This is in response to Dale Bochte. If Oswald wasn't shot in the garage during the Spectacle (and he wasn't) what happened to him? Was he shot afterwards, or was he scurried away and allowed to go on living?

We'll start with this image of Oswald making eye contact with James Bookhout in the garage seconds before the Spectacle began. I think he was communicating, "I'm ready."

Oswald was definitely shot and killed, just not during the Spectacle. The Oswald that was brought to Parkland Hospial, near death, was really him. They have never shown us any real pictures of him moribund, and I think it's because he must have looked so ghastly that it might have generated sympathy for him. Just think: doctors gave him a total body transfusion. They actually transfused more than that. So, they considered him exsanguinated, which means totally bled out. He would have looked ghastily, white as a sheet.

When my son was in high school, his tennis partner died in a car crash. Drunk, the boy had slammed his race car into a telephone pole going over 100 miles an hour. It happened very close to their home in the country, and when his father got to the wreck, he was struck by his son's ghastly appearance because his aorta had ruptured and he had bled out. The boy was 17 years old, and really, he was a nice kid. It was only when he drank that he got wild. It involved a high speed car chase by the police. They provoked him to drive that fast, and it went to court.

And it also went into my film, My Stretch Of Texas Ground, when the Sheriff was arguing with the County Attorney about it.

And if you haven't seen My Stretch Of Texas Ground, you really should. It is a great film, the only anti-war feature film of the 21st century. It's a gripping, clash of titans story between Sheriff Joe Haladin and ace assassin Abdul Latif Hassan. It won many awards, and you can watch it for free on Tubi:

My Stretch Of Texas Ground

But, back to Oswald, the bullet ruptured his aorta, his vena cava, and his superior mesenteric artery, which is another large artery. It also went through his pancreas and his right kidney, which are very vascular organs. So, the last image of Oswald, which is him on a stretcher clenching his fist, is surely fake; a reenactment. An exsanguinated man would not be able to make a fist. And how could Michael Hardin, the ambulance driver, be pushing that stretcher if Detective Charles Dhority is clutching Oswald's hand? Isn't this a little overdramatic? And note the absence of Harold Wayne Wolfe, who was Hearden's assistant. He wasn't there for the reenactment. Maybe he was unwilling to do it. And note that both Hearden and Wolfe, who were both young men, died in the 1970s. That rattles me- a lot. If they'd kill them, they'd kill me.

But, when and where was Oswald shot? I believe he was shot in the jail office right after the Spectacle. They needed to get a bullet in him ASAP to give him time to bleed out. It he died in the ambulance and was pronounced dead at the hospital, that would have been perfect. The crucial thing was that he not survive.

So, the sooner they planted the bullet in him the better.

Oswald was part of the ruse. They must have told him,

"Lee, we believe you that you are innocent, that you are an intelligence asset of the FBI and CIA and that you know people who will vouch for you. The problem is that, no matter what we say, millions of people will still think you did it, and some of them may come gunning for you. It only takes one to kill you. So, the best way to protect you is to fake your death. That way, no one will be gunning for you. We'll just have to funnel you away, keep you under wraps, and then change your look and get you a new identity. Eventually, you'll be reunited with your family, but right now, we have to establish that Lee Harvey Oswald is dead."

Oswald believed them, and he went along with the ruse. I believe he was shot in the Jail Office after he was scurried inside. He moved on his own power. They didn't have to carry him since he wasn't really shot. But, they had to shield him- from eyes and cameras. Once inside, someone probably jabbed him with a hypodermic needle containing a sedative, which knocked him out. Then they took him to a room that was sound-proofed, and then using a 38 with a silencer, they placed the bullet with surgical precision. I suspect they took the shot with him recumbent, lying down.

There is a story element that supports this hypothesis. J. Edgar Hoover wrote a document afterwards damning the Dallas Police for their incompetence. (It was all a ruse because Hoover was in on it himself. The killling of Oswald was a joint DPD/FBI operation.) But, the story element is that Hoover observed that for 2 minutes, the Dallas Police kept the doors closed and would not allow press into the Jail Office. Then after that, they let in the local WFAA team but no one else. We never saw Oswald on the floor. We see policeman standing around looking down at him, but we never see him.

I'll leave you with this image of Oswald being rolled out of the jail office back in the garage heading for the ambulance to be loaded. At the top left, you see James Bookhout, back in his own identity after having performed as the Garage Shooter during the Spectacle. Notice that he's looking down. It's because he's nervous. He knows there are cameras. Why didn't Bookhout go to the hospital? He followed Oswald around like his shadow the whole weekend, so why didn't he follow him to the hospital? It's because he didn't want to be seen. Do you know how many images we have of Bookhout after this? Zero. Even in his obituary in 2009, there was no image of him.

 Why would Jack Ruby shoot Oswald with his middle finger? Both the Jackson and Beers photos show the Shooter using his middle finger. Ruby's lawyers asked him why he used his middle finger to pull the trigger, and do you know what he told them? 

"How could I know when I don't even remember shooting him? I keep telling you that I don't remember a thing about it, and I never had any thought about it. And the way I found out about it is that up on the 5th floor, the cops told me that I did it. But, I certainly can't tell you why I used my middle finger. I have no idea." 

His lawyers believed him, and that's how they came up with the "psychomotor epilepsy" defense, the idea being that he was not mentally present when he did it, that it was essentially sleep-walking and having a very weird epileptic seizure. 

It was stupid and ridiculous, but the problem was that they believed Ruby, but they also believed the cops. And that was their mistake; they never should have believed the cops. 

The real reason for the middle trigger finger was that it was a production error. I am a filmmaker, and I know how easy it is to make production errors. In this case, they acted on false information. Someone told them that Ruby's right index finger was partially severed, so Bookhout would have to use his middle finger at the photo-shoot. But actually, it was Ruby's left index finger that was partially severed. Ruby had an intact right index finger. So, there would have been no reason for him to use his middle finger to pull the trigger.  

And if you use your middle finger to pull the trigger, what are you going to do with your index finger? It has to go somewhere, and the only place it can go is along the barrel and right next to the cylinder gap. And therefore, all the firey hot gases will get released, which will burn and blacken your index finger- or worse. And we know that didn't happen to Ruby. 

So, here is the Jackson photo showing the Shooter using his middle finger. And since Bookhout didn't burn and blacken his index finger, you know the gun was not fired at this photo shoot. And Oswald did not slap his arm to his chest either. That was something the art department did afterwards. You see, since there was no shot, there was no trauma, so they had to completely cover up the area of trauma- since they had no trauma to show. That explains the need for all the weird stuff. The idea was that Oswald was shot, and even though this was just a split-second afterwards, you can't see anything because Oswald slapped his arm to his chest.  That hand of Oswald is not real. It isn't even anatomical. It couldn't possibly look like that. The thumb is "opposed" to the other fingers, which makes that configuration impossible. 

Plus, the thumb is too long and there are only three knuckles, which means just three fingers. So, did Oswald lose a finger too? Of course not. That is actually two hands clasped. It's all fake, and so is the left arm of Leavelle with his hand in Oswald's pants. We are supposed to believe that Leavelle was escorting Oswald with his hand buried in his pants. Since when do police do that, and since when do prisoners tolerate it? I have to laugh because in the Texas Theater, Officer Nick McDonald went for Oswald's waist area to grab the pistol, and Oswald responded by slugging him in the nose. But, we're supposed to believe that Oswald was OK with Leavelle putting his hand in his pants all the way down to the knuckles. Not in his pocket, but over the waistband and deep into his pants. That is supposed to be what happened, but only in JFK-land. This monstrosity of a photo actually won the Pulitzer Prize.  Remember: this is supposed to be after the shot. Oswald is grimacing, supposedly, because he was shot a split-second before. Do you see any blood? Do you see anything at all that indicates trauma?  And what about that cop in uniform? If a shot just went off a split-second before, shouldn't he be startled? Why instead does he look stiff and frozen like he's in a trance? Wouldn't the shot have snapped him out of it? What does it take to wake that guy up? I tell you , this photo is ridiculous. How could people be so stupid as to accept it for 59 years?  

  

 

 This is the clip of Detective Miller putting something over Bookhout's head. Was it the wig itself? Maybe it went flying, and he picked it up and put it back on his head. But, I want you think about how ridiculous this spectacle is. You see how small the shooter was compared to the cops. So, what is supposed to be going on there? Is the shooter resisting? Is he supposed to be fighting them? Is he kicking, spitting, what? He doesn't appear to be doing anything to them.  He seems completely pasive. This fight or struggle or whatever it was supposed to be should have been over in 2 seconds, considering the combined force of all those men against the one little non-resistant guy. He doesn't appear to be doing anything to counter what they were doing to him. So, why wouldn't they resolve the whole matter on the spot by drawing his hands behind his back and cuffing him on the spot? Why take him somewhere first? Those guys were like a football huddle or a rugby pack. How were they supposed to get through that single corner door? Why wouldn't they cuff him there and then stand him up, and then a single guy could walk him away. It makes no sense what they did, which was what?  Push and shove him into the building? 

What this really was all about was keeping Bookhout covered so that no person or camera would see that it was him. There was no resistance or fighting. They were all working together. Bookhout was working with them; accepting their help in keeping him obscured. And I'm sure they were being very careful not to hurt him.  

Then, supposedly, once they got through the door, and the door was closed, three detectives, Archer, Clary, and McMillan, all got the idea at once to take out their handcuffs, but it was Clary's cuffs that went on him. But, why didn't they think of it in the garage? 

And remember how the whole thing started, with the shooter diving towards them. Not kicking, not punching, just diving into their arms. And, it's not like they picked him up and carried him into the building. He remained on his feet throughout. So, he was moving on his own power; he was walking. He has to be shuffling along. But, they were hovered over him to keep his face out of view as he progressed because he was not Jack Ruby.  

I refer to this whole thing as the Dance of the Penguins because that's what it reminds me of. It makes absolutely no sense for policemen to behave this way. It is a bizarre spectacle, necessitated by the fact that the shooter was not Jack Ruby. 

 

 So, all that cunning tampering with Ruby's hair was done all becuase of this ridiculous wig worn by James Bookhout at the Garage Shooting. This is absolutely and positively not the hair of Jack Ruby. It is a wig. Notice that you don't see any hairs coming out of his skin. It is a rug, a toupee. Bookhout wore it because he was an FBI agent, and they all had short, close-cropped hair with razored necklines. They were clean-cut. This wig was part of his disguise, and it necessitated enhancing Ruby's hairs in photos for the rest of his life.

This is from newly discovered footage of Jack Ruby at a Dallas Easter parade in 1960. You see him remove his hat and comb his hair on the sides. He never combs the top of his head because, apparently, he had nothing but fuzz there. But, I want you to see how they doctored the images. 

In the first one, he seems to have a thick tuft of hair in front, but why would he keep it so short? And, that is not how men go bald. Have you ever seen a man with hair like that? Of course not. In the second one, they went all out and painted onn a whole head of hair. You never see him drag the comb through it because it wasn't real. It wasn't there. 

This was all done because James Bookhout wore a mop of a wig at the Garage Spectacle. Hence, Jack Ruby had to have hair- and quite a lot of it. 

 

 You should read this excerpt from Jack Ruby's testimony to the Warren Commissioners, who traveled to Dallas just to talk to him. You'll see that he told them that he went the money wire at 10:17, an hour earlier than reported. 

I am taking a pill called Preludin. It is a harmless pill, and it is very easy to get in the drugstore. It isn't a highly prescribed pill. I use it for dieting.

RC: Preludin is a stimulant drug, similar to amphetamines. It was banned in the 1980s due to widespread abusve. It's interesting that we don't know who Ruby's doctor was, the one who prescribed it. We know who is rabbi was, but not his doctor. It continues below, and notice how flighty and incoherent Ruby was. He really was a scatterbrain. The idea that anyone would secure him to kill somebody is a joke. After reading it, ask yourself: Do you really think Dallas Police were going to trust Jack Ruby to shoot a loaded gun in their crowded midst? Do you think Jim Leavelle wanted Jack Ruby firing a gun in his direction?

I don't partake of that much food. I think that was a stimulus to give me an emotional feeling that suddenly I felt, which was so stupid, that I wanted to show my love for our faith, being of the Jewish faith, and I never used the term and I don't want to go into that--suddenly the feeling, the emotional feeling came within me that someone owed this debt to our beloved President to save her the ordeal of coming back. I don't know why that came through my mind.

And I drove past Main Street, past the County Building, and there was a crowd already gathered there. And I guess I thought I knew he was going to be moved at 10 o'clock, I don't know. I listened to the radio; and I passed a crowd and it looked--I am repeating myself--and I took it for granted he had already been moved.

And I parked my car in the lot across from the Western Union. Prior to that, I got a call from a little girl (RC: strange way to refer to Karen Carlin, a stripetease dance)--she wanted-some money--that-worked for me, and I said, "Can't you wait till payday?" And she said, "Jack, you are going to be closed."

So my purpose was to go to the Western Union--my double purpose but the thought of doing, committing the act wasn't until I left my apartment.

Sending the wire was when I had the phone call--or the money order.

I drove down Main Street--there was a little incident I left out, that I started to go down a driveway, but I wanted to go by the wreaths, and I saw them and started to cry again.
Then I drove, parked the car across from the Western Union, went into the Western Union, sent the money order, whatever it was, walked the distance from the Western Union to the ramp--I didn't sneak in. I didn't linger in there.

I didn't crouch or hide behind anyone, unless the television camera can make it seem that way.

There was an officer talking--I don't know what rank he had--talking to a Sam Pierce in a car parked up on the curb.

I walked down those few steps, and there was the person (RC: he meant Oswald, whom he never referred to by name) that--I wouldn't say I saw red--it was a feeling I had for our beloved President and Mrs. Kennedy, that he was insignificant to what my purpose was.
And when I walked down the ramp--I would say there was an 8-foot clearance--not that I wanted to be a hero, or I didn't realize that even if the officer would have observed me, the klieg lights, but I can't take that.

I did not mingle with the crowd. There was no one near me when I walked down that ramp, because if you will time the time I sent the money order, I think it was 10:17 Sunday morning.

RC: I'm not going to try to decipher all that. Ruby was not of sound mind. But notice that he said that he sent the money order at 10:17. After he said it, a Secret Service agent promptly interrupted him and said it was 11:21. His name was Elmer Moore, who was from San Francisco. That's where he was the weekend of the assassination. So, he had no first-hand knowledge of anything. And 11:21 wasn't right even by the official story. What Ruby said was correct. He did send the money wire about 10:17. Upon arresting him, they removed his clothes, down to his drawers.  So, they got the paperwork of the WU wire. It must have been on him because he went directly to the garage from WU. And I'm sure they replaced that paperwork with one that said 11:17.

Jack Ruby was innocent. He got to the garage an hour before the televised spectacle, and after rushing him up to the 5th floor jail, they kept him there- in his drawers- until about 3:00 when they brought him down to the 3rd floor to be questioned by Fritz. And that's when reporters and cameramen in the crowded hallway of the 3rd floor saw him for the first time. That is when the "switch" in the "bait and switch" took place.  

 Did you know that Dallas Police changed Jack Ruby's underwear? At least, they claimed to. It's listed in his property invoice that they took from him one set underwear. At first, they thought they put it in Bin N-30, but it was actually Bin N-15. They had so many property bins at the DPD, they had to identify them by letters and numbers. If they had 30 N bins, they must have had 30 for the 13 letters before N, right? So, that's 420 bins, and it's only halfway through the alphabet.  

Why would they need to take his soiled underwear? And if you are wondering if they had fresh underwear to give him, the answer is yes. At least, that's the story. Do you know why this came up? It was because it was noticed that the Garage Shooter in the Jackson photo wore light socks, but Ruby wore black socks in his mug shot.

Do you remember that I pointed out that the Garage Shooter had long curly hair in back and a clean neckline, whereas Ruby, in his mug shot, had a scruffy neckline?  You can't make them into the same man, any more than you can pound a square peg into a round hole. 

But, let's return to the underwear. This was a City Jail. You have a Constitutional right called habeus corpus, which includes the right to see a judge very quickly following your arrest. It's called an arraignment, and in every state, arrested persons get to see a judge quickly, usually within 24 hours of their arrest. At the arraignment, the judge will assess the situation to determine if it was a valid arrest and if the defendant should stand trial. If so, he or she is either released on bail or bond, or rarely, on their own recognizance, or they are remanded to the County Jail. But, what they are not going to do is remain at the City Jail. And that was true in Jack Ruby's case too. He was arraigned the same day, and he was transferred to the County Jail the next day at Noon. 

So, this idea that they changed his underwear- or that they even had underwear to give him- is preposterous. It was preposterous that they changed his clothes at all because it does not happen at a City Jail. They didn't change Oswald's clothes. The clothes he wore on Sunday morning were his own clothes, retrieved from his room. 

So, why did they make this ridiculous claim about changing his underwear? It's because they had to. It was either do that or admit that the Garage Shooter and Jack Ruby were two different men. 

So, why didn't people erupt over this, and yell, "No fucking way!" It's because they respected authority. They respected the police. They believed what they were told- by the good guys. 

And why don't people yell about it today? There are people right now who, upon reading this, are going to brush it off. What is John McAdams gong to say? What is David Von Pein going to say? They're not going to admit that this underwear story completely exonerates Ruby. It's also true of their detractors, who cling to the delusion that Ruby was a Mafioso, a gun-runner, a hit man, a pimp, that he was put up to killing Oswald, and was even involved in killing Kennedy. They're going to keep on spewing their stuff and won't be deterred. 

But, what about you? Have you enough reason now, and have you the courage and the unfettered mind to now admit that Jack Ruby was innocent?  That it wasn't him in the Garage, that they already had him in custody up on the 5th floor, and they slipped him into the story later? That is exactly what happened.   

 BOSTON (AP) — A passenger who helped restrain a threatening man on a weekend flight from Los Angeles to Boston said Tuesday that the entire chaotic episode was over within seconds thanks to teamwork.

Simik Ghookasian said in a telephone interview that he was seated several rows behind the man, who had quietly tried to open an airliner’s emergency door before trying to stab a flight attendant with a broken metal spoon.

“I heard the guy getting louder and louder and I thought it was just an argument, but he started yelling and screaming and threatening people, threatening to kill them,” said Ghookasian, a Los Angeles government contractor flying to Boston on United Flight 2609 on Sunday for work.

Until the yelling, he hadn't noticed anything unusual about the man, who federal authorities have identified as Francisco Severo Torres.

Ghookasian said he saw the spoon and he was among five or six passengers who piled onto Torres and removed it from his grasp. It turned out to be the handle of a metal spoon, from which the bowl portion had been broken off, authorities said.

“That guy was really strong and was really resisting," Ghookasian said. "We had a hard time holding him down. It was total teamwork.”

RC: This is the guy. Instead of having a box cutter, he had a broken metal spoon. But, the passengers subdued him within seconds. 

And yet, that didn't happen on any of the four 9/11 flights. Except of course on the one over PA with Todd Beamer and "Let's roll. But, authorities needed a reason for why that plane suddenly crashed in PA, and the "Let's roll" story provided it. Am I suggesting that they made it up? Damn right. Why would Todd Beamer and the others have waited so long? Why didn't they respond instantly, like the passengers on the recent flight, which was also United?  Why did they ever submit and go to the back of the plane? Was it because of the box-cutters? But, that was offset by the fact that they had the terrorists vastly outnumbered. Plus, we're told that all the terrorists, to the last man, were small men.  How many people could a man wielding a box-cutter attack at one time? One. And while he's doing that, another passenger is grabbing him from behind with a chokehold around the neck. Someone else is grabbing the arm wielding the knife. Someone else is grabbing the other arm. Who really had the advantage? 

I realize that not everyone is trained in martial arts, but everyone has got two feet. And a big man with long legs is at no disadvantage to a small man with a boxcuter. And remember that that box-cutter has got to sever an artery in order to slow a big man down. If you just slash him otherwise, he's barely going to feel it with all the adrenalin flowing in his veins. And think about what was at stake and how driven they would have been, the able-bodied passengers, not to mention the pilots.  The bottom line is that the story of little terrorists taking over the plane with box-cutters is bull shit. I don't believe it, and neither should you.   

The big question is: how much longer does the official 9/11 story have before it collapses? 

 Norm Reid

Anyone looking for details look for Ralph's presentation on the New JFK Show with Gary King Larry Rivera and Jim Fetzer. Thanks for posting this, Ralph Cinque.

• Like
• Reply
• Share
• 44m

• Active

  Ralph Cinque

  Author

  Admin

  Thank you, Norm Reid. I thank the man who made that slo-mo gif of Bagman covering Bookhout's head. He wants to play it real safe, not putting anything past them, considering the number of people who have been offed.  Who can Blame him? I worry about it myself.  So, we just call him the Wizard.