Today has been a big day in JFK Assassination research. A new discovery was made today. It relates to the strange fact of JFK changing his tie. First, note that there is no doubt he changed his tie because there were definitely two ties. The first tie he wore in Ft. Worth. The second tie he changed into at Love Field, and it was after he deboarded the plane.

There is no doubt about any of this. The White House Historical Association said that he changed his tie. They didn't say why he did it. They just said that he changed his tie right before the motorcade took off.

But, let's think about this a second. Nobody carries a spare tie with them. So, if he changed his tie at the limo, before it took off, someone must have brought him the second tie. I say it must have been a Secret Service agent.

And what did he do with his first tie? He put it in his jackert pocket. He went on to be shot wearing the second tie, and it became evidence in the case and is at the National Archives. The first tie was returned to Jackie, and she gave it as a momento to the White House Doorman, Prescott Bruce.

Here is a collage of the two ties. The first one had diagonal stripes. The second one had tiny pin-dots. Take a look.

I am going to show a picture of the man who gave JFK the other tie. But, I'll do it in another post. So, stick around. But, let me remind you what day it is: November 5. How appropriate that a new JFK discovery should happen on the fifth of November. Remember, remember, the fifth of November, the Gunpowder Treason and plot. I know of no reason, why Gunpowder Treason, should ever be forgot.

Are you with me? This is the biggest JFK discovery of the 21st century, so please pay close attention.

The man who reached into the front seat to get something, then goes and faces JFK after he got in the limo and sat down. This frame shows the head of JFK sitting there, and the man I'm telling you about standing next to him. He's starting to lean into the limo to talk to him. I call this Image 2.

 This is Bagman and the Penguins getting Bookhout's head covered, since he wasn't Jack Ruby. 

 The history of the JFk assassination, and I mean the whole saga, is mostly a history of lying. The crime itself happened fast. The planning of it probably started right after the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Allen Dulles really thought he could force JFK to provide air support to take Castro out. When JFK didn't and then offered to compensate Castro to the tune of $50 million, though in baby food and baby supplies, that was the last straw.

But, we're basically talking about a year and half from starting until the weekend of the assassination. But, it was followed by over 60 years of lying and obfuscating and altering films and photos, and conducting rigged investigations. You know there were three: the Warren Commission, the HSCA, and the ARRB, and they were all corrupt. They were all designed to do one thing: protect the government, which is to say: protect the killers.

And who were the killers? They were Allen Dulles, Lyndon Johnson, and J. Edgar Hoover. But not everyone who worked for them was aware of what was happening.

I don't think Ruth Paine was in on it, but I think her estranged husband, Michael Paine was. How many estranged husbands are willing to let their separated wife, whom he is still supporting, lock, stock, and barrel, move a pregnant woman and her daughter in for him to feed? That goes way beyond plausibility. He worked at Bell Helicopter, right under the former Nazi, Walter Dornberger, who developed the V2 rocket for Hitler. And Bell Helicopter soared from the Vietnam War. I think the stock went up ten-fold. Ruth Paine was, and always has been, supportive of the official story, but they certainly didn't tell her anything. She was a pacifiist, and they knew it. They had no reason to tell her. They could get what they needed from her without telling her.

And you know that Michael Paine's mother, Ruth Forbes Young was best friends with Mary Bancroft, who was Allen Dulles' longterm mistress. It's interesting that even AI confirms that they were best friends.

There were other people who had big roles but who just weren't on it, for instance, Officer Marrion Baker. He was a lowly motorcycle cop, and nobody tapped him on the shoulder and told them they were killing Kennedy. And he unwittingly exonerated Oswald because it's clear from what he said that Oswald did not come down from the 6th floor; rather, he came up from the 1st floor and entered the vestibule of the lunch room from the office side.

Officer Roy Vaughn certainly wasn't in on it. He was the third victim on Sunday. He was placed to guard the Main Street ramp AFTER the real Ruby was seized and then held on the 5th floor during the spectacle, only to be slipped into the story later, and he was completely bamboozled. But, Officer Roy Vaughn wasn't bamboozled. When he received a reprimand for letting Ruby slip past him, he sued the DPD. It's because he knew damn well that Ruby never got past him. It did not go to trial, and I'm not the least bit surprised. The DPD settled with Vaughn. We don't know the amount of money they gave him, but it was probably substantial. They picked the wrong guy to put there. They didn't know what a fighter he was.

Most of the reporters in the garage were not in on the Oswald shooting. The way I know that is none of them recognized the shooter as Ruby, even those who knew Ruby, such as Hugh Aynesworth and Ike Pappas. And the fact is that the Shooter wasn't Ruby. But, if the reporters were in on it, they would have said they recognized him as Ruby, just as the Dallas Police did. Fritz and his detectives certainly were in on it.

And I tell you in all seriousness and certainty that the Dallas Police killed Oswald. One of them had to pull the trigger in the Jail Office, and I think it was Tippit's partner Officer RC Nelson. I will write a post about that.

Hugh Aynesworth ate lunch with Ruby that week, yet, he said he did not recognize the Shooter as him. He said the Shooter zipped right in front of him, but he never had the slightest inkling that the guy was Ruby.

But, an eerie thing happened over the years. Some of the reporters started talking about the incident, as though they did recognize Ruby at the time. They started saying things, such as, "and then I saw Ruby rush in and shot Oswald." That sounds like they recognized Ruby, but they didn't. And I don't say it was a conscious deception. It was more of a subconscious deception.

And what drove it all was the need for political correctness. It's not like everyone wants to go down the path that I'm on. Most people want to fit in. And they were still reporters; it was their livelihood. If they had challenged the official story, they would have lost their jobs. Consider that Comedian Mort Sahl was blacklisted for 20 years for challenging the official story of the JFK assassination. And he was one of the greatest standup comics of all time. And he was officially JFK's joke-writer. They were good personal friends.

What a dark story this is because we know the killed went on for years. The year 1964 was full of death for JFK witnesses. It continued, but the next big flurry of death occurred during the HSCA. Two notable names from that period are David Sanchez Morales (who has a loose mouth when he drank) and George DeMohrenschildt.

But, the official story of the JFK assassination is a dead duck, and it is going to drop from its own dead weight.

 "All you need know to understand that the Warren commission report is BS is the magic bullet theory. There is a great deal more but the magic bullet theory is something only a retarded monkey could believe." Scott Hanson

Scott is absolutely right, and I am absolutely disgusted with the American medical profession for not crying foul about this. Supposedly, JFK had a big, fat FMJ bullet burrow through his neck from back to front, traversing him, literally turning him into a doughnut. and yet afterwards, he was still sitting there, with all his muscles still working.

I've done quite a lot of searching on PubMed, and I can tell you that there has never been another case like this. But, the magnitude severeity of the trauma would be so great that sitting upright would be impossible. And let's remember that until Arlen Spectre announced the Single Bullet Theory in April 1964, nobody had suspected such a thing. And let's remember also that the autopsy doctors had the opportunity to dissect JFK's neck and find out, definitively if it was traversed by a bullet. They didn't do it, and there are rumors that the Admirals in the room wouldn't let them.

But, when you are a doctor, you are supposed to have integrity, and that's true even if you are an autopsist. If it really is true that the Admirals wouldn't let Humes dissect Kennedy to find out if the back wound and throat wound were connected, he should have said, "Then, that means war. It means that I am going to tour the country declaring that you are obstructing justice. Now, as a forensic pathologist and autopsist, I need to open the President's neck. I am not asking you. I am telling you that you need to get out of my way and let me do my job."

But, Dr. Humes was not that kind of man and not that kind of doctor.

And the medical profession failed in other ways. Once the Zapruder was shown to the public, doctors should have realized how impaired Kennedy was- not just physically, but mentally. The visual and testimonial record established that JFK never spoke once the shooting began; that he never took any evasive or defensive action; that he never took any action to protect his wife, that he never responded to her or anyone else, verbally or non-verbally, and he never showed any consccious awareness of what was going on.

Everything about JFK's presentation in the Zapruder film is bizarre. It is freaky. And as soon as doctors saw that, they should have sought to explain it, clinically explain it, and not just glibly says, "Oh well, he was shot."

I found an article on what happens when you get shot in the neck, and it states that "In one study of 40 patients with cervical gunshot injuries, 70% arrived with complete neurological deficits, meaning total loss of motor and sensory function below the injury."

JFK had a heap of problems, but he did not have any neurological deficits, that we know of. All the connections between his nerves and muscles were intract. He wasn't paralyzed anywhere, as he sat there. And he certainly would have been, had he experienced the the trauma that was claimed.

The truth is that prior to the fatal head shot, JFK had a shallow wound in his back that did no vital damage at all, and he had a shallow wound in his throat that damaged his trachea on the left side, and it left a mild contusion (bruise) on the apex of his right lung. That was it until the fatal head shot effectively killed him the instant it hit him.

Here is the article about the severity and the special dangers of gunshot wounds of the neck, let alone a traversing wound going from back to front.

https://biologyinsights.com/what-happens-when-you-get-shot-in-the-neck/

We have been lied to for 63 years. Let's not take it any more.

 Two words that are gong to change everything. Thank you, Kevin.

 Here is that damning photo of the three Dallas detectives huddled with "Ruby" except the man is clearly not Ruby. I have installed an image of Ruby next to him. They are different men, and it isn't close. The Shooter has a very round face; Ruby, on the right, has a longer face. The Shooter had a short forehead. Ruby had a much longer forehead. Ruby had a much longer neck. The Shooter had a narrower nose.

And keep in mind that both images were doctored. For instance, Ruby did not have as much hair as that. He was practically bald on top. And the Shooter lost his eyes; they were replaced with stripes.

So, how did I get this image? It came from the 1993 30 year retrospective about the Oswald shooting by NBC. It was televised that year, and it used to be streaming on Youtube, which is where I saw it. But, once I started bellyaching about it, it was taken down, and it has never been put back up.

Notice that they blurred Sims in back. He's like a ghost; isn't he? And that is photographically impossible. Why should he be blurred? He wasn't moving. So, he can't have motion blur. And if he was blurred because of something going on with the camera, like being out of focus, then they all would have been blurred.

Detective Elmer Boyd on the left lied. He said that he spent Sunday morning going to church with his wife and his in-laws. Then, they went to his in-laws' house to enjoy a nice Sunday brunch. And of course, they had the tv on while they were eating, and of course it was on NBC (even though at that time, CBS was, by far, the most popular station for News because of Walter Cronkite) and they saw the Garage Shooting. He said that even though it was his day off, he thought he'd better go in, in case he was needed. So, he apologized to his wife and her parents, and he left.

But, that story can't possibly be true because this photo was taken just a couple minutes after the shooting, and he could not have gotten there in two minutes. So, he was there already. The whole story he told was a crock of lies.

So, they were on the 3rd floor, which had been evacuated, and they were huddled there in the dark, and that light came entirely from the flash of the NBC cameraman's camera.

There are some other oddities about this. You notice that the Shooter is out of his jacket. According to the detectives who took Ruby up to the 5th floor, he wasn't taken out of his jacket until they got up there. Of course, they said nothing about stopping on the 3rd floor. I'm talking about Detectives, McMillan, Archer, and Clardy, and also Blackie Harrison. Those guys handled the real Jack Ruby, and it was an hour before the Garage Spectacle.

That man in the center, the Garage Shooter, was FBI Agent James W. Bookhout. He was short. We know he was short. FBI Agent James Hosty said that on Friday, Bookhout was looking for him in the hall on the 3rd floor, when it was crowded with reporters, so he found something he could stand on to see above the crowd. Would a tall man have needed to do that?

But, the other thing I want you to notice is that these detectives aren't concerned about "Ruby" at all. None of them have their eyes on him. And supposedly, there was a big scuffle in the basement, right? So, why aren't they afraid that he is going to bolt or kick somebody? It's because they knew who he was, and they were all working together.

It was established in the testimonies that Ruby was handcuffed with his hands behind his back. We don't know that the Shooter is handcuffed at all. He may just be clasping his hands in front of his body, and that's what it looks like he's doing.

What happened after this is that they took Bookhout back to wherever his clothes were, and he quickly got out of Ruby's clothes and put on his own. Then, he went down to the Jail Office and got there before the ambulance attendants arrived and put Oswald on the stretcher and rolled him out to the garage to load into the ambulance. Bookhout was there for that. He told the WC that he followed Oswald's stretcher out to the garage. I looked for a photo of him there doing that, and I found one, which I'll show you next time.

 So, Oswald was denied a lawyer, even though he wanted one badly, while Ruby, who never asked for a lawyer, was brought one anyway.

What bugs me the most about it is the hypocrisy. Fritz spoke to reporters after he got back from Parkland Hospital where Oswald died, and he said that Ruby was talking with his lawyer, "which is his right." His right? What about Oswald's rights?

So, why did they staunchly deny Oswald a lawyer but foist one on Ruby? Well, they couldn't give Oswald a lawyer because if they did, the things that Oswald told the lawyer, he or she could have made public. since there was no gag order. And it would have been very damning, especially to the FBI. Oswald did NOT mail-order a rifle, and it would have been very easy to prove that. And if he didn't, it meant that the FBI concocted the whole story. How damning is that? It's as damning as damning gets.

And if Oswald owned no rifle, it meant that the photos of him holding one were bogus too. And there was much, much more.

It was planned weil in advance to kill Oswald very soon; meaning that weekend. The fact is that they hoped to get him killed in the theater on Friday afternoon. They did not want to kill him at the TSBD because he wasn't armed, and it would have looked bad. So, the plan was to get him armed with a pitol first and then kill him. They did get him armed, but the killing in the theater didn't work out. You know what they say about the best-laid plans of mice and men.

But Ruby, they wanted him to get a lawyer; one of their choosing; one who would reinforce his guilt. We know that Tom Howard only talked to Ruby for 4 minutes that Sunday. How could he possibly find out all he needed to know in 4 minutes? Consider all the questions he needed to ask him. Did you go to the garage to shoot Oswald? And if you didn't, what did you go there for? Did you spend the whole weekend planning to kill Oswald? If you heard that the Jail Transfer was going to be at 10 AM, why did you wait until well after 11 to go there? Why did you even expect him to be there? How exactly did it happen? Were you feeling rage at the time? What did you think would happen after you shot Oswald in a crowd of Police? Did you realize that you were destroying your whole life? What did you do afterwards? Were you going to shoot Oswald again? Were you going to shoot anyone else? What did you do when the Police grabbed you? Did you resist? Did you fight back? If you didn't plan to shoot Oswald, what made you do it? Was it just the sight of him? You sent a $25 money wire to an employee right before shooting Oswald, but it seems like an odd combination of things to do because once you shot Oswald, there was no more business for you., and you had to know that. So, why did you do it?

I could go go on and on, but it's obvious that Howard didn't ask Oswald any of those questions. I'm sure Howard started with the presumption that Ruby did it. He must have spent the 4 minutes telling Ruby that he was going to file the writ of habeus corpus, which meant that the State needed to formally charge Ruby or else release him on bond. But, look how close the times were. Agent Hall said that Howard talked to Ruby from 12:58 to 1:02. He then went to court to file the writ. But, at 1:15, it was announced that Oswald had died, and Ruby was then formally charged with murder. Howard had to know how likely and how imminent that was. There really was no point in filing the writ. I think he did it just to establish himself as Ruby's lawyer. He did it for himself, not Ruby. Did he really think there was any chance that Ruby was going to be released on bond? He was an idiot lawyer if he thought that.

The Dallas Police wanted Ruby to have a lawyer because they knew how submissive and cooperative Ruby was; that he was not going to challenge what they said he did. And it made them look good getting him a lawyer right away.

But, I tell you that the Dallas Police framed the hapless, helpless Ruby, and they, the Dallas Police, killed Oswald. Does that sound wild and extreme to you? I'm sorry if it does, but it is the truth. And they did not shoot him in the garage. They shot him in the Jail Office afterwards.

And I am sure that they were confident that nobody's mind was going to go there: to the Dallas Police killing Oswald. And it was because everyone had the belief and conviction that such a thing couldn't happen in America. But, it did happen in America. And after 63 years, we need to face it.