhout was going to report nothing accurately. Kamp admits that Bookhout contradicted himself, claiming in his second report, his solo report, written after Oswald died, that Oswald claimed to eat lunch after the assassination. Now, that is physically impossible, and by that I mean that it was temporally impossible, meaning that there was no time. Oswald was in the Texas Theater by 1:07, so how could he possibly have eaten lunch after the assassination, which occurred at 12:30? He couldn't. And he didn't. That was just Bookhout bull-shitting. 

The truth is that Oswald said that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front" during the motorcade, and Bookhout did not want to admit that Oswald said that. So, he took the things that Oswald said and wove them into a different story, a different sequence, where "out with Bill Shelley in front" became the last thing he did, after he left the building for good (though it was impossible because Bill Shelley was not out there then). 

So, Bookhout was just a liar, truly an unscrupulous, unrestrained , and relentless liar, and there is no way a smart person is going to trust him about anything.  

Then, Kamp started showing images of Bookhout, starting with this collage. But, of course, he doesn't get anything quite right. On the left is Bookhout's 1937 SMU yearbook photo, and in the center is his photo from a year or two before. You can see that he looks younger in the center. Oh, what a difference a year makes. On the right is supposed to be his father. But, what Kamp failed to reveal is that these are altered images. Nobody has S-shaped eyebrows. It is an old CIA trick to alter eyebrows to change a person's look. And in this case, they goofily altered the eybrows of his supposed father as well on the right. Remember what I said: NOBODY, as in, no-fucking-body, has eyebrows like that. You hear me? 

 That's not all they did, but it's the most obvious thing they did. It's the thing that jumps out at you. But of course, Bart Kamp missed it.

So then, he puts up the image of pipe-smoking Bookhout, and my interest was in hearing him explain where and how he got it.

Now, anyone who has not read my expose' on this phony image definitely should. Here's the link:

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2018/05/do-you-realize-that-officially-there.html


So, what did Bart Kamp say about it? He spoke fast, but what I got from him is that it is "Denis Morrissette's work." But then he added,  "I got this picture from NARA." That refers to the National Archives and Record Administration. 

In other words, the image came from the U.S. Government, the same government that killed Kennedy and has been lying about his murder since the day it happened. 

Kamp said that the picture was taken by Jim Murray who worked for Blackstone, which was a New York City based media company with no office in Dallas. Does the name Jim Murray sound familiar? He's the guy who took the photo with the phony floating hat, a falsified image. And ironically, it was falsified to cover up the face of James Bookhout, who is the man with the notebook that you see below the hat. And not that's not his hat. It can't possibly be his hat, right? He wasn't a Dallas homicide detective, so he could not have been wearing a hat like that. However, he did carry a notebook, and that's because he took notes during the Oswald interrogations, of which he attended all of them. So, that is short James Bookhout, right there, except that the hat is covering his face. 

Let's briefly review the reasons why the image of pipe-smoking Bookhout can't possibly be real.

1. There is no evidence that James Bookhout smoked a pipe. He lived a long life, into his 90s, which means he probably didn't. But, even if he did, the likelihood that he would go through the process of packing a pipe with tobacco and lighting it in Fritz' office on the day of the JFK assassination is zero. It has no plausibility, and there is no reason to give it any credence.

2. Bookhout was keenly connected to Fritz and tuned into him, and the idea that Bookhout would have been ignoring what Fritz was saying is zero. 

3. There is no one reacting to the pipe-smoker's presence, and the man seated seems to be looking right through him to look at Fritz. Odds are very great that the pipe-smoker was put into the photo. 

Then, Kamp claimed to vet the image of the pipe-smoker as Bookhout on the basis of this other photo. Actually, he credited Denis Morrissette with making the leap. 

The man closest to the center and to the exhibit, whom Kamp claims is Bookhout, is Texas Ranger Bob Crowder. It is not James Bookhout, and there is also no reason to think it is the pipe-smoker. 

And that was the end of Kamp's coverage of James Bookhout, which he got all wrong.  But, I don't think anyone in his small audience picked up on the fact that he was completely full of shit. 
Here again is the link to it, but I'm not listening to any more of it. 
Life is too short to waste it listening to morons like Bart Kamp. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utBZkvjKVIQ&t=1821s

Do you realize that, officially, there are no images of James Bookhout from the JFK assassination, even though he followed Oswald around like his shadow? But, a few months ago, a group of liars came up with a long-lost photo which they claimed shows Bookhout smoking a pipe in Fritz' office. A pipe! You know about pipes? The thing which you have to take out a pouch of tobacco and pack the loose tobacco into it? Here's a description:

 "Start by gravity-feeding the pipe to overflowing (sprinkle loose tobacco into the chamber until it mounds up over the top). Next, press the tobacco down until it’s compressed down to about the halfway point. Repeat the gravity-feed and pack the tobacco down to the 2/3rds to 3/4 level. Repeat the gravity-feed and pack the tobacco down until it’s just below the rim of the chamber. At this point, take a draw on the stem. If the draw has a similar resistance to sucking soda through a straw, you’ve done it properly. If it feels like an empty straw, you’ve packed too loosely; if it’s like a thick shake, it’s packed too tight." 

"Circulate a soft flame (match or non-torch type lighter) around the top of the tobacco, while using a firm, steady puff. The tobacco will rise up during this initial lighting (called the charring light). Tamp the tobacco and relight. The pipe should stay lit with minimal effort. When the draw loosens up (and it will), lightly tamp to keep the pipe going."

So, you think James Bookhout did THAT in Will Fritz' office? On the day John Kennedy was killed? Nobody would do that. This picture is fake. Why'd they give him the pipe? Probably because he's just standing there doing nothing (they put him into the picture) and the pipe-smoking gives him something to do. If he was just standing there doing nothing, he'd be like a statue in the park. So, they gave him a pipe. 

And there are more reasons why this long-lost photo of James Bookhout is most certainly fake. And I am 100% certain that it was done recently in response to me. So, what we have here is JFK assassination photo fakery done in the year 2017. Do you see what I mean that they are never finished? That it goes on and on and on?

This phony image is a smoking gun. It is a naked admission that I am right; that the Garage Shooter of Lee Harvey Oswald was James Bookhout, and Jack Ruby was innocent. 

For the other reasons why this photo has to be fake, please go here:

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2018/04/so-wizard-has-assembled-his-favorite.html

So, the Wizard has assembled his favorite images which he feels prove that not only was the Garage Shooter not Jack Ruby, but he was, in fact, FBI Agent James Bookhout. And keep in mind that there are absolutely no images of James Bookhout from the JFK assassination, even though he followed Oswald around like his shadow. A few months ago, a pack of liars, threw this picture into the blogosphere claiming it was Bookhout. But of course, it was never vetted by anyone in an authoritative position to vet it, such as Bookhout's son. And I sent it to his son and asked him if it was is father, and he never replied. Supposedly, it's the guy smoking the pipe. 

But, let's consider the "story" of this picture. That's Will Fritz in the white hat and dark suit talking to detectives, and supposedly, Bookhout wasn't even paying attention. he was too busy smoking his pipe. But, that doesn't make sense. Bookhout was the official FBI liaison to the Dallas PD. They had worked on many cases before. And, Fritz was allowing Bookhout to attend, not some, but every Oswald interrogation. So, what are the chances that Bookhout wouldn't be listening to what Fritz was saying? The chances are none. And what evidence is there that Bookhout smoked a pipe? There is none. It's not as though pipe-smoking was a common enough practice that we can just assume that he was a pipe-smoker. And remember, Bookhout being FBI, he was a guest there. This was the Homicide Bureau of the Dallas PD. So, what are the chances that he would light up a pipe? You realize that a pipe has to be packed first, right? So, he did that there in the office? He took the time to do that? Took out a pouch of tobacco and packed his pipe? Right there in the office? And then started smoking it? Are you aware that pipe tobacco produces a very aromatic smell? And that was an enclosed area. What are the chances that Bookhout would do such a thing? THEY ARE NONE!! Do you hear me, mudderruckers? 

The truth is that Bookhout wouldn't do it, and I doubt that anybody would. I'd be willing to bet that the image of that pipe-smoker is fake. That photograph probably existed without him in it. 

Look at the guy seated who is closest to us. Doesn't he appear to be looking at Fritz? But, how could he see him if that pipe guy was there? He can't see through him, can he? Notice that the whole focus of this image is the men looking at and listening to Fritz. Nobody seems to be aware of the pipe-smoker. He's like Lovelady in the squad room, where no one but no one seems to be aware of him- a fake, implanted image. I'd bet the same is true of this one. 

You see the man sitting at the desk. It's a standard size desk, isn't it? Do we have any reason to assume otherwise? I put a white k for where the pipe-smoker's knee is.

 His knee is higher than the desk. But that's ridiculous because a desk is higher than a man's knees. Stand next to one. The standard height of a desk is 30 inches. I just measured mine, and it's 30 inches. But, the distance from my knee to the ground is only 18 inches. So, my knee is well below the top of the desk. The top of the desk is much higher than my knee. That man is too high in relation to the desk. 

All the FBI agents wore dark suits. Here's Hosty. 

Here's Vincent Drain, carrying evidence in a bag.

Here's Nat Pinkston: dark suit

So, what are the chances that James Bookhout wore a suit this light? There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that he did.

But, think about it: the people foisted this false image of Bookhout, they would never have identified another man who was there as Bookhout. There would have been too big a chance of me finding out his real identity. If that guy was really there, then he would be identifiable. They weren't going to take a chance like that. It's a phony image. That guy was put into the image. And, who knows if he existed at all? Maybe he was computer-generated. And if that guy was really Bookhout, and it was as easy as that to capture his image, why wouldn't there be a lot of them. Did I mention that he followed Oswald around like his shadow? 

The stinking Prayermanite Bart Kamp suppoedly "found" this image. Found it, did he? Where'd he find it? And how come in 54 years, it wasn't found before? 

What a despicable thing to do, to concoct this image, and specifically I'm sure to combat me, the Wizard, and others who are shouting from the rooftops, that Jack Ruby was innocent, that he was NOT in the garage during the spectacle, and the short chubby guy wielding the gun was FBI Agent James Bookhout. 

This is a concise statement from the Wizard describing the evidentiary basis for James Bookhout being the Garage Shooter by the elevator with the three detectives. 

"With the pictures and overlays we can show that the young Bookhout photos are definitely Bookhout because they match his son in his younger days (in fact, the Impostor himself also matches the son and other Bookhout relatives.)"

"We can show that young Bookhout matches the Imposter, with a slow gif showing the eyes appearing in their sockets at the correct places in a quite sinister manner." 

"We can show that the Impostor does not match Ruby." 

"A fusion of the Young Bookhout photo and the less clear ROTC face shows that they are the same person. Again, those close-set Northern European eyes are helpfully distinctive." 

"The ROTC face matches that of the Imposter very well." 

"The young Bookhout face matches Bookhout's face in the basement, as he watches Oswald being carried out on the stretcher."

"It all links together."

The Wizard made this new gif of the Garage Shooter and Young Bookhout from his SMU days in Dallas. How appropriate that the SMU campus should be the home of the Presidential Library of that mass murderer, George W. Bush. 

But, this gif, the Wizard calls Bookhout Seamless, and it is just that. 

 So, let me get this straight: the dirty, rotten scoundrels think that Young Bookhout's face just happens to fit seamlessly over the face of Jack Ruby?

You know what bothers me more than anything else? Even when truth is staring these bastards in the face, they deny it. They just don't care. They just don't give a hoot.