The testimony of James Leavelle is astonishing. For years, I have said that if they were concerned that someone would try to kill Oswald, why not move him in the dead of night with no fanfare?
Well, Leavelle claimed to have a different but related idea. He said he recommended to Fritz that they just stand up the reporters and spectators and sneak Oswald out another way.

Mr. LEAVELLE. I earlier suggested to Captain Fritz that we make the suggestion to the Chief that we take him out to the first floor and put him out at Main Street to a car and proceed to the County Jail that way and leave them waiting in the basement and on Commerce Street, and we could be to the County Jail before anyone knew what was taking place.
Mr. HUBERT. What time did you make that suggestion, Sir?
Mr. LEAVELLE. That was either just before or just after--probably just after I had gone there and got Oswald and we were talking about the transfer. Mr. HUBERT. Who did you make that suggestion to?
Mr. LEAVELLE. I made it to Captain Fritz.
Mr. HUBERT. What answer did you receive from him?
Mr. LEAVELLE. He said he didn't think the Chief would go for it.
Mr. HUBERT. Did he say why?
Mr. LEAVELLE. Because, he said, the Chief had given his word to the Press that they would transfer him at a time when they could make pictures.

What? The Press had been making pictures of Oswald all weekend, including at the Midnight Press conference. Leavelle attended it, wearing a dark suit.
Oswald was arraigned for Tippit's murder before the MPC, and he was arraigned for JFK's murder right after it. Prisoners usually get transferred to the County Jail right after their arraignment.

So, why didn't they transfer Oswald on Saturday? They transferred Ruby to the County Jail the very next day, so why not Oswald?
Leavelle even wore his Easter suit on Saturday. What does that tell you? It tells me that they were considering making the transfer on Saturday, and in the same way, and with the same outcome.
Hubert asked Leavelle if he told the FBI the same thing, that he wanted to sneak Oswald out privately, and Leavelle said he did. But then, Hubert produced his two statements to the FBI, and he didn't. Look how that lying bastard squirmed.

Mr. LEAVELLE. Well, to the best of my knowledge it seems as though I might have made that suggestion, made the reference to that, but whether whoever was taking it said that they didn't need it in their report. I'm sure that's--now, of course, I can't swear to this, but I think that is correct because I know I--I am not able to recall at this time exactly what the conversation was between myself and the agent--I--in this, in its entirety, I do know there was one or two things that I told them about, which they did say that they didn't think was necessary for their report, so, they did not put it in there. Now, whether that was one of them or not, I do not recall.

This is what Leavelle said about how they moved Ruby on Monday.

Mr. LEAVELLE. We went up Commerce to the Pearl Expressway and cut back on the expressway to Main Street, and came down Main Street to Houston Street where the jail is located, and around the corner on Houston Street, to the entrance of the County Jail.
Mr. HUBERT. Did you have any trouble with the traffic going down Main Street?
Mr. LEAVELLE. We caught every light green going down. Didn't have to stop.

What? Commerce and Main were and are parallel and adjacent. So, was there a freeway on-ramp and a freeway off-ramp just a block apart? I've never heard of such a thing.

But, why didn't they turn left on the first street they got to and just go around the block? Or, if it was one-way and the wrong way, they could take the next one. Whether for Oswald or Ruby, why make a big loop?

And in Oswald's case, he was bleeding to death. So, since Commerce was closed to regular traffic- and we have the footage to prove it- they should have turned right on Commerce to Harwood. There's no excuse for not doing it, and it means they were trying to kill Oswald.

 So, this is the ambulance driver Michael Hardin's testimony about how he went to Parkland:

Mr. HARDIN: We went east on Commerce to the Pearl Expressway, and north on the expressway to Elm, and then west on Elm to Harwood, and then north on Harwood to Harry Hines, and north on Harry Hines to Parkland.

Mr. HUBERT. And what happened when you got to Parkland?

Notice that Mr. Hubert of the Warren Commission didn't dwell on why Hardin went that way. He didn't ask him if it was the fastest route. No, he very much wanted to change the subject.

But, I am attaching a map of what Hardin did, which shows that he made a totally unnecessary loop. That loop marked by the three red arrows was totally unnecessary and superfluous. He easily could have turned right on Commerce, then right again on Harwood and been right where that long loop was going to take him.

So, why did he go that way? He was an ambulance driver in an emergency, which meant that he did not have to obey traffic laws. Someone's life was on the line.

But, who was calling the shots? Detectives Leavelle and Dhority were in the ambulance. Graves was supposed to be too, but he lied. There wasn't even room for him. He drove a police car to the hospital and lied about it to the Warren Commission.

So, did Leavelle and Dhority order Hardin to turn left on Commerce and go the way that he did? They had to wait for the armored truck to be moved out of the way. So, they could have told him then to just turn right on Commerce. After all, they were Dallas cops, and they certainly knew their way around the city. They had to know that Hardin to Harry Hines was the straight shot to Parkland Hospital.

So, I think it's likely that they ordered him to go the way that he did. But again, it doesn't matter because: ANYTHING LESS THAN ORDERING HIM TO TURN RIGHT TO HARWOOD WAS COMPLICITY IN OSWALD'S DEATH. They should have made sure that he did it, regardess of what he thought.

So, now you know that the Dallas Police were involved in killing Oswald. But, did they conspire with Ruby to do it? No! Their plan for Ruby was for him to be convicted and electrocuted. Would you participate in a plan that was seeking for you to fry? Of course not. Well, neither would Ruby. They weren't conspiring with him. They conspired against him. They tricked him into believing that he shot Oswald.

If they had conspired with him, they would have had to kill him forthwith. How could they trust him to keep his mouth shut and put on an act for the rest of his life? To lie to his family, his friends, his interrogators, and his lawyers? How long could he have kept that up before spilling the beans? Would they have taken that chance? To rely on and trust Jack Ruby to keep up the non-stop act, the non-stop lie just to protect them? What if he changed his mind? People have been known to do that. Do you think they were going to go to bed each night wondering if tomorrow would be the day that Jack Ruby squeals?

No way. The reason Jack Ruby was allowed to live for 3 years is because he had nothing to tell.

What I, and Dee McFarlane and Shaun Horrigan have been telling you is the truth. Jack Ruby was innocent.

It's a new year. So, I say we start it on a note of truth and defiance that both Oswald and Ruby were innocent. We should do it for them- and for ourselves.

 This is the ambulance with Oswald turning left on Commerce St. They drove all the way down to the Pearl Freeway, even though it was the wrong direction. All they had to do was turn right on Commerce and go about 150 feet to the corner of Harwood and turn right. Then, going north on Harwood, it would have been a straight shot to Parkland Hospitald, practically like the crow flies.

I realize that Commerce was a one-way street, but it was closed off. There was no chance of any traffic. It was absolutely unobstructed for them to turn right to Harwood. So, why didn't they do it?

It was to let Oswald bleed out. They didn't want to get him there too soon. They wanted to make sure doctors couldn't save him.

If you don't believe me, look at a Dallas city map. You'll see what I mean.

 Amidst all the lies about Ruby being a gangster, a hit man, and a violent person who threw people down the stairs, you should listen to Bill DeMar. He was an MC and entertainer for Ruby at the Carousel Club, and he was interviewed by Dan Rather on the day Oswald was killed.

Rather asked him if Ruby was violent, and DeMar recoiled. He was unable to ascribe a single violent act to Ruby. He said that Ruby "could act a little harshly sometimes." That's the worst he could come up with. When Rather asked him to elaborate, DeMar said that "when customers got a little out of hand, he was ready to put them out."

What does that mean? I assume it means he ordered them to leave. I don't assume it means he threw them down the stairs. If that's what DeMar meant, that's what he would have said. DeMar comes across as being very honest, level-headed, and candid. And I don't think he would have trivilized throwing someone down the stairs. The whole tone of his response was defensive towards Ruby. He said he thought of him more as a friend than an employer.

Rather asked him if he ever saw underworld types at the Carouself Club, and DeMar said, categorically, no. He sounded adamant about that.

Rather asked him if he ever saw Oswald there, and DeMar said yes, and he was decisive about it. He wasn't adamant, but he was confident. The right conclusion to draw from that is that "Lee" went there, meaning Lee from the John Armstrong lexicon, referring to the original LHO, who was born with that name in New Orleans, but not the Oswald of fame, who went to Russia, who was "Harvey." And it is very significant that Lee went there because it shows that, even beforehand, they sought to link Ruby and Oswald, that they were writing the narrative in advance.

DeMar said that Oswald volunteered to be in one of his stage acts. Would the Oswald of fame have done that? No way! You know how reclusive he was at the TSBD. Lee was trying to grab attention and stand out, to DeMar and perhaps others.

This interview of Bill DeMar may be the closest thing we have to an authentic portrait of Jack Ruby. It shows that he was garrulous and rambunctious, but not violent.

It's also significant that DeMar attributed mental flightiness to Ruby, with rapid speech and frequent subject changes. It sounds like mania. Ruby wasn't right in his head. There's no doubt about that. But, he was not violent, and he was not a Mafioso. I give a high degree of credibility and reliability to Bill DeMar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7e_7tm352g&t=324s

 Watch this interview of Jim Leavelle. At the 5 minute mark, the interviewer asked him if he recognized Ruby as soon as he saw him, and Leavelle said, "Yes, I've known Jack Ruby for years, and I recognized him as soon as he emerged from the crowd."

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

But now, read what Leavelle said at Ruby's trial. Mr. Alexander asked: “Did you recognize the man who fired the shot as Jack Ruby ?” Mt. Leavelle: “No, sir, I recognized him as someone I knew. But I couldn't recall his name right at the minute.” But, that was a very big lie, and not just because he knew Jack Ruby, but because the films show us that he never even looked in the direction of the Shooter until after the gun went off. I am attaching a frame of the moment of impact. Leavelle said that before the shot went off he tried to jerk Oswald behind him. Read this quote of his testimony. "I had pulled Lee Harvey Oswald so that I was between this man and Oswald." He was not. Look at the frame. Leavelle was on the other side of Oswald. And he took no action whatsoever against the Shooter until after the shot went off.

Leavelle also said that he struck Ruby on his left shoulder with his open hand, and he demonstrated it, like a thump. But again: it was a total lie. He never did that, not before the shot and not after the shot. After the Shooter fired at Oswald from the side, he jumped in front of him, which put his back to the cameras. Shortly after that, he dove into the circle of police. And when he did that, Leavelle grabbed him by the nape of the neck. So, everything Leavelle said about his response to the incoming attack was a lie. He did none of the thing he claimed, and he deliberately looked the other way, so as not to see the Shooter or interfere with him until after the shot went off.

And that was true of all of them. The Shooter brushed right in front of Graves, and Graves didn't stop him or even act like he saw him. How do you not see someone who is moving right in front of you? The story of the shooting of Oswald is a lie, a State lie. And if you have even a speck of defiance and courage in you, you are going to stand up to it.

 Had Ruby shot Oswald, he could not have fired his Colt Cobra with his middle finger because his index finger would have been burnt. That's because there was no place else to put his index finger except next to the barrel, and here's what happens if you do that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFBAcz16GvU&t=73s

 The hand of Oswald on his chest in the Jackson photo really is a monstrosity. It is grotesque, and it is screaming out loud that the photo was tampered with. And to demonstrate that, I have a drawn a line across his wrist. I want you to compare it to the line across my wrist, next to it, which didn't need any drawing because you can plainly see it.

Now, there are people who are going to say that there is some other material from his sweater that is covering his wrist, but look at my wrist and you'll see that that isn't possible. The shirt, or the sweater, fits snugly, and there is no other material that could cover his wrist. It is an exceedingly grotesque visual of a hand and wrist, and if you compare it to other images of hands and wrists, you'll realize how freaky it is.

And that was as visible and apparent in 1963 as it is today. So, how could people not see it? How could Ruby's lawyers not see it?
Well, that is a question for Sociology. But, the short answer is that when "group-think" takes over, it's like the movement of a herd. It's like lemmings going over a cliff. The belief that Ruby shot Oswald was presented without any alternatives, and without any that people could even imagine. They couldn't imagine that the Dallas Police killed Oswald and framed Ruby. That idea didn't exist even as a theoretical possibility. And that is why the grotesque abnormalities in the photographic record of the Oswald shooting went unnoticed and unseen.

But, that was 1963, and this is 2025. There's no excuse for not seeing it today. And the implications are that the State killed Oswald, after having killed Kennedy. So, when I say that the Dallas Police killed Oswald, I don't mean that they did it as their own, personal vendetta. There is no way they would have done that. I mean that they did it as agents of the State, of the federal government, and of President Lyndon Baines Johnson, who put them up to it as their Commander in Chief. They were all ex-military guys. There is no way they would have done it otherwise. LBJ is the one who ordered it, sanctioned it, and legitimized it.

What kind of year is 2025 going to be- for you? Of coruse, I don't know, but I hope it's a good year for you. But, what I really mean is, what kind of development and awakening are you going to have in 2025? And I suggest that having an awakening about the JFK assassination might be liberating. It might change the way you look at a lot of things.

Looking at these images, it's clear that the one on the left isn't right. And, it's also clear that there is no innocent explanation for it. Don't listen to those who tell you to brush it off. Don't accept their lame excuses for why it looks the way it does. Let's be defiant and demand an end to the lies-and for our own sake.

 The truth is that there is no excuse for the weird configuration of Leavelle's arm. An arm is an arm. It comes down from the shoulder. There is nothing that could create the weird geometry we see on the left.

And surely if someone thinks otherwise, they need to get a camera out and reproduce it.

The reason why it was ever accepted is because people were looking at the image as a whole and taking in the whole story. In doing so, they brushed off the weird look of that arm. I'm saying we can't brush it off because it is screaming at us that something is wrong with the image. And if there is something wrong with the image, then there is something wrong with the story.

I"m telling you that there is no lip-flapping that can make this all right. It is not all right. And it is just one of many reasons to reject the claim that Jack Ruby shot Lee Harvey Oswald.

 Roger Scott Cathey asked me to redo my posing as the stricken Oswald in the Jackson photo, and I have done so. He wanted my right hand to be higher, like Oswald's is, and I have done that.

There are still some very important differences. My left thumb on my chest is not turned as much as his, and that's because it's impossible to turn it as much as his. One doesn't have a muscle with which to do it. In fact, you can't even twist it that way with your other hand.

And the same goes for my right thumb, which I couldn't turn as much as his because it just isn't possible. So, you see that my nail is sideways, compared to his. His exposes much more of the nail. His puts the nail above the pad of the thumb, while on me, they are side by side. It is a joint limitation.

And notice that my left sleeve goes straight across, and his does too. So, what is that weird jog that the material makes on him? It's nothing real. No, it is not a fold in the sweater. It's actually the sleeve of the right arm. It took a long time to figure that out, and Craig Roberts is the one who did it.

But now, I want to point out that it is beholden on my adversaries to duplicate the photo. They're the ones who are claiming that it's natural, spontaneous, and unmanipulated. Of course, it's absolutely impossible to do it without manipulation. My pose is manipulated too. I was manipulating my hands to try to match Oswald. If I were just slapping my left arm to my chest and thrusting my right hand forward, it wouldn't look anything like that. In other words, I wouldn't contort my hands, and I couldn't contort my hands without thinking about. And that's another mark against the Jackson photo because why, upon being shot, would Oswald think about what he was doing with his hands? Of course, he wouldn't. And it couldn't come to that without thinking about it.

However, I don't mind if my adversaries try to contrive the look of Oswald because I had to contrive it just to try to get close to it. Human anatomy is what it is, and you can't do the impossible.

But, the chilling thing is that my adversaries may have tried. They may have tried to duplicate it, if only in the mirror, but then not submitted anything because they failed to produce anything good.

But, if that's the case, shouldn't they admit it? Shouldn't they admit that I am right, that duplicating Oswald's geometry in the Jackson photo is impossible?

So, now their lack of submissions takes a darker tone. It's possible that they know that I'm right that reproducing the Jackson photo is impossible. And if it's a bogus image, it means that it is a bogus story. It means that Jack Ruby is innocent, just as I have been saying. And it means that they are willing to be accessories to the cover-up that has been going on for 61 years.

 This is Marina's Warren Commission testimony in which gave a minute by minute account of what happened to her on Sunday. And you'll notice that she didn't say anything about going to the hospital to view her dead husband.

I pointed out that in the picture I posted, the child that Marina is walking with could not possibly be 17 month old June. I also said that the tube that Marguerite was carrying was not newborn Rachel. And besides that photo, there is a film of them walking into Parkland, and Marguerite is carrying Rachel differently, more horizontally and without the tight wrap. So, which is the real and which is the fake? They're both fake.

From looking at the film, it looks like them, and it may have been a reenactment. I know there was a reeanactment because Michael Hardin's hair is very different from how it was on November 24.

I'm going to post Marina's testimony, but first, let me tell you that I don't think they wanted her to view Oswald's body. I think that even if she had asked to, they would have said no. And that's because they had already begun the process of extracting her from her old life. They didn't even want her to be around Ruth Paine, let alone her dead husband. Imagine if she had seen his mangled, frightening, grotesque body. It would have provoked feelings of pity for him, and they didn't want that.

They were immersing her in a new world in which "Oswald as monster" was the theme of it. They wanted her to jettison any and all tender feelings she had for him. They wanted her to leave him behind as she entered this new world in which Lee Harvey Oswald was a psychotic psychopath. And that's why they didn't want her crying over his dead body.

But, the idea that they, the Secret Service, did that for her, took her to view his body, had PR value for them. It made them look like they were sensitive and compassionate and were trying to serve her. So, that's why they faked it. Here now is her testimony:

Mrs. Oswald: I remember that en route, in the car, Mike Howard or Charley Kunkel said that Lee had been shot today.
At first he said that it wasn't serious--perhaps just not to frighten me. I was told that he had been taken to a hospital, and then I was told that he had been seriously wounded.
Then they had to telephone somewhere. They stopped at the house of the chief of police, Curry. From there, I telephoned Ruth to tell her that I wanted to take several things which I needed with me, and asked her to prepare them. And that there was a wallet with money and Lee's ring.
Soon after that--Robert was no longer with me, but Gregory was there, and the mother, and the Secret Service agents. They said that Lee had died.
After that, we went to the Motel Inn, the Six Flags Inn, where I stayed for several days--perhaps two weeks--I don't know.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall what time of the day you heard that your husband had been shot?
Mrs. OSWALD. Two o'clock in the afternoon, I think.
Mr. RANKIN. And where were you at that time?
Mrs. OSWALD. I was in a car.
Mr. RANKIN. Just riding around, or at some particular place?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, not at two o'clock earlier. Lee was shot at 11 o'clock. It was probably close to 12 o'clock. He died at one.
Mr. RANKIN. And where was the car that you were in at that time?
Mrs. OSWALD. We were on the way to Chief Curry, en route front the hotel.
Mr. RANKIN. What did you do after you went to the motel?
Mrs. OSWALD. I left with Robert and we prepared for the funeral. Then Ruth Paine sent my things to me via the agent.

All the federal secret agencies, the CIA, FBI, and SS, were involved in killing Oswald, as I'll explain.

As for the CIA, their job was to MK-ULTRA Ruby. We don't know who Ruby's Dallas doctor was, but we do know that he had Ruby on amphetamines, supposedly, for weight loss. That wasn't a standard medical practice even then. Then, after the spectacle, it was their Dr. Louis Joylan West, the "Maestro of Mind Control," who treated Ruby.

And I'm sure it involved more than just drugs. Ruby's "respect" for the Dallas Police, if you want to call it that, went over the top. But, they knew they needed it because the Dallas Police were going to tell Ruby that he shot Oswald, when he didn't, and they needed him to be totally submissive to them. And I mean in a Manchurian candidate way.

I suspect that the conditioning of Ruby to play the role he ultimately played started long before the assassination. But, I admit there is a lot I don't know.

The FBI was involved in the killing of Oswald because they provided James Bookhout to masquerade as Ruby. But, I dare say they also provided James Hosty to masquerade as Blackie Harrison. And, I know why Blackie wasn't available. It was because he was busy processing Ruby up on the 5th floor. If you read his testimony, you'll learn a lot. And note that Blackie was another one who showed up a Nervous Nellie with a lawyer at his side.

But, here is Leonid Brezhnev and James Hosty, and it's a match.

They probably did little things with paint to distinguish Leonid on the left. Still, that is the same guy. They may have been covering up Hosty's flabby neck with the Groucho Marx imitation.

Then, there was the Secret Service, which did two things. They provided Forrest Sorrell, who was the top SS agent in Dallas, to mind Ruby during the Spectacle. And, they had several SS agents take control of Marina Oswald.

Recall the story of the generous LIFE magazine reporters who transported Marina to Dallas to visit Oswald, with a stop at their hotel suite first, which was at the Adolphus Hotel. And they went back there after the visit. But then, they decided that there were too many reporters there, so they had better move her to a quiet hotel on the outskirts of Dallas, the Executive Inn.

WHAT THE MOTHERFOLK???? Marina had a home. She lived with Ruth Paine. Why didn't they just take her home? And why did they think that they could get away with just saying that they took her to a hotel for no reason? And once they moved her into that hotel, the LIFE reporters left. That's when they turned the mission over to the Secret Service, who guarded the hotel all night and came knocking the next morning to put Marina under their total control. There wasn't even any discussion of returning her to Ruth Paine's house. They wouldn't even let her go there to get her stuff. They agreed to let her give them a list of stuff for an agent to go over there and get. She couldn't go there. They wouldn't allow that.

And all this went down BEFORE Oswald was killed. The Secret Service took possession of Marina BEFORE Oswald was shot.

Then, they were involved in faking her visit to Parkland Hospital to see Oswald's dead body. Marina NEVER said that she did that. You only have to read her WC testimony, and you'll see that she went from the Executive Inn to the home of Chief Curry, and then after she was told that Oswald had died, she was taken to the Inn of the Six Flags. She was not taken to Parkland Hospital that day, although they shot some footage of it later. This is a photo of Marina supposedly walking into Parkland Hospital with SS agents behind her on 11/24/63. That child wearing jeans and sneakers is supposed to be her daughter June, who was 17 months old.

Does that kid on the inside of Marina look like she's 17 months old? She's looks like she could be playing AYSO soccer. And Marguerite is not holding newborn Rachel. Babies have to breathe, and nobody would bound a baby like it was stuffed in a pretzel can and deprive it of oxygen. You don't see any baby because there was no baby. This was another photo-op, but very stupidly done.

And of course, LBJ was also involved in the Oswald shooting because he, no doubt, put the Dallas Police up to doing it. Those detectives were all ex-military, including Fritz himself, and this was a mission that their Commander in Chief gave them, to kill Oswald.

So, basically, the U.S. federal government, with the help of the Dallas Police, killed Oswald. Why? It's because the U.S. federal government killed Kennedy. Ruby was just a patsy, and he was not in the garage at the time. He was already tucked away on the 5th floor, until it was time to slip him into the story and complete the bait and switch. That is what happened. And there is no denying it

On the left are newlyweds who are holding hands, and the mechanics of what the young husband is doing with his left arm and hand are very similar to what Leavelle is supposed to be doing with Oswald.

And notice that on the young husband we can see his upper arm, then a slight bend in his elbow, and then his forearm coming down. It's all there without any weird stuff.

That's normal. That's real life. What we're seeing in the Jackson photo, with the weird indentation below Leavelle's shoulder, and then a separate and independent appendage coming out of nowhere with no relation to the rest of him, that is NOT real life. That is JFK land, which is filled with images like this. There is no valid reason why Leavelle's arm should look so freaky. It should look pretty much the same as the young man's.

And to my adversaries, I don't care about your lip-flapping. You can keep your lame excuses to yourself. If you think that Leavelle in the Jackson photo is legitimate, then get your phone or camera out and duplicate it. That is the only thing that will have any say. And I will take the liberty to hide any inane comments, which is an option I have. You'll still see your comment and so will people who are friends with you. But, no one else will see it.

 This is another recreation of Leavelle with his hand in Oswald's pants. Since a man's arm is longer than the belt-level of a man's pants, it means the elbow has to be bent. And you can see that my elbow is bent, as I pretend to do it. There is no weird crease or fold between my shoulder and my elbow. But, on Leavelle, there is, and it isn't normal.

But, you should also compare the length of Leavelle's two arms. Can you see that his right arm, which is on our left, is much longer than his left arm? And that is one thing that is symmetrical about men: the length of their arms.

No one else who tried to duplicate Leavelle's left arm could do any better. It is a monstrosity.

Hear me when I tell you that Jack Ruby was innocent, and the Dallas Police framed him and killed Oswald. And they got away with it for 50 years.

If you look at James Bookhout's obituary, you'll see that no photograph of him was included.

https://obits.dallasnews.com/us/obituaries/dallasmorningnews/name/james-bookhout-obituary?id=24232344

I'm sure that was on his order. And I have no doubt that he died a peaceful man, content in the belief that he got away with what he did. And I don't say that he shot Oswald. He was just an actor. Oswald was shot afterwards, and not by Bookhout.

Still, he was part of the process of killing Oswald. He was an accessory to murder. And if there is life after death, I hope he's feeling the heat right now, knowing that he didn't get away with it. He died in 2009, and it was 4 years later that Maxim Irkutsk posted his video on Youtube that Jack Ruby did not kill Lee Harvey Oswald.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oh3zvoj9HVc

It's got 9700 views. Please help me get it up to 10,000.

 The bullet entered Oswald's body at the 7th rib, and it came to rest under the skin at the 11th rib. So, it almost traversed him. To extract the bullet, a Parkland doctor just lanced the skin over the 11th rib, and it fell out.

But, the 11th rib is, obviously, lower than the 7th rib. The 1st rib is the highest one, and the 12th rib is the lowest one. That means that the bullet had a downward trajectory.

This is the Shooter at the instant he shot. Does it look like a downward trajectory to you?

 On the left, I have a very tight grip on the gun. And you need a tight grip because the less the gun moves, the better. My index finger is not just there to squeeze the trigger. It is also gripping the gun on the right side.

In the middle, I have my middle finger on the trigger and my index finger is extended along the barrel. But, even though I am a small man with a small hand, my index finger still reaches the cylinder gap, where the burning hot gases come out. So, I'd be crazy to fire the gun that way. Plus, I can't have my index finger on the barrel because the barrel has to rotate freely. How's it going to do that if my index finger is on it?

So, the only way I could fire it with my middle finger on the trigger is what you see on the right. But, that is both awkward and insecure, and it feels terrible. My index finger isn't gripping the gun on the right side, and neither is my middle finger.

So, there is no right away to fire this gun with your middle finger.

And I'm sure the same is true for the Colt Cobra that Jack Ruby had.

There is zero chance that Jack Ruby was the one pulling the trigger with his middle finger. He would not have done that for any reason. There is no scenario by which he would have done it. You can't even conjure one up. It is completely and totally implausible. And it's one more proof that the Shooter was NOT Jack Ruby.

 This is me poised to shoot with my index finger on the trigger (left) and my middle finger (right). With my index finger, it feels like my hand fits the gun like a glove. It feels very snug and secure, with no play at all. Using my middle finger, I only have two fingers, my ring finger and pinkie, wrapped around the grip in front, which makes the grip a lot weaker.

But, there's something else that you can't see. When I use my index finger, it wraps the other side of the grip and holds it tightly. It's not just serving the purpose of pulling the trigger. It is gripping the right side of the gun. But, I don't get that effect when I use my middle finger. My index finger is just protruding forward into the cylinder zone, and my middle finger isn't gripping the gun either. I have nothing on that side of the gun that's really holding it tightly. There is no squeeze on it. I'll show you shortly.

The point is that Jack Ruby had an intact right hand, and both instinctively and deliberately, if he thought about it, he would have used his index finger on the trigger. Every small boy playing cops and robbers knows that the index finger is the trigger finger. You can't dream up a reason why Ruby would have done otherwise. And it's just another reason why that shooter in the Jackson photo cannot be Jack Ruby.

 It was Ruby's left index finger that was partically amputated. So, there was no need and no excuse for him to shoot with his right middle finger. It wasn't him. The problem was that Boohout got the wrong information. Someone mistakenly told him that it was Ruby's right index finger that was snipped, and that's why Bookhout used his middle finger. It's called a production error. Every movie has got them. All except Dovey's Promise. So, watch it.

This is me duplicating Oswald's configuration in the Jackson photo. I have slapped my left arm and hand to my chest. I arched my hand some, since he did that. And I snugged my thumb up to my fingers as much as I could. But, notice that my thumb doesn't extend as far because you can't extend it as far. And you can't turn the thumb like that either. You don't have a muscle that can do it. Nor do you have a joint that can do it. And you can't turn your thumb that way even with your other hand. It just can't do it.

I have also jutted my right hand forward, supinating it, as Oswald appears to be doing. But, notice that on me, we're seeing the pad of my thumb, not the dorsal side of it. And instead of having a freaky finger parallel to my thumb, I have a normal index finger that is opposed to my thumb. It isn't parallel to it, like we see on Oswald.

The Jackson photo is monstrously fraudulent. It is a freak show. And it's the medical profession that should have been screaming bloody murder upon seeing it, from knowing about human anatomy and kinesiology.

 Here is me recreating Leavelle holding Oswald by the pants. What you see on me is the natural flow of my arm as well as the jacket sleeve. That weird configuration on Leavelle is impossible.

Now, if you think otherwise, then you get out your phone and take a picture that duplicates it. I dare you. And I'll tell you right now that it's impossible. It isn't photography. It's art.

 

Let's look at the center of the Jackson photo. On the left, we see an impossible fold in Leavelle's sleeve because his arm couldn't do that. He had an elbow, but it wasn't way up there. There is nothing that could cause such a fold way up there. There is no other image like it. The entire appendage below the arrow is fake.

The thumb of Oswald's slapped hand is the wrong thumb. It is a right thumb, not a left thumb. That is two hands there: the fingers of a left hand and the thumb of a right hand. You couldn't possibly turn your left thumb as much as that. It is two hands, like two hands clasped in prayer.

The other thumb is wrong too. Oswald has his right hand supinated, or you could say, internally rotated, which turns the pads up and the nails down. So, the nail side of his thumb shouldn't be up there, but it is. You couldn't duplicate it. And what is that weird finger next to the thumb? Is that supposed to be his index finger? The whole hand is a monstrosity.

To the Shooter they gave an extra thumb. That big long thumb we see on top of his fist is fake. They added it. His real thumb was folded down. So, why did they add the fake, overly long thumb, with a ridiculously long proximal phalange? It was because James Bookhout had small hands, and they were afraid that his small hand would be noticeable as not being Ruby's, whose hands were larger. So, to enlarge Bookhout's hand, they gave him an extra thumb.

And finally, why is the Shooter pulling the trigger with his middle finger? And why would Jack Ruby, of all people, do that? I know why James Bookhout did it. It was because somebody mistakenly told him that Ruby had a severed right index finger. He did not. He had a severed left index finger. So, Ruby would have had no reason to use his middle finger.

And remember that when you use your middle finger, it means that your index finger is going to go right alongside the cylinder. Well, you know about the cylinder gap, don't you? That's where burning hot gases come out. The first thing they teach you at gun safety class is that you don't put any part of your hand in front of that cylinder.

So, that Shooter certainly wasn't Jack Ruby, and he certainly didn't fire any gun there.

Look: it's over. The damn thing was staged. It was a dog and pony show. Oswald was NOT shot in the garage. It was all theater. And Jack Ruby was already being held on the 5th floor to be slipped into the story later in a class bait and switch. That is what happened on November 24, 1963, and we need to start admitting it.