The Jackson photo on the left shows that the Shooter wore light socks. Ruby wore black socks, as seen on the right in his mug shot. The shoes are different too. The Shooter wore dressy wingtips. Ruby had on high-top work shoes. 

So, the story quickly became that they changed every stitch of clothing on Ruby's body at the City Jail, including his underwear. Do you realize how ridiculous that is? He was only going to be there overnight. The next morning, he was transferred to the County Jail.  As soon as you're arraigned, you leave. You're either sent to the County Jail or you go home. So, for such a short stay, why would they need to change his clothing at all? Oswald wasn't provided with any clothing. Even the clothes he wore on Sunday morning were his own clothes, obtained from his boarding room. But, Ruby was provided with the white cabana outfit (which was not a jail uniform, since there were no jail uniforms) shoes, socks, underwear- the works. It's absurd, and it's a lie. It was really just a production error. And being a filmmaker, I know about production errors and how easy they are to make. It is just something that fell through the cracks. Nobody told Bookhout what color socks to wear or what kind of shoes to wear. And there was no reason why they had to include Ruby's shoes and socks in the mug shot- but they did. The best laid plans of mice and men...

But, what excuse did people have, then and now, to fall for this ridiculous story that they changed Ruby's underwear?  What makes people so brainless to accept such ridiculous government decrees? I attribute the mindlessness to a disease that I call Americana. Reporters had it. Ruby's own lawyers had it. People have it today. It's the belief that things like this don't happen in America. They happened in Soviet Russia, and they happen in Putin's Russia and in Communist China, but not in America. Well, it happened in America. The Dallas Police killed Oswald, and they finagled Ruby into being there just so that they had someone to blame. And he was so mentally deranged that he was helpless to help himself. If he was mentally sound, he would have screamed bloody murder and fought it, but he was docile and submissive.

And there was another production error. They had Bookhout use his middle finger as his trigger finger. Why would Ruby have done that? Why would Ruby have even given thought to it? Even little boys know, when they play with toy guns, that the index finger is the trigger finger. The fact was that Ruby's left index finger was amputated. But, he was right-handed, so it didn't matter. I think there was some misinformation. I think they told Bookhout to use his middle finger because Ruby's right hand had the amputation. But, it was his left, so there was no reason for him to use his middle finger. 

And Ruby's lawyers asked Ruby why he used his middle finger. And his response was, "I can't even remember doing it, and I never gave any thought to doing it. So, how can I tell you why I used my middle finger?"  That should have alerted his lawyers that there was something terribly wrong with the story. That should have led them to the truth that Ruby didn't do it. But, it didn't, and again, it was because of the mental illness that I call Americana. ALL HIS LAWYERS HAD TO DO WAS LOOK CLOSELY AT THE IMAGES OF THE SHOOTER AND COMPARE THEM TO RUBY, AND THEY WOULD HAVE SEEN THAT IT WASN'T HIM.  That's all they had to do, but they didn't do it. Americana is a terrible disease. It blinds people. 

 Pete Souza, who was Obama's and Reagan's White House photographer, posted this image of Trump sans the bandage, pointing out that his ear looks like it was never traumatized. 

However, when you zoom in, you do see a little bruise. 

Do you see the red just inside the helix, which is the cartilaginous rim that goes around the ear? I presume it's a scab. That's what's left of the wound. But, how could he have been struck by a bullet there? If he was struck at all by a bullet, it would have had to do more damage than that. This is what we're talking about:

I don't see how that bullet could have caused such a small, localized wound without damaging the helix at all. It makes me think that FBI Director Christopher Wray was right that Trump was hit with shrapnel or a flying glass particle. I don't see how how an AR-15 bullet could cause such a tiny, localized, and slight wound. No way.  And frankly, that redness could just be makeup. I'm not saying that it is, or that it probably is, but I am saying that he definitely was not hit by a bullet. 

    

 When I realized there were NO images of James Bookhout from the JFK assassination, I was stunned. I knew instantly that something was terribly wrong about him. That's because he attended every Oswald interrogation (the only one to do so besides Fritz), plus he followed Oswald around like his shadow. So, how could FBI Agent James Bookhout not be photographed? 

But then, I found out that it was much worse than that; that there were no images of him after the assassination either, and he lived a very long life, to age 95. There wasn't even an image of him on his obituary. His wife Charlotte had an image on her obituary, so why not him? Obviously, he didn't want one, and he must have given strict orders forbidding it. Why? It's because he was the Garage Shooter of Lee Harvey Oswald. 

However, Bookhout didn't actually shoot Oswald. It was all theater. Everyone involved was acting, including Oswald, who was shot later, presumably inside the jail office. 

So, I started ranting that there were no images of Bookhout. Eventually, I found yearbook images of him from Woodrow Wilson High School in Dallas and also SMU. But, that's all there is, and those images were altered. 

Bit. after about a year, a single photo was put forward, supposedly of Bookhout in the Homicide Bureau on 11/22/63.

 So, that guy preoccupied with his pipe in the center is supposedly James Bookhout. The guy who claimed it was Bart Kamp, of Dealey Plaza UK, who said that he went to the National Archives seeking an image of Bookhout, and they provided him with that.  Apparently, Kamp lied because I too went to the National Archives- with that photo. I showed it to them, and they refused to say that he was James Bookhout. My discussions went to the top person at the National Archives, the Chief Archivist of the United States, Coleen Shogan, and she insisted to me that the National Archives makes no claim that Pipe Man is James Bookhout. 

And if you compare that man to the son of James Bookhout, you can see that he could not be his father. 

Those two are NOT father and son. Capisce? 

So, I assume that this was damage control, that people in high places were aware of the fuss I was making about the photographic absence of James Bookhout, so they conjured up a phony image of him. Let's take a closer look at it. 

Not only is that not James Bookhout, it's not even a valid image- of anybody. Pipe Man wasn't even in that photograph. And if you try to look at the image as if he wasn't there, it works perfectly well. It makes perfect sense without him. Here is what I call the visual traffic of the image. 

Most of the men in that image are focused on Captain Fritz, who is wearing the white hat to the right of Pipe Man. But, Pipe Man is in his own world. He is completely disengaged from everyone else. Even the man seated at the desk who is on the phone in the lower left is looking at Fritz as if Pipe Man wasn't there. He wasn't. He was dropped into it. The story of the photo is that there is a conversation going on of which Fritz is the fulcrum. However, Pipe Man is like the bull in the china shop. He just doesn't belong. 

This was the Homicide Bureau of the Dallas Police Department on the day that JFK was murdered. How, at a time like that, could a man be so absorbed with his pipe? How could James Bookhout be so disinterested in what Will Fritz was saying?  And there are other freaky things about Pipe Man, if you look at him closely. His hair looks fake. His glasses look weird. He's got a weird little pug nose. It's a heavily doctored image.

That peninsula of hair jutting out isn't real. Somebody took a Sharpie to that. Hair doesn't look like that or photograph like that. So, who was he? I have no idea. But, he definitely wasn't James Bookhout, and he definitely wasn't really there. He was pasted into the picture.  

Below is the only frontal image we have of the Garage Shooter, and it is the face of James Bookhout and not the face of Jack Ruby.

The man in the center in the white shirt is James Bookhout. He's supposed to be Jack Ruby, but he is James Bookhout. Notice that he correlates well to Bookhout's son, Jim Bookhout. 

You don't have any trouble accepting those two as father and son, do you?

On the left below is 23 year  old James Bookhout at SMU in 1937. On the right is 49 year old James Bookhout on 11/24/63. What distinguishes them is 26 years of aging.

 I want you to notice that, posturally, they are exactly the same. By that I mean that their head carriage is exactly the same. There are other ways of holding your head, but that is exactly the same. 

And keep in mind that both images were altered. The thick, swervy eyebrows on the left aren't real. The racoon stripes instead of eyes on the right aren't real either.  The broken nose on the right also isn't real. Those things were done to create divergence. Notice the very short neck in both images, and the round, cheeky face. And the guy on the right below certainly isn't Jack Ruby.

And realize that Ruby did not have as much hair as he appears to have on the left. He was practically bald on top- with just a few strands. They had to doctor his hair in every photo because Bookhout wore a mop of a wig in the garage. This below is a toupee:

 That rug bears no resemblance to Ruby's hair. 

Jack Ruby was innocent. He was tricked into believing that he shot Oswald. He was cognitively impaired, and he was kept drugged. He was mentally incompetent. He was declared to be psychotic. I don't know that that was true, but he was definitely impaired. 

If you don't know that Jack Ruby was innocent, you may as well not know anything at all about the JFK assassination. 

 Anyone with half a brain can see that this photo cannot be legit. How could that stretcher be in motion if Dhority was holding Oswald's hand? They'd be all locked up. And at that point, Oswald would have been very close to death and must have looked ghastly. So, that taller man on the stretcher with the pinched nostrils was an Oswald double. This was a staged photo done much later. It was an attempt to make an "iconic" photo. And the fact that they staged it tells you that the whole story of Oswald's killing is bogus. The State killed Kennedy, and they killed Oswald. That's the truth.

 You have to realize how much they needed Oswald dead and could not let him be tried, or even talk to a lawyer. John Armstrong did a good job of establishing that Oswald never mail-ordered a rifle from Chicago.

https://harveyandlee.net/Guns/Guns.html

So, try to imagine what would have come out of Oswald's first meeting with a lawyer: that he didn't own or order a rifle, that he was standing in the doorway during the shooting, that he didn't pose for the Backyard photos, that he didn't tell Frazier anything about curtain rods, that the only thing be brought with him to work on Friday was a sack lunch, etc. Right away, the lawyer would have known that Oswald was being framed and by the FBI. And there was no gag order in place; he could have gone public with it. Do you understand now why they couldn't let Oswald even talk to a lawyer once, let alone to go trial?  

Yet, Oswald was publicly screaming bloody murder over his being denied a lawyer. He devoted his entire MPC speech to it, short as it was. He did so much damage that they had to do damage-control the next day by tricking H Louis Nichols into thinking that he met with Oswald, when it was really an Oswald-double. It was very late in the day, and Oswald had already been brought down to the third floor for his Saturday evening interrogation.  So, this is what Oswald was doing when Nichols met with the Oswald double.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04aL80prg7U&t=3s

Oswald would NEVER have turned down an attorney. He wasn't an idiot. The idea that he would have declined a Texas lawyer is preposterous. And remember that in his public appeals, Oswald asked for "a" lawyer, not any specific one. 

But, the Dallas Police and FBI were running out of time. If they didn't let Oswald speak to a lawyer soon, it would have been obvious to the whole world that they were denying him his Constitutional rights. 

And that's when they supposedly got lucky when Jack Ruby saved them by killing Oswald for them. Except: luck had nothing to do with it. And no, they weren't working with Ruby. Had they been working with Ruby, they would have had to kill him straight-away. Ruby was set up. He wasn't working with anybody, and he didn't know anything. And he was too mentally impaired to figure out anything afterwards. They used the Karen Carlin ruse to get him to Western Union, which was essentially a block away. And they got him there heavily drugged. 

So, how did they get him to go from Western Union to the police garage? One of the drugs they gave him was Scopolamine which makes a person VERY conducive to suggestion. With him high on that, all they had to do was have someone in Western Union suggest that he walk over to the ramp and see what was going on. And the people gathered there had no reason to be there because it was an incoming ramp. Who were they waiting for to arrive? Elvis? There was nobody. They were just there to be a magnet for Ruby. So, when Ruby got there, somebody must have nudged him to go down the ramp, and he did. This was before Roy Vaughn was placed there. 

So, Ruby got to the gathering, where he was jumped by the police. This was about an hour before the televised spectacle. Ruby didn't know why they were jumping him, so he asked, "What are you doing? You know me. I'm Jack Ruby. I'm not some criminal." They hustled him up to the 5th floor, and that's where they told him that he shot Oswald.  Then, they took his clothes from him and kept him in his underwear. They put on the Garage Spectacle, with FBI Agent James Bookhout filling in for Ruby. There was no shooting in the garage. That was all theater. There wasn't a drop of blood. Oswald was shot elsewhere, presumably, inside the PD.  

And if you listen to the radio broadcasts from that Sunday morning, prior to the jail transfer, spokesmen for the Dallas Police all but said there was going to be a shooting. They knew there was going to be one because they planned it. 

This is the effect of Scopolamine. This is how your eyes look when you're high on it.  

My Refutation of James Fetzer 

by Ralph Cinque

Jim Fetzer and I agree about some things, such as, that Lee Harvey Oswald was standing in the doorway of the Book Depository during the JFK assassination, and that Jack Ruby did not shoot Oswald, that Ruby was being detained already up on the 5th floor, and FBI Agent James Bookhout masqueraded as him at the Garage Spectacle. 

However, there are some things we disagree about, and foremost is the explanation for the shot that hit JFK in the back, just to the right of the third thoracic vertebra. 

The diagram was made by Dr. George Burkley, who attended the autopsy at Bethesda. And what he and the other doctors found was a clean round entrance wound with a prominent abrasion collar that lacked any missile. They probed it with their pinkies. It went an inch and a half and then seemed to stop. 

And they thought the neck wound was just a tracheotomy. It wasn't until the next day, when Humes spoke to Perry, that the former found out that there had been a bullet wound there. 

So, at the time, what did Humes think caused the breathing obstruction that necessitated the tracheotomy? What did he think JFK was choking on?  I can't answer that, and I don't know that he ever said. 

But, I do know that the admirals in the room wouldn't let him dissect JFK's back to find out where the back wound went. The next day, after talking to Perry, Humes accepted the wild theory that the apparently shallow back wound actually traversed JFK's body and exited his throat. At the time, there was no talk of it going on to traverse Connally. That didn't come until 5 months later with Arlen Specter. 

But, if they thought that, why didn't they go back and open up Kennedy just to prove it? Neither I nor anyone else can answer that. 

And no spectator reported seeing Kennedy being shot in the back. Of course, the story became that the back shot and the throat shot were one, and spectators did report seeing JFK raise his hands to his throat. However, Fetzer and I agree that the back shot was a separate shot that came well before the throat shot. So, when JFK was shot in the back, it should have been seen and heard, right? So, why didn't spectators report it? 

Jim thinks that JFK was shot in the back with an FMJ bullet that was sabotted. A sabot is a supportive device that is used to make a small bullet fit a weapon with a larger bore. According to Fetzer, the purpose of the back shot was to implant one of Oswald's bullets into Kennedy.  Hmm. Then, why did they need a sabot? Why didn't they use the same kind of weapon as Oswald's supposed rifle? (He didn't actually own a rifle.) But, if planting one of Oswald's bullets into Kennedy was the goal, they certainly didn't need a sabot. 

As it turned out, the missile, whatever it was, did very little damage because it didn't penetrate very far, and it did not strike any vital tissue. It only went through skin, fascia and muscle. If it had gone deeper, it would have entered his lung, and obviously, that would have been serious. It wouldn't necessarily have killed him, but it could have. 

So, why speak of planting one of Oswald's bullets into Kennedy? Why not just kill him with it? According to Fetzer, they used old ammunition from the 1940s, and the charge was so weak, that it ran out of energy and was stopped by JFK's soft tissues. But, does Jim think they deliberately did that because all they wanted to do was plant the bullet and not actually hurt him? Or does he think they did it out of stupidity by using old expired ammunition? I can't say for sure, but since Jim has expressed their intention as just wanting to plant an Oswald bullet into Kennedy. So, it sounds like he thinks they did it on purpose. However, it doesn't make a lick of sense because they could have easily done both: planted an Oswald bullet into Kennedy and killed him with it. I mean, why not?

However, if the bullet's energy was so weak as to be stopped in an inch and a half of travel thru JFK's soft tissues, then it never would have reached him in the first place. If it's propulsive force was that weak, gravity would have brought it down before it ever reached Kennedy. There would have been no way to control and deliver such a defective bullet to its target with such a weak charge.   

If JFK's tissues were resistant enough to stop the bullet in an inch and a half, that they would have taken it out on the bullet, meaning, it would have mushroomed. But, Fetzer maintains that the unspoiled "Magic Bullet" was the bullet that stopped short in JFK's back. 

And what happened to the bullet? According to Jim, it fell out and was found on the floor of the limo. Try to picture that. JFK is shot in the back through 3 layers of closing. Then, somehow, the bullet comes out of his back, through the three holes in the three garments, which conveniently remained aligned. And then it fell to the seat and then somehow went from there to the floor. 

There is an alternative story to that by SS Agent Paul Landis who claimed that the bullet came out of Kennedy's back and got stuck in the upright back support of the seat, and that he took it into the hospital. He didn't make this claim until 55 years later. I give no credence to his story or Fetzer's. 

So, what really happened? What really happened is that JFK was hit in the back high on the hill on Elm Street just past the intersection. He wasn't hit with a metal bullet. It was made of ice, and it contained one or more toxic agents, which undoubtedly included a nerve agent. And we we can see the effects of that nerve agent in the Zapruder film, where JFK lost control of his muscles. 

What you are seeing there is JFK's inability to release his arms; to put them down. Poor Jackie is trying to coax his arm down, but to no avail. It is a neuromuscular disorder; the toxic effect of a nerve agent. But, that's only part of the spectrum of what happened to him. He also suffered a complete mental collapse, where his ability to be aware of what was happening, to respond to it, and to communicate completely vanished. It was like a chemical lobotomy. JFK never said anything after being shot in the back. There was the lie by Roy Kellerman that Kennedy yelled, "I've been hit!" but that never happened, and it's widely accepted that it never happened. The last words that Kennedy spoke in his life were to Nellie Connally, who said to him, "You can't say that Texans haven't turned out for you." to which he responded, "I certainly can't." Those were his last words. 

So, what happened to the ice bullet after it struck Kennedy is that it burst. Ice is very hard, but it is also unstable. It's a delicate gem-like structure; a crystal. It is the crystalline form of water. There is a lot of space between the hydrogen and oxygen atoms. Haven't you had the experience of having an ice cube burst when digging it out of its tray? It's startling when it happens. I can remember being startled by it as a young boy. It really scared me for a second. And then I wondered: where did the ice cube go? In this case, the bursting of the ice bullet was planned. It was intentional. I'm sure that years of experimentation went into this and probably using human subjects.  Do you know about the Edgewood Arsenal? That's where the Nazi weapons engineers and scientists were set up to do their nefarious work- now on our behalf. That's probably where the "heart attack gun" was developed. 

That was a real. operative weapon, made public by the Church Committee in 1975. It was battery-operated with a range of 150 yards. It delivered an ice flechette laced with poison. It could deliver a drug that would mimic a natural heart attack. It could also deliver a nerve agent, such as paralytic shellfish toxin. Its impact felt like nothing more than a mosquito bite. It's very likely that a gun like that was used on JFK to deliver the nerve agent and whatever else was in that toxic brew that they shot into him high on the hill.

Jackie knew that there was something wrong with JFK long before he was shot in the throat. She said in her WC testimony that the first thing she noticed was that he had a "quizzical" look on his face. And she was turned looking at him before the limo reached the phony freeway sign in the Zapruder film. 

Here is Z-193. Observe that she has stopped working her side of the street. Instead, she is turned and looking at her husband.

Notice that the back of her pill-box hat is facing the south side of Elm. Her face is facing JFK. She is looking at him. So, why is she doing that? She was a political wife, and this was a political trip. It was all about winning Texas in the upcoming election. So, why did she stop doing her job? It's because she knew there was something wrong with her husband. Now, regarding his image, it can't be trusted. They did a lot of alterations. 

Does that look like authentic photography to you? It doesn't to me. I think the paint came out. Here's another:

 So, that's frame 205, and it looks like Kennedy put his hand over  his face. I'm sure he didn't do that. Paint, paint, paint. He surely had a distressed look on his face, due to the powerful changes that were taking place within him from the poisoning he underwent. 

The biggest challenge they had with the Zapruder film was to remove the visible signs that JFK was shot in the back long before he was shot in the throat.  

You can also see Jackie looking at JFK in the Willis photo that was taken right before the throat shot.

There, you can plainly see that Jackie was not working her side of the street. She is turned and looking at JFK. And it's widely agreed that this was before the throat shot. So, supposedly, he hasn't been shot at all yet. However, I'm telling you that he was already shot in the back. It happened shortly before the Croft photo.

That is a phony image of Jackie's face. I know where they got it from. It was from a televised program in December in which Jackie thanked Americans for their cards and letters. 

That's the same image, horizontally flipped. 

Why would she have had an expression like that there? If nothing has happened yet, why isn't she smiling and waving and beaming? Why does her hair look so freaky and unnatural? Look at that sharp angle on our right? Does hair behave like that? Of course not. They were using her hair to cover up JFK's face. He was no doubt reacting to being shot in the back there. Maybe his mouth was open, and no doubt his eyes were open too. probably with a startled look. They doctored the hell out of that photo. 

Nothing but poisoning can explain JFK's muscular dyskinesia and complete mental collapse, as seen in the Zapruder film. Trauma cannot explain it. The only trauma he received to that point was a shallow, innocuous wound in his back, and a trauma to his throat in which his trachea was damaged, and he had a mild contusion on his lung, but neither of these could have impaired his muscular system or his mind. Only poisoning can explain his freakishly bizarre behavior, as seen in the Zapruder film. 

Now, let's finish on Fetzer. His absurd explanation to account for the back shot, that it was a sabotted bullet intended to plant an Oswald bullet into Kennedy just for show, not to harm him, is ridiculous. It is preposterous. His claim that the bullet fell out and wound up on the floor of the limo is preposterous. His claim that a weak bullet with insufficient charge could have reached JFK at all is preposterous. His claim that they used expired ammunition from the 1940s is preposterous. Everything about his explanation is preposterous. 

The first person that I know of to suggest that JFK was hit with a drug-laced ice bullet was Steve Kober, and you can read his explanation on Education Forum. Thank you, Steve. 

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/15516-jfk-hit-with-paralysising-ice-bullet/

 

 

You should read this narrative by Oswald's doctors who describe the condition he was in when he got to them.  And that condition was: very close to death. He was exsanguinated. He had lost practically all of his blood. And he showed the signs of a person who was very close to death. It was hopeless. 

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1963/11/24/Physician-says-Oswald-lethally-injured-by-time-he-arrived/8181204553842/

But, what I want you to realize is that a person in that condition is going to look ghastly. I could even say ghostly, as in white as a sheet. Oswald, at the time, was moribund, meaning very close to death. 

Yet, this is the final image of Oswald, and he doesn't look anything close to that. This man on the stretcher isn't Oswald. It is a staged photo, taken afterwards, and nothing about it makes sense. Presumably, Michael Hardin, the ambulance driver is pushing the stretcher, but he has his hand on Oswald's raised right forearm. How could he be pushing on it when the result would be to push the arm down? What is holding Oswald's arm up? And how could Oswald be making a fist? An exsanguinated person can't do that. And Detective Charles Dhority is clutching Oswald's left hand, but why? And how? How could they be going anywhere when Dhority has got Oswald's hand? Are they supposed to all be in motion together? Who would move that way? But, they are obviously not in motion. It is a staged photo. 

And one final thing: Why isn't Harold Wayne Wolfe, who was Herdon's assistant, not there at the foot of the stretcher? Why is it another man, whose back is conveniently to us, so that we can't see who he is? It indicates that they couldn't get Wolfe for this reenactment.  Are you aware that both Hardin and Wolfe died suspicious deaths? Hardin, supposedly, died of a heart attack at age 39. I realize that that can happen, but it is exceedingly rare. Plus, you can see how slender he was. Mathematically speaking, the odds of him having a heart attack at 39 were infinitesimal. Wolfe supposedly committed suicide even though he was the father of three sons. 

The conclusion from all this is that they didn't want to show us a real photo of Oswald upon arriving at Parkland precisely because he looked so bad, so ghastly, it may have generated sympathy for him and even more questions about how he died. So, they made this phony one. 

The Dallas Police, in conjunction with the FBI, murdered Oswald. The Garage Spectacle was just theater; he wasn't shot then. He was shot afterwards in the PD. They had silencers for 38s back then. And Jack Ruby had no involvement in it. He was already upstairs being held on the 5th floor. He got there much earlier than 11:17. Ruby told the Warren Commissioners that he sent the money wire to Karen Carlin at 10:15, and he was right. A Secret Service agent corrected him right away, but Ruby had it right. He was upstairs in the 5th floor jail, reduced to his underwear, at the time the Garage Spectacle went down.