I've become a fan of the show Forensic Files, which is about real life murders and how they got solved. It's savage, the monstrousness of it.  Often it's a spouse killing a spouse, a partner killing a partner, or a sexual predator killing his victim.  I, like most people, have a complete aversion to hurting or killing anyone, and it is mindboggling to me that someone could kill a person and then go on with their regular lives. And do what? Hug their kids? How could you kill someone without it weighing on you every moment of every day for the rest of your life? Even if you got away with it, how could you enjoy another day of living? 

The exception, of course, is if someone is on a violent rampage. The young man who recently shot and killed the shooter at the mall in Indiana is not going to be tortured for the rest of his life. On the contrary, he will be forever honored, and he has every reason to feel good about himself. 

But, to kill criminally, to take a human life to gain something, whether it's material gain, or the satisfaction of revenge, or anything else, it's monstrous. and most people have a huge psychological barrier to doing it. You might think it comes from religion, but I don't think so. I think it's inherent in human beings to be revulsed by violence, at least, violence to other humans. Commonly, we are violent to animals because we kill them to eat them. Of course, relatively few humans are involved in the acts of turning animals into meat. Most people buy meat the same way they buy grapefruits, and they don't give it any thought. But, when it comes to killing humans, most people have such a deepseated aversion to it, that they go their whole lives without ever having the urge to do it. Even if you utterly despise someone, you don't contemplate killing them- if you're normal. 

And that brings us to Oswald and the story of how he, supposedly, came to killing Kennedy. The story goes that he was working at the TSBD, and then it was lunch time. So, he went to the domino room on the first floor to eat his lunch, as he always did, and he browsed through the newspaper that was there- either while eating or after eating. And while doing that, on the Tuesday or the Wednesday, he saw the Presidential motorcade route in the paper, and when he saw that it was going to pass the building, he instantly got the thought to kill Kennedy. 

We have a good sense about Oswald's mental perspective at that time in his life. We know that he wasn't happy working at the TSBD, that he wished to find a better job, one that paid better. He only made $1.11/hr. We know that his top priority was to convince Marina to move back in with him with their children. He wanted to get an apartment that would accommodate them all. And, he thought that having a driver's license would increase his employment opportunities, so he was pursuing that, which included getting Ruth Paine to give him lessons. 

Let's observe that there is nothing twisted about any of that. Those motivations and pursuits were normal and healthy; they were entirely rational and appropriate. 

There is absolutely no basis to think or claim that Oswald was in a hostile or violent mood when he sat down to eat his lunch and browse through the newspaper. And there is no basis whatsoever to think that he ever had any hostility to John Kennedy. It was just the opposite. He spoke well of Kennedy. He defended Kennedy. And he apparently admired Kennedy. It's been reported that he read James Bond novels after finding out that Kennedy liked them. 

And note that no one at the TSBD described Oswald as being aggressive, hostile, or belligerent. Apparently, he wasn't very friendly, and he had no interest in making friends there. He was a loner and a recluse. I presume he was polite to Frazier as they rode together to Irving and back. Frazier has never implied otherwise. But, I don't think Oswald really cared to become friends with Frazier. They rode together, but they never did anything else together. They didn't go have beers together or play golf. I don't know that Oswald had interest in becoming friends with anyone. I think that all the evidence shows that, at the time, his focus was entirely on his family and getting them back under his wing. 

So, he was not trying to make friends at the TSBD. The employees there said that he was civil but not friendly and outgoing. But, that tendency does not put one even a small step closer to being violent. 

Let's compare it to the velocity of a car. Let's say that the normal peacefulness and non-hostility of a person is like driving at 10 mph. And let's say that being violent, or on the verge of violence, is like driving at 100 mph. Well, it takes times to go from 10 mph to 100 mph. It doesn't happen instantly. So, if Oswald was in this state of mind of wanting to find a better job and get his family back- if these were his goals- why would seeing the Presidential motorcade route in the newspaper cause him to want to kill Kennedy? Why would that suddenly take over his mind? Why would he get remotely close to having such a thought?

On the basis of what I just described, you can't get there. You can't come up with a plausible explanation for it, based on what is known about human psychology. 

And that is why they had to come up with monster stories about Oswald that preceded this. The biggest one, of course, is that he tried to shoot and kill General Walker. There is NO CHANCE that he did that, and for numerous reasons. I hope I convinced you in my last post that he did not own a rifle. That's a dealbreaker right there. But, the forensic evidence does not support Oswald having done it. They dug the bullet out of Walker's wall, and it did not match the bullets from the Carcano rifle (that Oswald didn't own). Witnesses said there were two culprits involved and that they drove away in separate cars. Oswald had no car, no driver's license, and no friends. The story became that Oswald went to and from Walker's house by bus, but no bus rider ever claimed to see him or his rifle on the bus. There is absolutely nothing linking Oswald to the Walker shooting except for what they got Marina to say, as well as the goofy letter that Oswald supposedly wrote to her in Russian about what to do if he got caught or killed, where the first thing on the list was to go to the P.O. Box. Why on Earth, in such a dire situation, would that be important? According to Harry Hines the postal inspector, the only thing that came to Oswald's P,.O. box were Russian and Socialist newspapers. So again, why would Marina need to get to that box, especially in a time of turmoil?  She wouldn't.  They just wrote the phony letter that way to try to make it seem like Oswald was confirming that he had a P.O. Box. It is so ridiculous, it actually underscores the extremely likely probability that Oswald did not have a P.O. Box. They tried too hard to sell it.

But, you should realize that pinning the Walker shooting on Oswald was an admission that Oswald couldn't go from devoted family man to monstrous killer in a flash. There had to be preliminary monstrous acts, so they came up with one: the attempt to kill General Walker. And they came up with more, such as his intention to kill Richard Nixon in Dallas in April. Of course, Richard Nixon wasn't in Dallas in April; Lyndon Johnson was. Perhaps Marina got her Veeps confused. She was surely coached to say that, but perhaps she inadvertently substituted Nixon for Johnson. And the Warren Commission lawyer tried to get her to say that she meant Johnson, but she wouldn't budge. She stuck firmly to Nixon. And the story went that she prevented him from killing Nixon in Dallas, even though he wasn't in Dallas, by locking Oswald in the bathroom. However, you can't lock anyone in the bathroom because bathroom doors lock from the inside not the outside. You would have to first reverse the lock before you could lock someone in the bathroom. And that was pointed out to her too. So, she changed her story to that she just overpowered him at the door; that he was in the bathroom, and with her brute strength, she held the knob and pulled. And apparently, even though she was 5'2" and normally about 105 pounds, except in this case, she was several months pregnant, that she was stronger. Oswald was at the time 5'9" and 145 pounds, but apparently, he was weaker than her, that for however long they struggled, he could not get out of that bathroom. His little pixie wife Marina trapped him in there with her brute strength. That's the story. Talk about humiliation. 

By the way, the idea of a person locking another person in the bathroom is a story element in my latest film, Joe Haladin: The Case of the Missing Sister. I, however, had the decency to have the character reverse the lock first so that it could actually be done. And we did that on set. My producer, himself, went and dismantled the lock on the bathroom door and reassembled it the opposite way. I hope you'll watch the film when it comes out because it's a rip-roaring tale. But, the idea for that element came to me because of this piece of lore from the JFK assassination. 

Then also, they got Marina to say that Oswald wanted to hijack a plane to Cuba at gunpoint with Marina's help. So, I guess the idea was that she was going to be holding June's hand with one hand and wielding a gun with the other.  I wonder what he expected to happen once they got to Cuba. A private dinner with Fidel? The only thing that's interesting about this is to wonder what techniques they used to get Marina to say such preposterous things. 

Returning to the lunch room with Oswald reading the newspaper and getting the sudden impulse to kill Kennedy, apparently, even the plotters realized that it needed some back story. Even they realized that they couldn't monsterize him on the spot, based on just that. So, they came up with that other stuff, though every bit of it is laughably implausible. 

But, what it really comes down to is evil. And I'm not talking about Oswald being evil. He wasn't. But, the people who killed Kennedy and then killed Oswald, they were evil, and I mean as evil as any of the monsters they feature on Forensic Files. And we know some of their names, such as Allen Dulles, Lyndon Johnson, and J. Edgar Hoover. The good news is that they aren't getting away it. The cat is already out of the bag. There will be justice for Kennedy and Oswald.  

    

Although it is rarely cited, even by his defenders, Oswald did NOT own a rifle, The evidence for it is overwhelming. It starts with the fact that Oswald said he didn't own one. That was at the first interrogation on Friday afternoon. Then, on Friday night and early Saturday morning they, supposedly, tracked down the mail-order to Chicago (by him). So, why didn't they present it to him on Saturday morning and checkmate him with it? They never mentioned it to him -at all. Don't you consider that a smoking gun? You should. They didn't do it because it would have informed Oswald that he was being framed. And why should they ask him about something that was their own doing, which he knew nothing about? There was nothing they could learn about it from him. They could only lose by bringing it up, and that's why they didn't mention it. And by "they," I mean the FBI. 

But, also on Friday afternoon, when Marina was first asked if Oswald owned a rifle, she said that he used to, in Russia, but it got sold. Why would she mention that if she knew he currently owned a rifle? She wouldn't.  Of course, eventually, after being subjected to MK-ULTRA-like mind control, and being paid huge money in 1960s dollars (for the cinematic rights to her story, for Oswald's alleged "historical diary" and other things) she sang like a canary. But, when first asked, and before being influenced by anyone, she, effectively, said no, he didn't own a rifle. 

Then, there is Ruth Paine. You know she was a Quaker, a pacifist, and anti-gun. She drove Oswald to the bus station when he left for New Orleans. That story requires that he brought his rifle with him. So, it has to be assumed that Ruth Paine saw the rifle amid his luggage. But, when she narrated about this, she said nothing about seeing a rifle among his stuff.  

But, the story also requires getting the rifle back to Dallas. So, it became that even though Lee knew that Ruth Paine despised guns, that he snuck his rifle wrapped in a blanket into her station wagon when she came down to New Orleans to pick up Marina. But, he wasn't going to be there when they arrived in Dallas and unpacked the car. So, did he instruct Marina to slyly sneak it into the garage and hide it somewhere? Surely, if Ruth handled it, she would have known from its shape that it was a rifle, right? So, is that how it was? Did Lee and Marina conspire about this? What reason do you have to believe that Marina would have done that? You know that she stood up to Lee sometimes, that she didn't always kowtow to him. Why would she betray Ruth, who was taking her in, for nothing? Lee was going off somewhere. The story was that he went to Mexico City, but that's bogus. We really don't know what he did or where he went during that time, except that he didn't go to Mexico City. But, you know that Marina had no use or want for the rifle. So, why would she risk her welcome at Ruth's house by deceiving her about something that was of no value to her? Don't you think she would have told Lee to find someplace else to store it? He had an aunt and uncle there in New Orleans, didn't he? So, couldn't he have stored the rifle with them? And what about all those friends he had there? The Bannister gang? Couldn't he have left the rifle with one of them? And why would Oswald even want to trust Marina to carry out such a sinister plan? Why would he have confidence that she'd go through with it? Don't you think he would have come up with another way to store the rifle? If he valued the rifle, he would have come up with something else.  

And what about when he got back to Dallas? Remember, he was reportedly going to shooting ranges, and shooting diagonally at other people's targets. That's what we're told, but when you think about how quiet and reserved Oswald was at the TSBD, do you really think he would have behaved in such an aggressive, confrontational, and harassing manner at the shooting range? Why would you believe that? Doesn't it seem like a behavioral contradiction? But, the point is that if he was going to the shooting range, then why was his rifle still being stored in the Paine garage? How did he manage that? Remember, he had no car. Are we supposed to believe that on a Saturday morning, when he was in Irving, he made an excuse that he was going somewhere, he snuck the rifle out of the garage, he somehow traveled to the range, he did his shooting, then he went back to the Paine house, re-snuck the rifle back into the garage, and then rejoined the household with no one aware of anything? We were also told that twice Michael Paine moved the rifle, and both times, it didn't occur to him that it was a rifle. Once he thought it was "tent poles" for camping, and the next time, his best guess was "military shovel." 

This is sickening. It is disgusting. It's disgusting that they actually expect people to believe it. And I'll tell you what else it is: bad screenwriting. Remember, I am a filmmaker, and every screenwriter has to be constantly testing the credibility of his characters and the plausibility of his story. And this story isn't plausible at all.

Oswald did NOT own a rifle. And that means that he certainly did not shoot Kennedy or shoot at Walker. And it means that he didn't pose for the Backyard photos either, that what he told police was the truth, that they implanted his face over the body of another man. 

The official story of the JFK assassination is SO preposterous, it is an insult to your intelligence. That, in itself, is a reason to reject it; out of respect for your own mind. 

 

 

This is the moment of impact in the KRLD footage. Notice the position of the Shooter's feet and their distance apart. 

 And this is the moment of impact in the Beers photo, which is said to be just three-tenths of a second before. 

So in KRLD, his feet are side by side and a little more than shoulder width apart. In Beers, his feet are not side by side. They are linear with his right foot forward and knee bent, and his left foot way back behind creating a long stretch. 

And really, it is ridiculous because in KRLD, he has already passed LC Graves, while in Beers, he hasn't reached Graves yet, causing him to stretch a great deal to get the gun close to Oswald. And remember that it was or almost was a contact shot. So, these both can't be real. 

But, I mainly focus on Beers because I am seeing something for the first time. I know his left leg is a big closer to the camera, but still, doesn't it seem like his left leg is huge compared to his right? Would the angular difference cause that much size difference? I doubt it. Doesn't his left leg seem much longer than his right? They added that weird black shadow behind him which is obscuring. If you try to imagine the image without that, his leg isn't so much bigger. But, it's still longer. And we're not even seeing the whole thing. There's quite a bit more leg missing as well as the whole foot. Imagine if it were all there how much longer that leg would seem. So, what is going on with this?

I believe what is going on is that they were concerned that Bookhout would seem too short to be Ruby, who was the same height as Oswald. So, by giving him that long left leg that seems to go on forever, it tells our minds that he wasn't that short. Look how perfectly straight the line of the left thigh is and that of the left lower leg. That is really ruler-straight, and his left knee makes a sharp angle. Even the floor is off-color in front of it. So, did they get the paint out to fool us into thinking the Shooter was taller? Note too the Shooter's different arrangement in the Jackson photo, which supposedly was within a fraction of a second. He is configured totally different. There's no long stretch between his legs. 

One thing I disagree with the Architects and Engineers about is over whether they will ever prevail in court. In their case against NIST about their bogus report concerning the collapse of Building 7, the judge dismissed it today "on standing," meaning that he ruled that all NIST had to do was report something, anything, that the accuracy of the report did not matter and could not be challenged in court. But, that is ridiculous. It means that they could claim that the building collapsed because a little birdie flew into it, and it could not be challenged. Obviously, that is an extremely dangerous precedent to set.

So, now AE911truth wants more money to appeal that decision. They don't get it that 911 truth is never going to be upheld in court. And that's because the core of 9/11 truth is that the U.S. government did it. And the court is an agency of the U.S. government. The judge is an employee of the U.S. government. And when you attack the official story of 9/11, you are attacking and accusing the U.S. government. Even if you don't say that outright, it is clearly implied. So, the judge is, in effect, protecting his employer and his own job. Because: if the U.S. government did 9/11, then it has no legitimacy, and it is entitled to no authority. It means that it is a criminal organization. All of that is implicit in 9/11 truth. So, how can it prevail in the court system of the U.S. government? It can't. 

It's like the proverbial wolf guarding the hen house. AE911truth has as much chance of prevailing in court as Alex Jones has.

 

This image shows the partially amputated left index finger on Jack  Ruby. So, that's a simple, undisputed fact. But then, we have the freaky situation of the Garage Shooter using his middle finger to shoot Oswald, and that is not simple at all because nobody would do that. But, you should realize that using your middle finger to shoot the gun is the same as not using your index finger. So, it's an index finger issue. The Garage Shooter must have had a problem with his right index finger, while Ruby definitely had a problem with his left index finger. But, you can see in the picture that there was nothing wrong with Ruby's right index finger. So, why would a guy who had no left index finger avoid using his right index finger? The peculiarity of it is multiplied 100x by the fact that BOTH of Ruby's index fingers are at issue. 

Do this experiment right now, this very moment. Put your right hand out. Make it your left hand if you are left-handed. Put it out like you were pointing with it. Now, curl your index finger all the way to the heel of your hand. Now fully extend it again. And repeat several times. Think about how it feels. Think about how much control you have over your index finger. Think about your "mind/body" connection to your index finger. 

Now, do it again but with your middle finger. Do you notice a difference? Do you notice that you can't control your middle finger as well? Do you notice that the effect spills over to the other fingers, the ring finger and the pinkie, that they start curling with the middle finger? That didn't happen with your index finger, did it? Do you notice that your middle finger seems more distant? It's as though your nervous connection to it isn't as strong. It isn't. You don't feel as connected to your middle finger as you do to your index finger.  And you can't generate as much force with it. 

I have read excuses as to why Ruby used his middle finger. A popular one is that it was common for Mafia hoodlums to use their middle finger, and Ruby prided himself on being a Mafia hoodlum. 

Well, that is ridiculous for Ruby or any real Mafia hoodlum, which Ruby wasn't. Mafia hoodlums are human beings, and what we just demonstrated about the difference between the index finger and the middle finger applies to them as well. There can't be any truth to that claim about Mafia hoodlums. It's just another JFK assassination lie.  

So, what can we make of this situation of Jack Ruby having issues with BOTH his index fingers, one that he didn't have, and one that he did have but didn't use? What we should make of it is that it was a production error. Remember: I'm a filmmaker. I have made 4 feature films. And I know how easy it is to make production errors. In this case, the error was that they got a story element wrong. They thought the character had a missing right index finger, and so they had the actor use his middle finger to shoot the gun. But, the character actually had a missing left index finger and would have used his right index finger to shoot the gun. They got confused. They got reversed. And they fucked up. 

And I'm not talking about Ruby. Again, this was theater. I am talking about the actor who was playing Ruby whose name was James Bookhout. And his problem was that he got bad direction. Somebody must have told him to use his middle finger since Ruby's right index finger was missing, and Bookhout didn't question it. He assumed that the person directing him knew what he was talking about. He didn't. 

This was obviously a production error, and it's not the only one they made. There is another I will tell you about. 

Absolute Proof that Jack Ruby was NOT the Garage Shooter of Lee Harvey Oswald

The Garage Shooter used his middle finger to pull the trigger. You can see it in the Jackson photo. Stop and look at it now. Now, why would Jack Ruby do that when he had an intact right index finger? These guns are designed to use your index finger. You have no mechanical advantage when using your middle finger, and you couldn't generate half as much force. Plus, where would you put your index finger? There is no place to put it except alongside the barrel, and that's a good way to get it blown off. Remember: there is a "cylinder gap" there through which hot gases escape. If you don't believe me, go ahead and try it. No, do NOT try it. I am not taking responsibility for anyone blowing their finger off.  But, the first thing they teach you at gun safety class (and I have taken a gun safety class) is to not let any part of your hand be adjacent to the barrel.   

So, what is going on in this Pulitzer Prize winning photo? What's going on is that it was a staged photo. It is not from the televised spectacle. It was staged beforehand. Remember: they had a lot of time. Supposedly, Oswald was being interrogated from 9:15 to 11:15. But, Fritz didn't write down a single word in his notes. Why? Because: there was no interrogation; what they were really doing was preparing for the spectacle. And that isn't Jack Ruby wielding the gun; it is FBI Agent James Bookhout. So, why did Bookhout use his middle finger? And keep in mind that there was no pulling of the trigger here. It was just a photo shoot. But, I can tell you why Bookhout acted it out using his middle finger. It was because he and the others knew that Ruby had a partially amputated index finger, and they mistakenly thought it was on his right hand. But, it was on his left hand. So, Ruby would definitely not have done this.

SO, THE VERY FACT THAT THE OFFICIAL STORY IS STUCK WITH THE CLAIM THAT THE GARAGE SHOOTER USED HIS MIDDLE FINGER TO PULL THE TRIGGER, EXONERATES JACK RUBY COMPLETELY.  

And, I can tell you from experience that even these snub-nosed revolvers have a lot of spring tension that has to be overcome. If you tried pulling the trigger with your middle finger, which can't marshal the strength of your hand like your index finger can, the muzzle would deviate. It would affect your aim, your accuracy. Everything about the process leads the shooter to, intuitively, use his index finger. In Jack Ruby's case, he had no reason to even visit the idea of using anything else, since there was nothing wrong with his right index finger. 

So, that can't be Jack Ruby in the Jackson photo, and that means that it can't be Jack Ruby in any of the films or photos from the Garage Spectacle. He wasn't there. He was already up on the 5th floor, being held there, waiting for the right time to be slipped into the story. Of course, he had no awareness of any of that. Ruby was out of it mentally. He was high as a kite. He was drugged. Do you remember how vocal Oswald was in the hallway around reporters? Not Ruby. He didn't say a word. He couldn't, not coherently. One of the WFAA reporters said on the air that after his arrest Ruby was muttering incoherently. But, that never got repeated. 

I realize that after 59 years of having it drummed into you that Ruby shot Oswald, it's hard to let it go. But, you need to let it go because Ruby did not shoot Oswald. They didn't need Ruby to shoot Oswald, just as they didn't need Oswald to shoot Kennedy. They needed Oswald to take the blame for shooting Kennedy, and likewise, they needed Jack Ruby to take the blame for shooting Oswald. That's all they needed him for.    

It was a year ago that I did my last song with my good friend Paul Popa. It was shortly after this that he was diagnosed with a kind of cancer called neuro-endocrine tumor, and he died on December 17.

And as it turned out, this was one of our best songs ever. We really jammed on this one, the classic Route 66. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohZRCg4rHLU 

Paul is playing with the angels now.