Today was a big day because we signed our third actor to the cast of His Stretch of Texas Ground, which is the sequel to My Stretch of Texas Ground. That actor is Jeff Caperton who will be taking over the role of Nelson, Sheriff Joe's top deputy. 

Jeff Caperton has a long and honored career as an actor in movies and on television, and he is also a film producer. Jeff has played a lawman before, and the role of Nelson in this sequel is huge. 

This follows our signing of Mike Gassaway who will be playing retired Sheriff Clint Haladin, Joe's father, who is a spunky, straight-talking old lawman. And the truth is that this role was written for Mike, in the same way that the role of Jake Gittis in Chinatown was written for Jack Nicholson. And I'll tell you as the writer, that it is a very different writing experience when you build a character around an actor. 

And that brings me to Jeff Weber whom we sought and signed first and for good reason because I would not have proceeded without Jeff Weber. I was NOT going recast Sheriff Joe Haladin because Jeff Weber and Sheriff Joe are inseparable. Jeff Weber IS Sheriff Joe, and if we couldn't get him, I would have let Sheriff Joe pass into oblivion to take his rightful place in the pantheon of legendary screen lawmen of old. But fortunately, Jeff Weber can do it, and therefore, Sheriff Joe shall ride again, and it is going to be great to have him back.  

I shall continue to make postings as we make cast acquisitions. And there are some exciting prospects for the roles of Draven Denisen the villain, also Sarah who is Draven's ex-wife, and also Becky, the Sheriff's daughter. There are quite a few more, and we need to get hopping because the first day of filming is less than two months away. But in the words of the vernacular: so far, so good. My heartfelt thanks to the two Jeffs and Mike, and it's onward and upward, full speed ahead.

They have released another body cam of the George Floyd disaster, and it is incredible, as in: I can't understand it. This was about a phony $20 bill, but counterfeit money is designed to be good enough to circulate for a while. So, the person who spent it at the place where it was recognized isn't necessarily the forger. And police know this, right? So, what reason was there to start off by being so belligerent to George Floyd? Did they really think that he was the counterfeiter? Apparently, he wasn't because they have never followed up with any evidence that he was involved with counterfeiting. And if he knowingly passed off a phony $20 bill, why would he just sit in his car? Why wouldn't he get out of there? 

So, there was no evidence that he was guilty, and his behavior wasn't consistent with his being guilty, since he didn't flee.

So, the two cops get to the car and tap  on the window. The window and all the windows were up all the way. George would say later that he was claustrophobic, but you would think that, if so, he would have lowered the window to let some air in. There were three people in the car. That's three people - all of whom had to breathe -sitting in a parked car with the windows up.

 I realize that a window may have been down on the passenger side; it's possible; but, I am not going to assume that it was. 

So, the cop taps on the window, and says, belligerently:"let's see your hands." Then, when Floyd opened the door, the cop said, "stay in the car; let me see your other hand." So, he's being treated like a violent criminal from the start. 

Then, while they're arguing about Floyd's hands, we see that the other cop has his gun drawn.

And he must have had it drawn all along. But why? Do cops draw a gun to question someone about the origin of a $20 bill? 

Reportedly, the ink was wet and running on the phony $20. That implies that George must have made it and recently. How long does it take for ink to dry? But, we don't have a picture of the bill. All we have is a picture of bills that were found crumpled in Floyd's car, and they all look fine to me. 

So, we haven't seen the bill with the ink running, and it's hard to believe that George Floyd had anything to do with such a bill. And surely if he was involved in counterfeiting, police would have gotten to the bottom of it by now. 

But, back to the video. So, they're still arguing about his hands, and the cop is using the F-word. First, he tells him to put his hands on the wheel, but then he tells him to put his hands on top of his head. But why? Hands clasping the steering wheel is more immobilizing than hands atop the head. 

Then, the officer tells him to get out of the car. Then, why did he tell him to put his hands on top of his head? People use their hands to get out of a car. Don't they? So, Floyd gets out, and the officer takes his arm as he's getting out, and then he cuffs him.

The officer who led Floyd away was a black man; a light-skinned black man, Alex Kueng. The mistreatment of George Floyd has been characterized as racially-motivated, but it can't be true of Alex Kueng, right?

But, why was this happening at all? What had Floyd done? They had no certainty nor any strong suspicion that he had done anything.  They didn't even ask him about the $20 bill. I thought that when cops place you under arrest, they tell you what you are being arrested for. "You're under arrest for DWI." What was he under arrest for? For counterfeiting? For resisting arrest? But, you can't call what he did resisting arrest. He begged them not to shoot him, but that's not resisting arrest. 

The other officer was busy talking to the two passengers, male and female. He was more civil to them than he was to Floyd. But, he didn't ask them about the counterfeit money either. He asked them why George was acting so weird and whether he was on something, and they said that he had  problems, and I presume they meant: mental problems. 

The audio fades in and out, but very clearly you can hear the officer ask George if he's on something, and George says no. They cross the street with him and get him to the police cruiser. First, they try to get him in from the sidewalk side. Then they walk around to the street side and do the same. He repeats that he is claustrophobic. Then he says: "I can't choke. I can't breathe, rather."

They left out the "rather." Then, he says repeatedly that he wants to lay down on the ground.

So, it was his idea to go to the ground. Then after that is when the horrific kneeling took place, with Chauven's knee on his neck. 

I am a screenwriter. I won a screenwriting award for the screenplay to My Stretch of Texas Ground, among many awards that the film has won. But, if someone presented this to me as a screenplay, I would say that it stinks, that it is totally implausible.  It makes no sense. The cops' behavior makes no sense; Floyd's behavior makes no sense; and the whole circumstance with the phony, wet, ink-running $20 bill makes no sense. 

We need to hear from those cops. We need to hear from Chauven to learn why he knelt on the man's neck. Why didn't he kneel on the ground and just use his hands to contain the man? He obviously wasn't going anywhere. 

The whole thing is bizarre, and I don't see how you can attribute it to racism when there was a black and an Asian officer involved. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPSwqp5fdIw

It is absolutely crazy that Jack Ruby had inside knowledge of the JFK assassination and was in cahoots with Lyndon Johnson. It's true there is a famous piece of footage in which Ruby, talking to reporters, said that Johnson had a role. But, that's only because he read a book called A Texan Looks at Lyndon by J. Evetts Haley, which came out in March 1964. Somebody- I don't know who- brought the book to Ruby, and he read it there at the County Jail. And what the book says is that Oswald was the lone gunman but Johnson put him up to it. It's ridiculous. As you know, Oswald wasn't a gunman at all and didn't own a gun. 

If Ruby had any inside knowledge, if he had the means to incriminate and make revelations about the movers and shakers and what really happened, THEY WOULD HAVE HAD TO KILL HIM IMMEDIATELY. 

Recall the movie Casablanca, when Police Captain Renault, played by Claude Rains, says of Ugarete played by Peter Lorre, 

"We haven't quite decided yet whether he committed suicide or died trying to escape." 

The fact that Ruby lived for 3 years should tell you that he knew nothing. Absolutely nothing. And it is likely that they did kill him in 1967, but it wasn't because of what he knew and could say about the assassination, which was nothing. It was because he won a new trial, and they weren't going to risk having a second one.  They knew that his lawyers would have learned from the first trial, and it was possible that a light would go on in their heads.  For instance, what if they smartened up and put Ruby on the stand? His childlike nature would have come through to the jury. His religiosity. And just how completely devoid of awareness he was of what happened. The gist of it would have been, "I don't know what happened. I had no thought of shooting Oswald. All I know is that police told me I did it."  

The point is that even by accident, a crack could have occurred in the story if he was tried again. And then, what if his layers really studied the Shooter in the films and photos and really compared him to Ruby? And I mean in the way that a fingerprint comparison is made, comparing fine points. 

Don't you think it's awfully convenient that Ruby should suddenly come down with lung cancer right after winning a new trial? He was practically a non-smoker. He rarely smoked a cigarette. And when he was taken to the hospital and asked about his health, he didn't say anything about lung cancer. He thought he was there because of a rectal problem. He officially died of a blood clot, and there are a lot of drugs that can cause blood clots. 

Jack Ruby was innocent, and the stories that he was a hit man, a Mafioso, a pimp, etc. are just bull shit. He was a nicer, softer, kinder person than most people you are ever going to meet. He was almost childlike in his simplicity and his assumptions. And he was deeply religious in the Jewish faith.  He did not shoot Oswald. He showed up there much earlier than reported and was skirted up to the 5th floor where he was held during the televised spectacle. Then, they wove him into the story by bringing him back down and parading him around. 

It is just so dastardly what they did to him, so Machiavellian, but I'm not surprised that no one in 1963 thought of it because it was a naive time when people trusted authority and trusted the media. People were incapable of fathoming this much evil back then. But, this is 2020. It's almost 2021. And nobody is naive any more, right? Everyone knows how rotten and corrupt and driven by lies the whole system is.  So, anyone who fights this now is just an ostrich with his head in the sane. 

Oliver Janssen "Why did they have to fly Jolly out from California when there were plenty of psychiatrists in Dallas?"
LBJ had the power over all Texas police it was easy for him to cover it up there. a few hours later he had the power over all american police forces and the power to cover up anything and everything. i don't believe he was the head of the assassination. but he sure was one of the accomplices.
Jack Ruby knew this and therefore wanted to go out of texas. if a psychiatrists would come that he didnt know, it could have been anybody who would have rat him out.

Also: Jack Ruby owed the Internal Revenue Service $86,000 ($600,000+ today) at the time of the assassination. He didn't owe the mob. He was under a lot pressure due to this debt. What would he do to earn money to clear it? https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/.../jack-ruby...

JFKCONSPIRACYFORUM.FREEFORUMS.NET

Jack Ruby And The IRS | JFK Assassination Board

Jack Ruby And The IRS | JFK Assassination Board

• Like
•  · Reply
•  · 27m

• 

  Ralph Cinque Oh no, You are completely, totally wrong. Everything that Jack Ruby knew about LBJ he learned from a book called A Texas Looke at Lyndon by J.Evetts Haley. And the fact that Ruby owed money to the IRS only proves that he was not the high flyer that people think. He had no money. He just handled a lot of money because the night club was a cash business. This was 1963 before there was widespread and universal use of credit cards. Would you please just think???? If Ruby knew LBJ, if he had any inside knowledge of the assassination at all, they would have had to kill him immediately. The fact that he lived for 3 years should tell you that he didn't know a thing. Oh, and by the way, I'm making you famous.

These interviews of Sirhan Sirhan and Jack Ruby are very much the same, where they both say that they do not remember what happened, and they do not remember shooting RFK  and Oswald, respectively.

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


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VjbE0Y2YMg&t=34s

They were both innocent. They were both manipulated and mind-controlled, through psychological and pharmacological means. Why do you think Dr. Louis Joylan West became Ruby's psychiatrist in prison? Why did they have to fly him out from California when there were plenty of psychiatrists in Dallas? And guess what? Sirhan Sirhan saw "Jolly" too. There is no official record of it, but when he was shown an image of Jolly, Sirhan said that he recognized him as one of his handlers. 

Oswald was different. He had an aversion to taking drugs, and perhaps their inability to drug him is what limited their ability to manipulate him mentally. Oswald was of sound mine; Jack Ruby and Sirhan Sirhan were not.  

Ruby was the first of the MK-ULTRA patsies, and Sirhan was not the last. Oswald was the first and last sound one, and they were not going to go down that road again. He did a lot of damage to them in the last two days of his life. He did so much damage that they had to shut him up before he talked to a lawyer. 

Why did they have to kill Dorothy Kilgallen? It was because she talked to Ruby, and the fear was that she was getting a glimmer of the truth that he was innocent. They couldn't take the chance.  

As a rule of thumb, don't believe any of these people who started to claim, years or decades later, that they were there and part of it all. That includes the ladies JB and BO, as well as this guy, Louie Steven Witt, who claimed in 1979 that he was Umbrella Man. He told the preposterous story that what he was doing there with that umbrella on a bright sunny afternoon was demonstrating against JFK's father, Joseph P. Kennedy Sr. for appeasing the Nazis. It is absurd for anyone to expect JFK to see a guy with an umbrella in 1963 and think, "Oh, he must be protesting my father, because my father, like Neville Chamberlain, tried to appease Hitler, and his umbrella is a symbol for Chamberlain's umbrella. Of course!"

For Goodness sake, it was 1963, and World War II was long over. The Nazis were defeated- except for the 2800 of so that we brought over here and gave lush lives to for what they could do for us, including Michael Paine's boss, Nazi General Walter Dornberger. 

But, we had a new enemy by then, our former ally, the Soviet Union. So, why would JFK's mind be on Hitler and Chamberlain, with or without his umbrella? It's just ridiculous. Louie Witt was full o' shit.

But, while I'm at it, I'll point out that Joseph P. Kennedy Sr. was a hero. He, at least, tried to stop World War II from happening. His goal was not to appease the Nazis but to prevent the slaughter of millions of people that would come with another world war. 65 million people got killed in World War II. And don't anyone try to tell me that it was the "good war." There was absolutely nothing good on either side of that war. If you really get into studying World War II, as I have, you'll realize that it was just plain evil. And that's why we have to stop having wars because wars are inherently and inevitably evil. War makes monsters out of men. I can't say it too many times. War makes monsters out of men; war makes monsters out of men; war makes monsters out of men. Joseph P. Kennedy could not prevent World War II, but at least, he tried. And yet, they continue to smear him to this day. And by the way, they killed his first son Joseph P. Kennedy Jr. too, and for the same reason they killed JFK except pre-emptively. His was more like the killing of JFK Jr. which was also pre-emptive. Why wait until they get into office? It's much easier if you do it beforehand. A stitch in time saves nine. 

All the amateur films and photos got confiscated by law enforcement.  So, what do you think? I think they had people there combing the crowd. And they weren't in uniform. Every photographer's catch got taken- except for one, Babushka Lady's. 

So, you figure she just slipped through the cracks, did she? They just didn't notice her? But, she was right in the center and got photographed herself by many people. 

Oh, and by the way: that is not a 17 year old cocktail waitress, although she may have had a 17 year old daughter. Babushka Lady was in on it. She was there to record the event, and I mean: the kill. Her film went directly to the plotters. It did not disappear; only she did. Babushka Lady was, you might say, the official photographer.