Jack Ruby did not shoot Lee Harvey Oswald;
FBI Agent James Bookhout did
by Ralph Cinque with Jim Fetzer
The title of this article, that Jack Ruby didn't shoot Oswald but rather James Bookhout did, is difficult for many people to accept, and their response, mentally, is to recoil. "Oh, that's nonsense. We all saw Ruby do it; he admitted doing it; he never denied it; there are so many images of him." Etc. Etc. Etc.
DON'T do it. Don't recoil. Please, just keep your mind OPEN. All of those things can be resolved, if you avoid closing your mind.
We know there are a lot of images of Ruby being led around the police station after the shooting, but the only thing that matters are the images of the shooter in the garage. He's the one who has got to be Jack Ruby. And the fact is that there are no revealing images of the shooter. There are no images of the shooter that provide enough visual information to confirm that he is Jack Ruby. All the images of the shooter are from the side or from the back, and with the low-riding fedora hat he had on, you NEVER get a good look at his face. But, what little visual information they provide conflicts with him being Jack Ruby. Here's a simple example. In this image of the shooter, he is wearing sunglasses, and Jack Ruby did not have sunglasses. Note that you can even see the arm of the glasses going over his ear.
There is a famous photo of the Oswald shooting, the Jackson photo, in which you can see that the shooter had glasses in his pocket, but they aren't sunglasses. They are regular, clear-lensed glasses.
Also, the picture with the sunglasses was taken so soon before the shooter acted, that it would have been impossible for him to whip them off in time. Notice above that the shooter is not wearing sunglasses. So, what happened to the sunglasses?
If that were the only issue, it would be substantial. But it's not. Look above at the Jackson photo again. Do you notice that the shooter had a straight horizontal hairline and a clean razored neck in back? Jack Ruby had a scruffy neck. Scruffy as in having hair growth at the back of his neck below his hair line.
Do you see all that hair on the back of his neck? It goes all the way down to his collar. The shooter was razored clean.
Here they both are, and while you're at it, compare their ears.
Doesn't Ruby's ear look larger? I'm sorry we don't have a better view of the shooter's ear, but that's no accident. The people who did this made sure that we never got a good look at the shooter. Yes, they paraded Ruby around the police station afterwards, but during the act itself, we never get a good look at the shooter. That image on the right is the best view of him that we have. That's the most of his face that we see. And after the shooting, he disappears completely. All we see is chaos and commotion and "noise". We never see him as he is being dragged into the police station, and we never see Oswald as he is being carried away either. None of that is accidental.
Let's consider one more discrepancy between the shooter and Jack Ruby: their height. The shooter was short; very short. We know Jack Ruby's height; he was 5'8". That was one inch shorter than Oswald. But, the shooter had to be less than that. Here is another very famous photo, the Beers photo:
And here is a frame from the footage:
You see Oswald on the right. The shooter was quite a bit shorter than Oswald. And remember, that the fedora hat is adding to the shooter's height artificially. Look how short he looks here:
The shooter's short stature is going to come up again when we discuss James Bookhout. Bookhout was very short, like the shooter; a fact that has been systematically covered up.
Did Ruby admit to killing Oswald? Not really. First note that Jack Ruby was not well in his mind. He was confused, and barely lucid. His testimony to the Warren Commissioners was totally incoherent. You don't have to be a psychiatrist to know that he was not of sound mind, and I'm sure the Warren Commissioners knew it. But, Ruby said that he had no memory of shooting Oswald. He said that he remembered going there, and he remembered being swarmed by police, but nothing in-between. The rest was "all a blur." A blur, a blur, a blur; that's what he said; over and over. And, he said that when police swarmed him, his reaction was to say, "What are you doing? This is me, Jack Ruby. You know me." Now, if he had just shot a man, wouldn't he have known why they were pouncing on him? And where and when he got pounced upon, we don't know because it didn't happen in that garage at 11:20.
There are a lot of parallels between Jack Ruby and Sirhan Sirhan, who does not remember shooting Robert Kennedy. Many have suggested that Sirhan was a CIA MK-ULTRA subject. Was that also true of Jack Ruby? Did you know that the government flew out the leading CIA mind-control doctor in the world at that time to treat Ruby, Dr. Louis Joylan West from UCLA?
Now, look at the big picture. The space in which the Oswald shooting happened was really just a small cubby-hole between the building and the garage ramp. We call it a cubby hole because it was closed on three sides and open on just one side; the side facing the ramp.
So, the ramp refers to the access-way between Commerce Street on the left and Main Street on the right. And the "cubby-hole" is the indentation there in the center. We don't know exactly how deep it was, but it wasn't very deep. However, it was swarming with cameramen. They were on both sides and in the center. And there was at least one cameraman in back, that is, behind the trio of Oswald and his two police escorts, Detectives Leavelle and Graves. That would be the WFAA cameraman, Bill Lords. But, despite all these cameramen, not a one of them was able to capture an image of the shooter's face where we can really see him, and we don't see anything of the shooter or Oswald once the melee begins. And, before you blame it on the commotion, the chaos, etc., these were professional cameramen. Think of them like paparazzi. They were trained to capture images; to get the scoop. Their failure to capture a single conspicuous image of the shooter was a matter of intention. They couldn't show such an image because the shooter wasn't Jack Ruby. And what about the police? As they sought to subdue the shooter, they didn't do the thing that police invariably and indubitably do in subduing a hostile subject; cuff him. A mob of police actually dragged the shooter into the building without cuffing him first, which hasn't been done before or since by policemen anywhere. Their purpose in subduing the shooter was really to cover him up and get him out of there. And that's because he wasn't Jack Ruby.
And all that the many footages show are the chaos, commotion, and pandemonium with plenty of curtain shots (some guy's back sprawled across the screen) until finally, it's all over, and Oswald and "Ruby" are gone; vanished. You shouldn't buy it. You shouldn't accept it. It was all designed to keep us from seeing them. How could so many trained professional cameramen fail to get a glimpse of either one? It's preposterous.
And all that the many footages show are the chaos, commotion, and pandemonium with plenty of curtain shots (some guy's back sprawled across the screen) until finally, it's all over, and Oswald and "Ruby" are gone; vanished. You shouldn't buy it. You shouldn't accept it. It was all designed to keep us from seeing them. How could so many trained professional cameramen fail to get a glimpse of either one? It's preposterous.
We could go on for a long time talking about why the Garage Shooter was NOT Jack Ruby. But, for the sake brevity, we'll add just one more thing, that the first person to realize it was a Russian researcher named Maxsim Irkutsk. You can watch his video about it on Youtube:
We hope that most or all of you can accept now that the Garage Shooter was not Jack Ruby- or at least be open to the possibility that he wasn't. We are going to move on now to the case against James Bookhout; the reasons why he has to be the garage shooter of Lee Harvey Oswald.
It started with a video that a man sent to Ralph, informing him that it features James Bookhout. The man who sent it shall go unnamed because he is concerned about his safety. Keep in mind that, officially, there are NO images of James Bookhout from the time of the assassination or thereafter. And it's very strange considering that Bookhout attended more Oswald interrogations than anyone except Captain Will Fritz. The only confirmed images we have of Bookhout are school pictures of him from when he was much younger. But, since that is all we have, that is what we have to use.
First, see the video. It's very short.
It simply shows Oswald and his interrogators filing into Fritz' office for the Saturday 6:30 PM interrogation. In the hallway, you see Oswald go up to Bookhout and say something to him. You hear Oswald say: "What have you got against (something)?" You can't make out the last word. Here is the frame in which Oswald is speaking to him:
So, that's Bookhout on the left; a short guy; just like the garage shooter. Note that there are some deliberate obfuscations. Were his eyes really closed? Probably not. Did he have hair growing over his ear? Definitely not. He was an FBI agent, not a hippie. And look at the next frame.
Holy Cow! I trust you are willing to accept that that isn't legit. They did not want us to see his face. Why? Because he was James Bookhout.
Then, we see them filing into the office, and you really see how short Bookhout was.
That has to be Bookhout. They were going to that Saturday evening interrogation, and we can account for everyone who attended: Fritz, several of his detectives, SS Agent Thomas Kelley, US Marshall Robert Nash, and James Bookhout. We know for a fact that none of those other men were short. But, Bookhout was. Read this excerpt from James Hosty's book, Assignment Oswald:
That is in reference to the first interrogation on Friday afternoon, where James Bookhout had to find something to stand on (which Hosty called a pedestal) in order to spot Hosty amid the crowd of reporters in the hall. That's because Bookhout was short.
Here's one last look at him from that film. Notice how well he matches the Garage Shooter from behind.
We mentioned that the only images we have of Bookhout are from his school days. We accept these images, but with reservations that they were altered. But, here is an image from his ROTC days in high school which we do not accept at all.
That rather tall fellow on the far right is said to be Bookhout, but he is not Bookhout. Bookhout is definitely in the picture, but he isn't him. That young man was named Tommy Collins. And we know that because there is another copy of the photo in which Tommy put his signature on it and wrote directly over himself. In other words, he autographed it for somebody.
And, we have confirmed it independently by finding other images of Tommy Collins.
On the left is the same picture. In the middle is an image of him from the Silver Sabre Club, to which he belonged, and on the right is an image of him from a one-act play in which he performed. They are all the same young man, Tommy Collins. So, that tall guy was definitely Tommy Collins and not James Bookhout.
So, going back to that ROTC photo, we have correctly identified James Bookhout:
That is him, James Bookhout, at the age of 17, a student at Woodrow Wilson High School in Dallas.
And he compares very well to other images of Bookhout that followed:
So, there it goes from 1931 to 1937, and you see the progression. On the left, we believe they tried to broaden his narrow nose with flim-flam. Look how much wider his nose is on the right than the left. That's our right and our left, which were opposite for him.
So, that's artificial. Nobody's nose could be that unbalanced. The fact is that James Bookhout had a narrow nose and pinched nostrils. But otherwise, the match is very good, and note that there is no one else in the ROTC photo that even comes close. Once you rule out Tommy Collins, as you must, all you are left with is this short guy to be Bookhout.
So, Bookhout was very short, and they tried to hide it, and that's because it points him to being the garage shooter.
OK, now we need to look at another film. It's called The Killing of Lee Harvey Oswald. It was a retrospective made 30 years later, in 1993, and it was made by the same man who produced the NBC "live" footage of the Oswald shooting, Fred Rheinstein. Here is the link to it:
That film contains this image:
That is supposed to be Jack Ruby shortly after his arrest, but it is not Jack Ruby. It is James Bookhout. Compare him to Ruby:
So, Ruby had a longer face; Bookhout had a rounder face. Ruby had a long forehead; Bookhout had a short forehead. Ruby had a pyramidal-shaped nose with wide visible nostrils; Bookhout had a narrow nose with hardly visible nostrils. Those are two different men. And, the image on the right compares well with Bookhout's known images.
We believe they gave young Bookhout on the left those drag queen eyebrows to throw us off. And it looks like they gave him an elf ear too. And on the right, they blackened his eyes. But nonetheless, those images compare very favorably. Here is another comparison from a few years earlier:
And here is one more that is even earlier yet:
We suspect they built his hair up on top. It probably didn't stick up that much. But otherwise, that is a very good comparison. It is a very plausible biological progression- the manifestation of aging in one person.
Now, we need to look at it circumstantially. Bookhout claimed to attend the final interrogation of Oswald which was right before the shooting. However, he said he got there late and just watched it through the glass partition in Fritz' office. Is that true? Should we believe it? Doesn't it seem like he would have entered regardless? How many people have arrived at meetings late? They still go in. Fritz listed the people who attended, and it doesn't include Bookhout. However, he added "et al" and it's the only time he did. Was Bookhout the et all?
Then, Bookhout claimed that he didn't go down to watch the jail transfer. He said he hung around Fritz' office instead. But why? It wasn't his office. It was Fritz' office. Bookhout didn't have an office there. And why wasn't he interested in watching the jail transfer? He was interested in everything else that Oswald did.
Then, Bookhout said when word arrived that Oswald had been shot, he went down there, and he got to see Oswald being loaded into the ambulance. But then, without explaining why, he said that he did not go to Parkland Hospital. Why not? Again, he had been sticking to Oswald like glue for two days. And now he wasn't interested in finding out Oswald's fate? It isn't credible. But, if he was the garage shooter, if he lied about being up in Fritz' office at the time, then we can understand why he would want to lay low. And note that there is ample footage of Oswald being loaded into the ambulance, and you don't see Bookhout. So, he lied about that too.
And, following the assassination, James Bookhout took off work from the FBI for a full year. He was granted an extended leave of absence; you might say a very long vacation. There are no images of him from the assassination, nor after the assassination, and for the rest of his life And when he died in 2009, no image of him was published. Here is his obituary:
I doubt anybody avoided the camera the way James Bookhout did.
And remember that we determined independently that Jack Ruby was not the shooter. But, we have evidence that Oswald knew the shooter. And that's because he glanced at the shooter like he knew him.
Oswald would not have looked at a stranger that way. He knew that man. And James Bookhout was the one he had spent the most time with in the preceding two days- even more than Fritz because between interviews, Fritz turned Oswald over to his detectives to take him wherever; he didn't follow him around; but Bookhout did. Recall the image in the hallway:
There you have Oswald talking- in a very friendly manner- to James Bookhout.
Once you rule Ruby out, and you can, there is no one else the shooter could have been but James Bookhout.
And think about the implications of it. If a U.S. government agent shot Lee Harvey Oswald, then how could it be otherwise that U.S. government agents shot John F. Kennedy?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.