So, I tried stretching my t-shirt from behind. I had to stretch it up, not out, because that's all I could do. 

Notice that it looks like a t-shirt being stretched. Compared to this, the magic t-shirt:

Come on, enemies. Let's see you take out your camera and duplicate this shirt. 

There were hundreds of anti-vax protesters this weekend in Mass. protesting the new law requiring all kids in school from K to 12, including pre-schools and nurseries with babies as young as 6 months, to have flu shots. Of course, it was provoked by the Covid crisis. Hmmm. So if they are going to mandate a flu vaccine because of the Covid crisis, I presume they are going to mandate the Covid vaccine because of the Covid crisis- as soon as its available.

And the mandate applies to college students and graduate students as well up to age 30. So, even though one is a legal adult at 18, with the right to vote and enter the military, etc., you can’t decide what goes into your own body up to the age of 30 in Massachusetts.

And think about how arbitrary it is. What’s the difference between a 30 year old and 31 hear old? What, dd they just draw a number out of a hat?

Why, Why, Why do they call this a free country? Why do they ever use the word ‘liberty’ any more?

And what do the vaccinated have to fear from the unvaccinated? If the vaccine is effective; if it protects you when you’re exposed to the virus; then you’re not at risk from anyone who isn’t vaccinated. Right? And if you are at risk because the vaccine isn’t really effective, then of what use is the vaccine, and why should we bother with it at all?

Now, keep in mind that I completely deny the effectiveness of the flu vaccine. If it were effective, they would be willing to test it. I mean by taking, say, 2000 people who are comparable to each other, who don’t have any special risks, and administering the flu vaccine to half of them, and giving the other half a dummy vaccine; a placebo. Then, you see how many in each group get the flu.

But, that’s only one kind of testing that should be done. They should also do long-term testing of the flu vaccine, that is, comparing health outcomes over a long period of time between people who are vaccinated and those who are not, comparing their risk for cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, and much more.  For instance, one prominent researcher found a much higher risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease among those who repeatedly take the flu vaccine.

Look: if you want to take flu shots, go ahead; take them. Take any shots you want. Take every shot there is.  Take every new one that comes down the pike. I don’t care. It’s your body. Do what you want with it. But nobody should be forced to ingest something that they don’t want to ingest. That is the worst possible thing. That is the ultimate Orwellian nightmare, more frightening than the flu and Covid combined.

There are no guarantees in life, and there are certainly no guarantees when it comes to health. And if there is anything for which there are no guarantees, it is vaccines.  If you want them; take them. But, hands off other people. Let us decide for ourselves.  Tyranny in the name of Science is still tyranny.  Medical coercion has got to stop.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/hundreds-protesters-gather-against-flu-003556645.html

I've had it. I think the Jacob Blake shooting video is fake. It's bad enough that the behaviors of both Blake and the cop are inexplicable, with Blake ignoring and walking away from agitated cops who have their guns drawn, and presumably were ordering him to stop, and yet he didn't. And in the Bizarro World in which we live, nobody in the Media is talking about the fact that the cops obviously wanted Blake to stop, but he didn't stop. Who does that? Who ignores what a cop with a drawn gun tells you to do? Since when is it OK to ignore a directive from a policeman on the street? On the street, police are the authority. Everybody knows that.

But then, the lead cop starts pulling on Blake's t-shirt, which accomplished nothing. Why would he do that? And then after pulling on it, he starts shooting at Blake. But why? What changed? What did he see that provoked him to start firing and keep firing? I have no idea. Do you? With him pulling on that shirt, I can't imagine that he saw much of anything. So, what provoked him to pull the trigger? And why did he feel the need to pull it 7 times?

But, you know me; I'm a photo guy. I want to know why this photo looks so weird. The cop was presumably pulling on Blake's t-shirt. It was just one layer of material. You can see in this image that the t-shirt is sheer on Blake's back. It's covering his back; it is lying on his back in the normal way. So, what is the cop pulling on? How can the t-shirt be lying sheer on Blake's back while also being stretched by the cop at the same time?

I have nothing but good wishes for black Americans, and I abhor racism in all its forms. But, this video is not legit, and this story is not believable. And that includes the part about a man being shot 7 times in the back, severing his spinal cord, and surviving. I think the odds of him dying from the sum of those wounds is very great. I am asking people, of all colors, to join me in looking at this story critically, and looking at the images from the story critically. So, I am asking you to share this. Thank you.

I find the shooting of Jacob Blake by a policeman in Kenosha to be inexplicable, and I have grave reservations about it.  As bizarre as it is, most people take it at face value. They don't in any way turn on their radar of skepticism. Well, I do, and I'll tell you why.  

But first, let me say that I have no racist feelings towards anybody or any group of people. 

The behavior involved in this incident is inexplicable on the part of the policeman and on the part of Mr. Blake. He can be seen walking away from the police. He is walking around the front of his car to get in it, and they are following him with guns drawn. We don't know why. 

But, I presume they did not want him to go into his car. And I presume they were ordering him to stop. They couldn't just point their guns at him. They were behind him, so, he wouldn't necessarily know that their guns were drawn. So, they must have ordered him to stop. There had to be talking going on. Right? So, why didn't Mr. Blake stop? Now, I am not saying that in judgment of him. I am saying it thinking of myself in that situation, that if a policeman ordered me to stop, I would stop. I can't imagine not stopping. I can't imagine not doing whatever he told me to do. And I don't understand why Mr. Blake is ignoring them. 

Then, the nearest cop makes physical contact with Mr. Blake. 

So now, the cop, after presumably ordering Mr. Blake to stop, is now grabbing him or pushing him. Leastways, he is making physical contact with him in a way that Mr. Blake had to feel. So, why does Mr. Blake continue to ignore the cop? Why doesn't Mr. Blake stop; turn around; and deal with them? Mr. Blake is going to his car as if he was all alone; like the cops weren't even there. That's what Mr. Blake's behavior looks like. So, why is he ignoring the cops? Who does that? Everybody knows that cops are armed, and that cops can use force; even lethal force. So, who ignores them? I don't ignore them. Do you ignore them? 

This is the last frame before the first shot is fired.

Notice the time: the 33 second mark. Notice that the officer has Mr. Blake by his shirt. He seems to be pulling on it.  But, why does that look so weird? Mr. Blake is only wearing one shirt, a white tank top. So, why does it look white under the shirt, as if he was wearing two shirts? 

So, that's the 33 second mark, and that is when the shooting starts, at 33 seconds.

So, the shot has already gone off.  He shot him in the back, while holding his shirt and tractioning it. But, why did the cop shoot him? Mr. Blake was facing the other way. So, how was he a threat to the cop? If he was reaching for a weapon, he would have had to turn around to use it, and if the cop already had his gun pointed at him with his finger on the trigger, then presumably he could have gotten a shot off before Mr. Blake could have. So, why would he fire into the guy's back? And then, most baffling of all, why would he fire 7 times? Did he really think that he was still in danger after shooting him 6 times? After shooting him 5 times? After shooting him 4 times? Why would he just keep firing? 

This reminds me of what you might see in an old gangster movie. And I mean a cheapo, crappy one in which they didn't want to bother showing the person being shot.  

If someone wrote this as a screenplay, I would consider it VERY poor writing. And I am a screenwriter. I won two screenwriting awards for the screenplay to My Stretch of Texas Ground.

https://www.amazon.com/Stretch-Texas-Ground-Jeff-Weber/dp/B07RP4C92H/ref=sr_1_fkmrnull_2?crid=2JOQQC9ZKFRAT&keywords=my+stretch+of+texas+ground&qid=1558243028&s=gateway&sprefix=My+Stretch+of%2Caps%2C167&sr=8-2-fkmrnull

So, what is going on and what really happened? I don't know. Here is a second video of the shooting, with comments by Mr. Blake's attorney. He correctly states how outrageous the shooting was. But, he doesn't say one word about why Mr. Blake didn't stop and deal with the police. Why was he walking away from them and ignoring them when they had to be telling him to stop? Who does that? 

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2020/08/26/jacob-blake-shooting-second-video-family-attorney-newday-vpx.cnn

 

 

This image is generating some interest, and it is certainly true that we have never been shown an image of Oswald at Parkland Hospital, and I know the reason why. It's because he must have looked frightening. Look at the guy in the lower image. Does he look exsanguinated to you? Exsanguinated means that all the blood has drained out. A lot was pooled inside his body, but his circulatory system was exsanguinated. Now, how do I know that? Because Parkland doctors said so. They said he had zero blood pressure. They said that they transfused 7 quarts of blood into him. That's more than he had in his whole body before he was shot. Do you have any idea how deathly he would have looked? And they didn't want to show us that because it might have generated sympathy for him since it happened when he was under police protection.

When the ambulance pulled out on Commerce, all it had to do was turn right on Commerce and then right on Hardin. Then it would have been on a straight shot to Parkland Hospital. But, the detectives in that ambulance must have ordered the driver to turn left on Commerce and go all the way down to the Pearl Freeway, then go up it one exit to Main, and then back down Main back to Hardin. So, they traveled miles out of their way to get to a spot that they could have been to in seconds had they turned right on Commerce.

So, why did they do it? It's because they wanted to be sure that Oswald bled out enough so that there was no chance that Parkland doctors could save him. They wanted him to die first, and for all practical purposes, that's what happened. Oswald had already passed the point of no return. There was no saving him. Doctors pumped him full of blood, and repaired his blood vessels as best they could so that he would have an intact circulatory system, but it was futile. It was too late. They briefly established some blood pressure, but that was just from the overfilling, just from stuffing him full of blood. His heart couldn't beat. It was damaged beyond salvation. He really was dead on arrival, for all practical purposes. Remember, even a chicken with its head cut off runs around a while.

The guy in the lower image is NOT in that state. He still has blood in his blood vessels. He looks like he has a normal amount of blood in his blood vessels. He looks as healthy as you or I. He is just an actor.

The propagandists lie with photos. They know very well that it is one of the most effective ways to lie- more effective than words.

So, the mass murderer George W. Bush snubbed Trump by not attending the RNC and endorsing him. But, how could Bush endorse Trump? Trump declared that both Bush's wars (Afghanistan and Iraq) were "mistakes." That, of course, is a euphemism. A mistake is when you go to Home Depot and pick up a 1/2 inch coupling, when what you needed was a 3/8. That's a mistake. When you cross the ocean and attack 3rd world countries killing millions of people, that is not a mistake. That is a crime against humanity.

And making it worse for Bush is that Trump signed a peace deal with the Taliban (a group that Bush labeled terrorist) with the full expectation of ushering them back into power in Afghanistan with full U.S. recognition and support. I imagine that that has got to be the worst humiliation to a war-time President to have his successor. (obviously, with another in-between) smoke the peace pipe with his enemies and say, "They're not such bad guys after all."   

But, let's be clear that the bloody course of U.S. militarism in the 21st century was not reversed by Trump. He has plenty of blood on his hands too: in Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. What he did in signing the peace deal with the Taliban was really a matter of "No mas, no mas."  

The bottom line is that across three Presidents so far in the 21st century, the United States has killed millions of people, including many women and children, with all of that killing being justified by 9/11, but absolutely none of the millions killed having anything, whatsoever, to do with 9/11.

That is an indisputable fact, and it should make every American cringe. 

Joe Biden was in office the entire time until 2017, as Senator or Vice President, and he did absolutely nothing to stop it. He supported the wars, including the savaging of Libya, which is still a war-torn hell-hole to this day. 

The 20th century was, by far, the bloodiest, most war-ridden, most savage, brutal, and monstrous century ever. One might have hoped that the 21st century would start on a different note, where respect for human life and the principle of non-violence were paramount. But no, it wasn't to be. More bloody wars with new lethal weapons were unleashed bringing nightmare and death to millions. Never has so much terror been released in the name of fighting terror. 

Every American should be outraged about what their government has done in the 21st century.  But, most aren't, and some are completely oblivious to it. I'll never forget a comment I read once: "Millions are dead, yet most Americans are walking around like nothing's happened- like it's still the same place."               

And that brings me back to the Republican National Convention, where all the platitudes about the greatness and goodness of America were spewed as if America never crossed the ocean and attacked anybody. 

I could take all the delusional boasting about Trump and his imaginary accomplishments, but, once they started in with the "America, the city on a hill" bit, I had to turn it off.

 

 

Snubbed by a mass murderer. That's got to hurt. Of course, Trump has killed a lot of people too: in Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq. But, he hasn't killed nearly as many as Bush. Bush is in a pretty exclusive club, as far as mass murderers go. How many women, George? How many children? Do you hear their cries at night? Thou Shalt Not Kill, George. It's a commandment in a faith that you claim to believe in. But, it's not what you practiced, George. What you face in the next life, I don't know about. But, I cling to the hope that, in this life, history will, one day, hold you responsible for what you did, and call you what you are: a mass murderer. 

As we approach announcing our choice to play Laura in His Stretch of Texas Ground, which is the sequel to My Stretch of Texas Ground, I want to remind people that the name of this character came from Laura in the 1944 film-noir Laura which starred Gene Tierney, who was one of the great screen beauties of the 1940s. Her parents spelled her name "Gene" instead of "Jean" because she was named after an uncle.

In the movie, a detective, played by Dana Andrews, falls madly and obsessively in love with Laura-while investigating her murder! And one of the things he does is sit in her apartment and listen, over and over, to her favorite music, a piece of orchestral music, which was written by David Raksin. David taught film score composition at UCLA in the 1960s, and it just so happens that I was a student there at the time- although I knew nothing about him or his music or that movie at the time.

But, it was after the movie came out that they decided to turn the Theme to Laura into a song, and they brought in the great Johnny Mercer to do it. And he wrote some very stirring lyrics for it which make Laura the greatest song ever written about a woman by name, in my opinion.

Here is another Johnny, Johnny Mathis, singing it. And he points out beforehand how visual the lyrics are. And that was the genius of Johnny Mercer, to write lyrics that evoke visual images that you can clearly see- in your mind.

So, here's to Laura- the face in the misty light.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSV6o6R6Rpo

What about the idea that Ruby was in a conspiracy WITH the Dallas Police, that they were working together to kill Oswald. You can't go down that road. It makes no sense at all. The Dallas Police arrested Ruby. They charged him with murder. They contributed mightily to the prosecution's successful case against Ruby, in which he got the death penalty. And they surely would not have hesitated to deliver him to the Executioner. If asked to, they would have lowered the switch. 

Jack Ruby was a basket case mentally. I realize that. But even Jack Ruby was incapable of saying, "OK, tell you what: I'll kill Oswald.  Then you guys can arrest me; charge me; prosecute me, convict me and sentence me to the electric chair. And then I'll fry, and that will be the end of me."

As nuts as he was, Jack Ruby could not have said that, or thought that, or done that. But even if someone is stupid enough to attribute such a course of action to him, it would have been just as crazy for the Dallas Police. How could they trust him? And even if he said to them, "Don't worry. I won't tell. Even though I am gong to die over this, I will gladly go to my death without telling anyone that you were in on it with me. Not my family. Not my lawyers. And not anyone else. I'll deceive everyone because I want take sole blame for this and protect you guys, even though you aided and abetted me in the commission of the murder. Let me die while you all continue living as heroes." 

But. even if he said that to them, why would they believe him? Why would they trust him? Wouldn't it be safer to just kill him after the deed was done? How did they put it in Casablanca? "We haven't quite decided whether he committed suicide or died trying to escape."  That's what they would have done to Ruby if they had conspired with him. Here's another line from a Bogart movie, although I forget which one: "Dead men tell no tales." 

They couldn't even trust Ruby with the task of shooting Oswald. He wasn't a marksman. He wasn't an assassin. He was a floosey, scatter-brained, hare-brained saloon operator, who failed at it repeatedly. The idea that the Dallas Police would trust Jack Ruby to fire a gun in a crowd consisting of themselves is insane. It is lunacy. It is sheer madness. 

There could be no conspiracy between Jack Ruby and the Dallas Police. The Dallas Police conspired AGAINST Ruby, but they most certainly did not conspire with him. Anyone who thinks the Dallas Police signaled Ruby or opened a door for Ruby etc. is being extremely stupid.  Stupid, stupid, stupid. And stupid is what stupid does. 

So, there was no conspiracy between Jack Ruby and the Dallas Police. And there was no conspiracy between Jack Ruby and ANYBODY. He couldn't keep a secret if you paid him a million dollars. He was a compulsive blabbermouth. He wasn't sitting on any secrets, and if you know anything about the impaired workings of his mind, you'd know that he was a child-like being, and even if he tried to lie, he would do it as incompetently as children often do. It takes a certain amount of cleverness to lie effectively, and Ruby didn't have that cleverness.  It also takes a certain amount of acting ability, and he didn't have any talent that way either. Ruby never lied, but if he had tried, he would have been the worst liar in the world. 

A conspiracy between Ruby and the Dallas Police? Absolutely not. That is completely and totally crazy. If that's what you think, you need to stop thinking it. Let it go. It is wrong, wrong, wrong. 

"Officer Roy Vaughn never wavered from his belief that Ruby did not pass him on that ramp and that the nightclub owner must have gained access to the area from some other entrance. The results of two polygraph examinations supported Vaughn."

Do you doubt Officer Roy Vaughn? If you do, then you stay the Hell out of my face because I don't want anything to do with you! Roy Vaughn was not an idiot. He was perfectly capable of guarding an 8 foot wide ramp. And he was not a conspirator. He didn't let Ruby in. 

So what does that leave? Roy suggested that Ruby must have gotten in some other way. But, why would Ruby lie about that? He said he got there by way of the ramp. He accepted that he shot Oswald, but only because the lying Dallas Police told him that he did. But, since he was taking the blame for shooting Oswald, why would he lie about how he got down there? He wouldn't. He couldn't. He didn't. 

So, Ruby was telling the truth. And Roy Vaughn was telling the truth. They were both honest and both right. So, what does that mean? It can only mean one thing: that Ruby must have reached the ramp and gone down it BEFORE Vaughn was placed on duty.

And if you read Vaughn's account of his morning, it makes sense. Because: he started the day somewhere else, where he was doing street duty. But, he got a call and was told to come to City Hall and report to some Sergeant who worked under Lt. Pierce. He was told to meet this Sergeant at the dispatch room. So, Vaughn went there, but the Sergeant wasn't there. So, he waited for him. He waited for quite some time. And he said he spent the time yakking it up with other officers and drinking coffee.  

Finally, the Sergeant gets there and tells him that he's been assigned to guard the Main Street ramp, and Vaughn went and did it. 

But, why was there such a long delay? It's because they were waiting for Ruby to show up so that they grab him and tuck him away on the 5th floor. And until that was done, they couldn't go get Vaughn. 

What Ruby described when he reached the ramp was that Pierce's car was there, but Pierce was alone in it. But, at 11:17, Pierce had Sergeant Moxie and Sergeant Putnam in the car with him. Ruby would have seen them. And, Ruby could not name the officer on foot. But, he knew Roy Vaughn because Roy had forgiven a traffic violation for him once, for being a friend of the Department. And on another occasion, Vaughn was sent to Ruby's night club to settle some problem, and he interacted with Ruby then. So, Ruby knew Vaughn and would have named him if Vaughn was there when he was there. But, Vaughn was NOT there when Ruby was there. Somebody else was there. Someone Ruby didn't know.

So, we are talking about two different times, and it means that Lt. Pierce, who was in on it, as so many of the DPD guys were, including Leavelle, Graves, etc.,  must have made two exits out that ramp: one at about 10:25 when Ruby actually showed up, and then again at 11:15 to cover the story they were going to tell. 

Now: do you not like that scenario? You think it's far-fetched, do you? Well, I don't give a damn how far-fetched anybody thinks it is because I know very well that it's a lot less far-fetched than claiming that the imbecilic Jack Ruby "snuck" by Roy Vaughn, and Vaughn actually didn't see him. That is beyond far-fetched. That is insane. And it is just as insane to claim that Ruby lied and got in another way. Stop the nonsense! What I am telling you is true. Jack Ruby and Roy Vaughn were both at the ramp BUT AT DIFFERENT TIMES!

John Hankey, that is breathtaking, all right. And how could there be just 89,000 Covid cases in China while nearly 6 million cases in the U.S. when it started in China, and it is a far more crowded, populated, and densely-packed country? I say we have an epidemic of testing going on in the U.S., and it's the testing that is surging the numbers. 

John, while I have your attention, I want you to consider two things of historical importance. The first is my laying out the parallels between Joe P. Kennedy Jr. and General George Patton. There is widespread suspicion that Patton was murdered but why not JPK.Jr.?  I say it is high time that he be regarded as the first Kennedy to be taken out. 

Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ral... Joseph P. Kennedy Jr. and General George Patton both died under mysterious circumstances around the end of World...

The second concerns something I have been pushing for years: the innocence of Jack Ruby. He did not shoot Oswald. He was not in the Garage at the time. And if you look closely at the Garage Shooter and compare him to Ruby, you can see that they don't match. Ruby was essentially MK-ULTRA'd. He was strung out on drugs. His strange and excessive adoration of the Dallas Police was probably induced with mind control. And a whole fake biography was written for him that was totally fabricated. The truth is that he was born and raised in Chicago. He served in the Air Force during the war as an airplane mechanic but remained stateside. And then after the war, he worked briefly with his brother Earl who sold various products, but then in 1947, was lured to Dallas by his sister Eva to join her in the nightclub business. And that's it. That is his whole life story. There is nothing more. All the rest is bull shit. This is my last piece on it.

Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

 This is by Christopher Pearson in response to what I wrote about the parallels between Joe P. Kennedy Jr. and General George Patton, and the the murder of JFK Jr. 

Christopher Persson

You are right about the assassination of John John Kennedy, there is absolutely no doubt that he was assassinated with the Pentagon suddenly taking over the rescue operation which was inexplicably slow, a military spokesperson suddenly replacing the guy talking to the media, a missing seat in the plane in a very conspicuous way, implying that it might have been removed before the actual plane was declared discovered. A possible reason the official rescue operation was so curiously late even though they had exact position and height when the plane started its approach. The possibility that John John would go up in the air with a missing seat like that is highly debatable. The narrative that John John was gung-ho pilot had to be established. He could not have anyone else with him on the plane such as an instructor as that would have ruined the narrative about him being careless. The seat where an instructor would have sat to the pilot´s right side, was missing. Was that why the rescue operation was so late to allow for time to pass so that the seat with a strapped-in instructor could be removed by divers? Who knows. The rescue operation was unbelievably late and kept looking in the wrong area even though they had his last documented altitude and position. They were off by a large margin. The Kennedy accident is very fishy.

The Chappaquidick incident also is very suspicious and indeed it might well have been an assassination attempt. Again it might not. As the Kennedys no doubt have been targeted by clandestine forces within the power structure of the united states who have had the influence and the clout to organize assassinations and cover up the investigations including the media representation of what has happened another attempt at Ted Kennedy, which ruined his aspirations for the White House is not very implausible.

We now know that the Watergate break-in was a plot to find out how much the National democratic headquarters knew about the Kennedy assassination and a certain family which have been in the highest office twice had one of its closest associates planning the entire operation, named in the disclosure made by the Washington Post. That same assassin, operative has also been implicated in the Kennedy assassination named as being in the same motel room as operative Marita Lorenz and Lee Harvey Oswald (he was not the LHO of fame but rather a lookalike, RC) shortly before the Kennedy assassination handing out spending money and guns to prepare for the assassination. Marita Lorenz walked out.

You are right and it is very strange that Kennedy found himself in a plane under those circumstances. We know that the same presidential family was running the OSS during the war. And we know that the Kennedy family tried to turn the FBI into the international intelligence agency to take over after the war, while the other family wanted to instate another organization later named the Central intelligence agency to take over. The Kennedys had good contacts with Franklin D Roosevelt but when he passed away unexpectedly, the other president, the dark one, Harry S Truman took over and made sure it was the CIA who got the opportunity to forge the intelligence apparatus for the future. If you want to cripple your opponent, take out the crown princes one after the other...

We know that Kennedy tried to usurp the FED. We know that the owners of the FED own most of the media apparatus in the western world such as Reuters and the Associated Press and that they are major shareholders in the other major news organizations and that they have close ties to the other people that practically run the United States, its intelligence and the UN...

The Kennedys challenged these people and paid the ultimate price.

Joseph P. Kennedy Jr. and General George Patton both died under mysterious circumstances around the end of World War II: Kennedy before the war ended and Patton after. And they have a lot more in common than that, as I'll explain. But, they also have something that is diametrically opposite: foul play is strongly suspected in Patton's death; he is widely believed to have been assassinated; but, no one suspects that of Kennedy. No one, that is, except me. But, I can't tell you how happy I would be to find out that I am wrong about that; to find out that someone before me proposed that Kennedy was murdered.  But now, let's consider the other likenesses between Joseph P. Kennedy Jr. and General George Patton.

1. Both came from famous families.

2. Both came from money; Kennedy from his father's wealth, and Patton mainly from his wife's wealth; the heiress Beatrice Ayer. 

3. Both were World War 2 war heroes

4  Both were leaving the Military to begin political careers. Patton planned to tour the country and "campaign" against the direction of U.S. post-war policy, and although he never declared an interest in the Presidency,  many feared that that's where it was heading.  Kennedy was going to run for Congress, and many feared that the route of Congressman, Senator, and then President- the exact route of his younger brother John- would have been Joe's course. 

5. Both took controversial positions and were vocal about it. For Kennedy, it was speeches he gave as a student at Harvard opposing war with Germany, even though he did enlist after Pearl Harbor. Patton's controversial positions involved criticisms of other generals, including Eisenhower and Bradley; objecting to the harsh treatment of Germans after the war, both civilian and military, and objecting to acquiesing to the Soviets over the taking of Berlin. Patton wanted to lead his Army into Berlin but was ordered not to. And he made some very inflammatory statements, including that we may have supported the wrong side in the war, and the US should consider going to war against the Soviet Union without delay. 

6. Both were accused of being anti-Semitic. In Kennedy's case, it was mainly due to his father Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr. who was called an anti-Semite. But, the truth is that all JPK Sr. did was try to prevent World War II, which killed 65 million people. But, at the time, anyone who did NOT want to go to war against Hitler was considered an anti-Semite. To this day, JPK Sr. is trashed for trying to prevent World War 2. Because after all: WW2 was the "good war." Right?  In Patton's case, he kept a diary, and found in it and made public were some derogatory statements about Jews.  

7. Both their deaths involved accidents, and in both, there was a never an official investigation and a determination of the cause. In Kennedy's case, he was asked to get a plane strewn with explosives up in the sky. Then, he was to turn the controls of the plane over to remote operators and bail out. But, for some reason, they wouldn't let him deploy his parachute until he was over the English Channel, even though there was plenty of green, verdant, flat, spacious, wide-open and unobstructed English countryside to jump into. And to this day, we don't know what went wrong, and that's why there are so many glib, flippant theories: "They tripped a wire." "They tripped over a wire." "There was a short in the system." "The solenoid in the camera malfunctioned." Etc. Etc. Etc. 

In Patton's case, it was a freak auto accident in which the Cadillac in which he was riding was struck by a truck, injuring him and no one else. But, that's not what killed him. He was badly hurt, but improving. He died of a pulmonary embolism.  

But wait.  Who else died of a pulmonary embolism?  Jack Ruby did. And I have been telling you for years that he was innocent. He did NOT shoot Oswald. He wasn't in the garage at the time. That was somebody else; FBI Agent James Bookhout. And when Ruby won a new trial in October 1966, he was diagnosed with cancer in December and dead in January- of a pulmonary embolism. Do you know how easy it is to give a person an embolism with an intravenous needle? 

So, why why why have so many people opened their minds to Patton being assassinated but not Kennedy? And especially considering that Kennedy's brother got assassinated. And then his other brother got assassinated. Then his other other brother nearly got assassinated. And then his nephew got assassinated. 

This song from the 1957 debut album of jazz trumpeter Miles Davis really launched his rise to superstardom. That's because it was his performance of it at the Newport Jazz Festival in 1955, with the song's composer, piano player Thelonius Monk, that caught the attention of Columbia Records and why they offered Davis a recording contract. The album, Round About Midnight, referred to the title song: Round Midnight. It is one of the most covered jazz standards and one of most minor songs I've ever heard. It is almost all minor chords, and some of them are very beautiful. 

So, here is Paul Popa's and my rendition of Round Midnight. This is the last song for a while because I am busy making a movie, the sequel to My Stretch of Texas Ground. I thank everyone who has listened to our songs, I hope you enjoy this one with its rich minor chords.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04SxHqHg0KA&feature=youtu.be

 

 

Let's continue now discussing the innocence of Jack Ruby.  First, let me say that if someone were smart, he would just shut the pluck up. He wouldn't contest me with this or that. Because:this or that cannot stymie the fact that Jack Ruby was innocent. In other words: any this or that that they throw at me, I am going to turn against them and show that it really supports what I'm saying, that Ruby was innocent. And that includes his brother Earl Ruby.  

So, let's look at Earl Ruby's testimony to the HSCA in 1978. It started with them asking about their growing up in Chicago. And what Earl said is what I've been saying, that it's a very simple history, that they were a large Jewish family; it was tough scraping out a living but they did it. But, he said nothing about criminal activity; nothing about Jack being a runner for Al Capone or any of the other wild stories. He said Jack served during the War, and when he got back, Earl invited him and his brother Sam into his business, Earl's Products Co. That association didn't last long because in 1947, Jack moved to Dallas at the request of sister Eva to help her with her night club, which was more of a supper club. And from then on, Jack lived in Dallas.

Now, that's it! That is Jack's whole life story according to his own brother. He was not a Mafioso. He was not a gun runner. He was not an aide to Richard Nixon. He didn't stand admirably next to Richard Nixon as Prescott Bush fawned over him. ALL OF THAT IS BULL SHIT. Complete, total, utter bull shit. 

Earl didn't say anything about any of that, and the HSCA didn't press him about any of that. It's all just a big lie. 

However, the HSCA did ask Earl about Jack's trip to Cuba in 1959. You realize that it was perfectly legal to travel to Cuva to vacation in 1959. And that's why Jack went there, said Earl. He was invited there by a friend whose name was Lew McWIllie. Lew managed one of the casinos in Havana. And he didn't take the time off while Jack was there, but he spent as much time with him as he could, mainly in the evenings. It was just a vacation for Jack. He wasn't hobnobbing with Castro and Che Guevara.  He wasn't running guns. They asked Earl what Jack said happened when he was in Cuba, and Earl said, "Nothing."  And nothing did. 

Next, it came to the JFK assassination. Earl said that Jack didn't call him to express how upset he was. But, he called his sisters Eileen and Eva, and he learned from them that Jack said he was so upset, he was thinking of leaving Dallas for a while. You got that? Leaving. That was what Jack was considering doing; not shooting Oswald. 

And not a word about anyone threatening him that if he didn't kill Oswald, his sisters would die. And let's remember something: we are talking about a very narrow window of time, between 1:00 Saturday and Sunday morning. It's essentially a day and a half. Nobody has ever suggested that Ruby was bullied to kill Oswald before anything happened. And that means you have to squeeze in a meeting of Ruby with the Mafioso during the less than 2 days between the two shootings. And that is tough to do because every second of his time is accounted for. Pour through it if you want to. 

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

The rest concerned the Oswald shooting and its aftermath. Earl said that Jack said that he did it because when Oswald was brought out, he had a smirk on his face, and he just lost control of himself and did it. Jack said nothing to Earl about being anyone forcing him to do it. He said nothing about anyone threatening to kill his sisters. 

Jack Ruby did express concern for his family's safety, but not over the Mafia, but rather, over anti-Semitism. 

Mr. MCDONALD. Did you ever ask him if he was involved with anyone else?

Mr. RUBY. Yes.
Mr. McDONALD. What did you say to him?
Mr. RUBY. At one time when he was in the hospital, because it was much easier to talk to him there, we weren't talking through the cell, and I asked him point blank if he had ever known or met Oswald before, and his words were absolutely not, "are you nuts."  Those were his words to me.

Then later:

Mr. MCDONALD. Did he ever give you any hint that he was involved with someone else in the killing of Oswald?
Mr. RUBY. Absolutely not.

Earl recounted how Jack wound up in the police garage, that he went to Western Union to send the money wire to Little Lynn, so that she could eat, and note that this woman was not by herself; she had a husband. And Jack saw the "commotion" at the ramp entrance, and he went there to see what it was about. But, there was no reason for any commotion there or any gathering there. It was an incoming ramp. So, who were they waiting for to arrive? NOBODY! They were just there to attract Jack Ruby. The scenario was written before it happened. They were crisis actors. Do you hear what I'm saying? All those  people gathered at the ramp were plants. They were actors. They had to be. There was absolutely no reason for them to be there. 

It was an incoming ramp.

But, what guarantee was there that Ruby would be drawn to the commotion, just because there were people milling around there? Especially when he left his beloved dog alone in his car?

That's where drugs come in. Ruby was drugged. He said he took twice his usual dose of amphetamines and several other large tablets. Who put him up to that? Was it his roommate George Senator? It may have been. Senator is my top suspect. And I believe that one of those drugs was Scopolamine, the zombie drug, which the CIA learned about from the Nazis.  It makes a person do whatever he is urged to do, even the slightest suggestion. 

So, I believe they had somebody at the bank who said to Ruby, "Why don't you go down to the ramp and  see what's going on? There are people gathered there." Then, at the ramp, they had someone who nudged him down. "Go on down. See what's going on." That's all it took with the drug influences that Ruby was under.

You can read Earl's testimony if you want to. All he knew about the Oswald shooting was what Jack told him, and Jack accepted that he did it. He had no memory of doing it. He had no thought of doing it. He had no inclination to do it. But, Dallas Police told him that he did it, and he believed the Dallas Police.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo2/jfk4/hscaearl.htm

The framing of Jack Ruby is the most malicious, the most devious, the most Machiavellian, and the most evil, sinister, and dastardly plot in the history of plots. It was mind control, and not just upon Jack Ruby, but against the entire public. They were bending YOUR mind, and they are still bending it, the evil bastards; taking you down a rabbit hole and leaving you there. Well, it's time you dug yourself out of that rabbit hole, to emerge into the light of day and realize that Jack Ruby was innocent. 

 

I am holding my Smith and Wesson .38 with my middle finger engaging the trigger, and you see where my index finger winds up. I guess one could try to crimp it. But, are we going to assign that to Ruby too? The official story has it that Ruby shot Oswald suddenly, impulsively, in a moment of madness. His lawyer, Elmer Getz, even wrote a book "Moment of Madness." And that's exactly how it was depicted in the tv movie "Ruby and Oswald" which you can watch here in its entirety. 

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

But, the other official story, which they are entirely OK with you believing, and even encourage you to believe, is that Ruby did it with pre-meditation, that the Mafia ordered him to shoot Oswald, and they threatened to kill his sister if he didn't. There is no evidence for it. None. But, that doesn't stop people from believing shit. 

So, he went to the Garage to do it and brought his dog along, not liking to drive alone, and because his dog liked to get out. But, didn't he know that once he shot Oswald, that the police were going to grab him and take him away? So, why did he bring his dog along? 

If Ruby did it impulsively, as an act of "psychomotor epilepsy" as his lawyer called it, then obviously he wouldn't think about making a fashion statement in the way he pulled the trigger. Realize that there is a STRONG impulse to use your index finger because the gun is designed for it; your hand is designed for it; and the fact is that you wield a lot more strength, power, and control when you use your index finger. 

Did I mention that these little snub-nose revolvers have a hell of a lot of recoil?  I feel it strongly when I shoot it with two hands. Imagine how much more shooting it with one. And remember what the cause of the recoil is: Newton's 3rd law of Motion: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.  

Just from pulling the trigger with my middle finger with the gun unloaded, I can tell that I can't control it as well as I can when using my index finger. It isn't even close. 

But, the idea that Ruby would have thought about making a fashion statement by doing it with his middle finger is preposterous. Of course, he would have used the gun in the way that it conformed to his hand, using his index finger,  And if he had done otherwise, we'd have seen the result of it. There would have been no hiding it. 

So, everyone needs to stop fighting this. Everyone needs to admit that the Jackson photo is NOT legit. It is a staged photo that was taken beforehand; not during the Garage Spectacle. The whole arrangement of the people is different than what we see in the films of the Garage Spectacle. And that is not Jack Ruby, not in the staged Jackson photo and not in the films. It is James Bookhout. Ruby was already tucked away on the 5th floor, being held in his underwear, waiting to be inserted into the flow of the story. It was an incredible bait and switch. 

Jack Ruby was innocent. Completely, totally, categorically, and irrefutably innocent. He no more shot Oswald than you did. And the people who keep insisting that he did, even after being shown this, are not genuine. If you genuinely believe in Oswald's innocence, you will genuinely believe in Ruby's innocence. They were both framed and innocent. The same people who killed Kennedy killed Oswald, that is, they got the Dallas Police to do it. It is VERY likely that LBJ personally put the Dallas Police up to killing Oswald. Remember: he personally knew Boyd and Sims. He hired them to be his security whenever he visited Dallas. And his closest aide Cliff Carter called Fritz repeatedly, telling him to shut down the investigation because he had his man. He was telling him that on Friday afternoon!   

Jack Ruby brought his dog along because he fully expected that it was going to be an ordinary day for him. You realize that the Carousel Club was just down the street from Western Union, on the other side of the street. He was taking the dog to the Carousel Club because there was someone there who would look after her.  And from there, he was going to go to the new apartment he was soon going to be move into. He was very excited about that. He had absolutely no thought that he was going to shoot Oswald and then be incarcerated for the rest of his life until he was put to death. If that was his thought, his actions that morning would have been very different. 

So, listen to me: If you are truly an Oswald defender, and realize that there are a lot of phony Oswald defenders out there because they are still working the cover-up hard with Ops galore, then you need to be a Ruby defender. You are NOT defending Oswald if you say that Ruby shot him. You are aiding and abetting Oswald's killers if you say that Ruby shot him. 

  

When James Bookhout pretended to be Jack Ruby in the garage and posed for this staged picture shooting Oswald, he used his middle finger as his trigger finger, extending his index finger right over the gas escape space of the barrel, which no one would do if he was really firing the gun unless he wanted to blow his finger off. So, why did he do it? It's because it was known that Ruby's index finger was partially amputated. Except: it was his LEFT index finger that was partially amputated, not his right. Therefore, it made no sense for either Ruby or Bookhout to fire with his middle finger. But obviously, misinformation went down the pike, and it resulted in this ridiculous picture.

The people who want you to believe that Jack Ruby had this other life, hobnobbing with gangsters and politicians, etc. are out of their minds. This is a good example. Russ Baker actually put this in his book, this picture, with the claim that it's Ruby. 

Mother of God! That is not Jack Ruby! That was 1946. Of course, it's Prescott Bush on the right, and Richard Nixon on the left. Nixon had just been elected to Congress for the first time with help from Bush. I don't know who that guy is behind them, but he definitely wasn't Jack Ruby. Here is Jack Ruby in 1945.

Can't you see that that guy in the picture is older? That he has a very aqualine nose, compared to Ruby's bulbous nose? That Ruby's face was fatter? Ruby later lost weight because he got hooked on amphetamines, but earlier in his life, he was quite puffy in the face. 

There isn't a snowball's chance in Hell that that is Jack Ruby. Yet, people keep saying that it is. I regret to say that even John Armstrong fell for it and says it. Why? It's because of this compulsion people have to embrace the juicy story that Ruby had this other life as a gangster and political operative. It's a complete, total fiction, and it was created by the other side; by the people who actually killed Oswald. They say it just to keep researchers and buffs occupied; to keep them busy chasing ghosts; and to keep them far, far away from the truth that Jack Ruby was completely and totally innocent. 

In the movie Jason Bourne, which I'm a fan of; it was the 4th installment with Matt Damon, the dirty, corrupt CIA is out to kill this social media CEO who refuses to do their bidding to spy on Americans, and you hear this one agent tell the rotten CIA Chief that they can easily do it, take the guy out, and blame it on some "lone wolf" for whom they would create an identity, giving him a past with all kinds of documentation going back decades and all completely made up. Well, that is what they really did to Jack Ruby. And it was the plan all along because they knew that if they misled people by giving Jack Ruby this colorful but totally fictitious dark, criminal past, that it would reinforce the belief that he killed Oswald. You see: they don't care WHY you think Ruby shot Oswald. Pick any reason you want. They couldn't care less about that. They only care THAT you think Ruby shot Oswald. They only care that you go nowhere near the truth, that Ruby was framed and innocent.

And because of this Machiavellian plan to reinvent Jack Ruby, which they arranged in advance, to give him a life and a past that he didn't have, it completely bamboozled otherwise intelligent researchers like John Armstrong into accepting and believing their crap.

Jack Ruby was born and raised in Chicago. He served in the Air Force during World War II as an airplane mechanic (which is what my father did). Then, after the war, he returned to Chicago, and got involved with his brother Earl in various huckster businesses, (and I don't mean anything criminal, but just slick and fast talking selling) and then he was drawn to Dallas because his sister Eva was there, and she and needed help running her night club. And he became enamored with the night club business and stayed in it. And that was basically his whole, entire life story. The rest is all bull shit. He was not a Mafioso. He did not know or work for Nixon or LBJ. That famous clip of him telling reporters that LBJ was responsible for the assassination was based entirely on a book he read, "A Texan Looks At Lyndon" by Evetts Haley, which I have also read. 

The big thing missing from the story is when and how it was decided that Jack Ruby could be used the way he was ultimately used.  I admit that that chapter of his life is missing. We have much more on Sirhan Sirhan and how he got recruited. Sirhan got recruited from his dabbling with Rosicrucianism. That's where they picked him up, you might say. And they lured him by enticing him with the dream of becoming a horse racing jockey. And then, it was weekends at the remote horse ranch, where they started getting drugs into him and doing mind control. It's all very well laid out, but we don't have anything comparable to that for Ruby. For instance, why don't we know who Ruby's doctor was?  We know he was getting amphetamines from his doctor, presumably for weight control.  But, it certainly wasn't medically appropriate, and why don't we know who his doctor was? It would be a hell of a starting point. So, that's the part of Ruby's life that I want to find out about. 

That guy in the picture with Richard Nixon and Prescott Bush is most certainly not Jack Ruby,  And the idea for it came from the plotters, the killers. It's distraction. It's noise. And it reinforces the idea that Ruby killed Oswald. Their worst nightmare is for you to realize that Ruby was completely and totally innocent, and completely and totally victimized. He really was.