Now I can prove to you that Jack Ruby's hair was doctored to make him seem like he had more hair than he did. This is one of the most widely circulated images of him from 11/24 after his arrest. 

Whoever was wielding the paint brush (and that's how they did it in those days) got carried away. He's got hair sticking out way beyond Ruby's head. Unless, it's a doctored film frame that got distorted. But, one thing is for sure: Ruby's hair wasn't like that, and he did not have as much hair as that. He did not have nearly as much hair as that. Here he is in 1960.

So, that's 1960, and here's 1963:

1960 again: and note how weird it looks. If he really had a tuft of hair in front like that, why would he wear it so short? Furthermore, that is NOT how men go bald. It ix extremely unusual for a man to retain a tuft of hair right in front with so much baldness behind. Baldness tends to advance the opposite way. So, this image below, and it is definitely a film frame, is probably doctored as well. 

But again: there is no chance that Ruby had hair like this:

So, why'd they do it? It's because the Garage Shooter seems to have such long, thick hair.

That's from the Jackson photo- by far, the most famous image of the Oswald shooting.  Jack Ruby didn't have hair like that, and neither did James Bookhout. Bookhout must have been wearing a toupee'. And you have to admit: it looks like one. It looks like a rug. 

But, the scary thing is that there are so many images of Ruby with his hair agencies that it shows the extent to which the U.S. Intelligence agencies controlled the media. And I have no doubt that it's much worse today. Today, the uniformity of the media is frightening- it's officialdom 24/7. The U.S. media doesn't dispute anything: not JFK, not 9/11, not global warming, not vaccinations, not anything except things like Kavanaugh. Here, the United States is still mired in a war in Afghanistan, and they don't discuss it or debate it. They don't even report on it. Apparently, the CIA must have told them, "Shut the fuck up about Afghanistan."  

Michelle Gussow Also, it always struck me that it was claimed he shot Kennedy to make a political statement yet he denied it which is not what I see from those who are trying to make a political statement. They are usually owing if not bragging about their actions. So the scenario they painted just does not work for me.

• Like
•  · Reply
•  · Message
•  · 1d

• 

  Oswald Innocence Campaign That's a good point, Michelle. And similar to that is that he absolutely liked and admired John Kennedy. So, why would he shoot him? He read his book. He read other books just because he knew John Kennedy liked them. He defended Kennedy to Marina's family in Russia. To shoot somebody you like- that's insane. And Oswald was clearly not insane.

  • 
    

Staffan H Westerberg Yes, I said this several years ago. ”A policeman hit me” is also a clear indication that LHO did not start any altercation at the Texas Theatre. 

• Like
•  · Reply
•  · Message
•  · 24m

• 

  Oswald Innocence Campaign Staffan, I have been saying that I don't believe that the real Oswald ever met with Attorney Louis Nichols. It is inconceivable to me that after complaining over and over for 30 hours that he wanted a lawyer, that the real Oswald would turn one down. I don't presume Nichols was lying because he wasn't an actor either. Rather, I think they must have had an Oswald double there to meet with Nichols.

  • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 1m
  •  · Edited

This video of Oswald really speaks volumes. Just listen to his voice, to the way he denies the charges. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqXp6GV9a_4&feature=share

Do you realize how unusual it is for a guilty suspect to be so adamant, so vocal? Most guilty suspects keep their mouths shut. They don't speak the way Oswald did. And it's because they are not actors; they are not that good at lying. But, Oswald was not lying, and he was not acting. And that's why his "performance" was so good; because it was real. He was just being honest. 

Here is the reporter who said that "ownership of the two weapons have definitely been traced to Oswald." Don't you think that happened just a little bit too fast? Like it was all set up? And behind that reporter is the French reporter who the next morning would wax on repeatedly in his French accent, "I saw the muzzle flash against his black sweater." He kept saying it over and over, yet, we never saw any muzzle flash. And as close as the shot of Oswald was taken, the muzzle flash would have singed the sweater. You know, it's fire.  

But, getting back to this, it is followed by Oswald's very vociferous denial. He really was adamant. 

It is moving to hear Oswald say that, and a real reporter would have been moved by it. He would have been impressed by it. But, these reporters were just State lackies. Everybody wanted Oswald to be guilty. The idea that the State had so quickly, almost immediately, solved the case was the kind of news that they felt Americans wanted to hear. It was the most comforting news they could get at that point. "It's terrible that it happened, but at least it was just some nut, some crackpot."  

Oswald said, "I have nothing against anybody." Hmm. That's a lot to say. It's not something I could say. I've got things against people. And if a man says something that sounds that sincere, and Oswald certainly did, why wouldn't you stop and give it pause? Why wouldn't those reporters stop, in the midst of the stampede, and say, "Wait a minute. Maybe he is innocent."

Here's the guy who put this up on Facebook:

Patrizio Cavaliere shared a link.

12 hrs

Look at his face when he says "I emphatically deny these charges."

Exactly. Look at it, how impassioned he was, how fervent he was. It is the face of an innocent man. 

  

David Dreyer3 weeks ago

Why did not someone ask Billy Lovelady if it was him on the steps of the TSBD?

Ralph Cinque1 second ago

David, it's complicated. When Lovelady testified to the Warren Commission, Attorney Joseph Ball could have asked him, "Is that you?" pointing to Doorman, but he didn't. Instead, he played this game, telling him to draw an arrow to himself, and giving him a photo in which there already was an arrow pointing to Doorman. What, was that supposed to be a hint? We still have the photo and there is only one arrow on it, and we know that one was drawn by Buell Frazier.. So, where is the arrow that Lovelady drew? Then, after the arrow-drawing, they talked about it, but neither saying that Lovelady's arrow pointed to Doorman. It's clear that Lovelady did not say, and did not want to say, that he was Doorman. He did not start saying it until May 1964- half a year after the assassination. So, why did he start saying it then? They must have threatened him. Lovelady did not want to go along with this ruse. He did not want to lie.  He was forced to. And he wasn't even any good at lying. He had a terrible poker face. And that's why he was killed in 1979, because they couldn't risk his terrible poker face.

I have been wondering lately why the American people re-elected George W. Bush in 2004 when he lied us into war. And he lied us into war not only in Iraq in 2003, where Saddam Hussein had destroyed his WMDs and had no ties to Al Qaeda, but in Afghanistan in 2001. That war was justified on the claim that Osama bin laden had planned and executed the 9/11 attacks, which is false. Over 3000 architects and engineers say that it is false. And, the fact is, to avoid war, the Taliban offered to extradite bin laden to a third country for trial. And if that had happened, surely that country would have let the U.S. to present its evidence against him in court. Why wasn't that good enough?  We're talking about avoiding a war in which hundreds of thousands of innocent people have been killed. No one has a right to kill innocent people- for any reason. And no government has the right to kill them for any reason. So, launching that war, which George Bush did, was a crime against humanity. 

So, why did the American people re-elect Bush? By rights, he deserved to go to prison- and for the rest of his life.  He did not deserve to go back to the White House. So, why did the American people put him there a second time?   

I can only speculate about it, but what I would say is that as of 2004, the outcomes of the wars looked pretty good. Both seemed to have been successful, with missions accomplished. It wasn't true, but it seemed that way.  And I have to assume that most voters accepted the argument that although the dire warnings about the threat Saddam Hussein posed were false, he was a bad guy anyway, and isn't the world and aren't the Iraqi people better off with him gone? Well, not the dead Iraqi people. They're not better off with him gone. They'd be better off if he was alive- and so were they. And not the friends and family of the dead Iraqis either because they loved the dead Iraqis. 

That the American people could brush off the fact that the whole basis for attacking Iraq was false speaks volumes about our culture and our beliefs, that America has the right to impose its will on the world, that we are the policeman of the world, and we are also the judge of the world. We get to judge which regimes can stay and which must go. And even though many innocents have to die whenever we start a war, and we have started many, we have the right to decide that it's worth it to kill thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of people, in order to accomplish our objectives.   

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright actually said on national television that it was "worth it" to kill 500,000 Iraqi children (from the embargo) in order to contain Saddam Hussein.  I wonder if she would have thought that if one of those children was her grandchild. 

I keep recalling what a dear cousin of mine once said, that Americans are all the products of public schools, which is to say, government schools.  The fact is: it blinds us to the crimes - to the atrocities- that our own government commits.  

So, U.S. voters put a known war criminal back into the White House in 2004, and of course, he is still walking around a free man today. And, it's not just him. How many did Clinton kill in Kosovo, Serbia, Sudan, etc.? How many did Obama kill in Libya, Afghanistan, Yemen, etc.? Don't you get it?  That America and Americans are oblivious to all the carnage we cause in the world? We actually think we're good. 

    

Juliette de la Bretoniere wrote this as a hypothetical exchange that could have taken place:

Officer: What’s your name, Sir?
Molina: My name is Joe Molina
Officer: Where were you when the shooting took place? 
Molina: I was right outside our building watching the motorcade
Officer: Who else was there?
Molina: Well Sir, there was him, her, and him... and that new fellow, Oswald. 

Remember that Oswald wasn't arrested until 2:00, and I don't know what time his name was announced to the public, but I presume it was shortly after that. But, there were police swarming the TSBD right away. Bonnie Ray Williams said that he and James Jarman and Harold Norman were stopped and questioned by police as soon as they got downstairs from the 5th floor. That was only shortly after the shots, and it was long before Oswald's name was in the public domain, the point being that no one, at that point, would have felt inhibited about mentioning Oswald- except, of course, for those who were in on it, such as Bill Shelley. 

Remember, as I have been telling you, the TSBD was a CIA front company where school book distributing was just their cover for espionage and worse. How could they be distributing books to schools when small, hand-held orders were all they handled? There were no class-size orders of books going out of there. And we have never seen any prepared packages of books- of any size. Not a single package that was wrapped, tied, labeled, and stamped or close to it- and this despite the fact that "order-fillers" were filling orders all morning and bringing them to Troy West, their one and only "mailer." It is all very, very fishy.   .