This is the Dallas Times Herald reporting the death of Jack Ruby. Look at the image of him. He's practically unrecognizable.

To the end, they falsified his hair. The images below show how bald he really was.

And keep in mind that the only thing we can be sure of is that they didn't take any hair away. Notice that the image on the lower right is more hirsute than the one on the lower left. And it even has the look of being enhanced. But, compare to this:

Are they kidding? Alright, so that they falsified the image of Jack Ruby is an undeniable fact. But, who does that? And why do they do it? It's not as though it's commonly done. THE IMAGE IS A LIE BECAUSE THE STORY IS A LIE. He did not shoot Oswald. 

Hoagy Carmichael is another forgotten man. Few know his name, but practically all know his music. He wrote Georgia On My Mind, and though it became Ray Charles' masterpiece, it was Hoagy Carmichael who gave him the fodder to work with. And Hoagy lived long enough to see what Ray Charles did with it. He wrote the quintessential jazz standard Stardust, one of the most covered songs in music history. He wrote Heart and Soul, one of the most familiar and widely recognized tunes ever.  He wrote the duet Two Sleepy People, and you should hear Seth MacFarlane and Nora Jones sing it. Skylark is another great song of Hoagy's, with lyrics by Johnny Mercer. And, in 1938, he wrote this very sweet song, The Nearness of You.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nj8rjS2vvU8&feature=youtu.be

THE CASE FOR RUBY INNOCENCE: The evidence and the reasons why Jack Ruby could not have shot Lee Harvey Oswald are numerous. Look how many there are.  

1) There is irreconcilable conflict between the images of Jack Ruby and those of the Garage Shooter. They simply do not match. The shooter was shorter, stockier, had a shorter neck, longer thicker hair, a rounder face, and more. And it is something that was plainly visible to investigators at the time. It was also plainly visible to Ruby's lawyers and to his family. I could add that it was also plainly visible to Ruby himself, but Ruby was not of sound mind. His lawyers were correct about that, although not on the basis that they claimed. They claimed he was insane for having shot Oswald and not remembering it, when actually, he was insane for accepting that he shot Oswald just because Dallas Police told him he did. 

2) The behavior of Dallas Police in response to the shooting was clearly devious and wrong. The very idea that they would move a lethally violent offender to another location without first handcuffing him is inexplicable and inexcusable. The very idea that Dallas Police knew to do that without any verbal order being given, where they all knew exactly which door they were going through, proves that it was pre-arranged. And supposedly, as soon as they got through the door, several detectives simultaneously got the idea to cuff Ruby, but why did none of them get the idea in the garage? It can't be rationalized, explained, or justified. 

3) The clear fact is that the Dallas detectives lied, starting with Jim Leavelle, who claimed to see the shooter in advance, to recognize him as Jack Ruby, to see his gun, and to take evasive action, including trying to protect Oswald by yanking him behind him and shoving on "Ruby" all of which never happened. Graves lied about riding in the ambulance. Combest lied about Oswald being conscious and communicative (non-verbally) in the jail office. And, there were plenty more lies.  

4) There is undeniable/unmistakable photographic fraud in the photographic record of the Oswald shooting. And that includes, most especially, the famous Jackson photo which is a photographic monstrosity. The claim that the Beers photo and the Jackson photo were taken .6 second apart is clearly a lie. The fact is that the details of the Beers photo and the Jackson photo cannot be rectified- including who is in them. And, the Jackson photo cannot be confirmed by comparison to any of the many films that exist. The exact situation and arrangement of the Jackson photo never occurs during the televised spectacle. The Jackson photo is obviously its own staged event. 

5) There is no evidence for, nor is there any basis to believe, that Jack Ruby lied- about anything. Yet, there is no correlation between what he described at the time he entered the Main Street ramp and what others claimed, including Lt. Pierce and Officer Vaughan. And that points to Ruby having gotten there earlier and had his own incident in the garage with police, separate from and prior to the televised spectacle. 

6) The fact that Dallas police and federal law enforcement officers kept Ruby in his underwear for hours suggests a form of psychological intimidation and control.

7) The fact that Dallas Police claimed that Jack Ruby's underwear was changed- as part of his being processed as a prisoner- is both a laughing stock and an outrage. He was kept at the Dallas City Jail for less than 24 hours, and the idea that they would have had the need to replace his underwear is preposterous. That claim was made to rationalize the fact that the shooter in the Beers photo is obviously wearing light socks, whereas Ruby in his mug shot, is wearing jet-black socks. Hence, "1 set underwear" was squeezed into the property invoice after it was made.

8) There is also clear evidence of fraudulence in the photographic record of Jack Ruby prior to the shooting, including false images of him at the DPD on Friday afternoon and at the Midnight Press Conference on Friday evening. 

9)  There is strong photographic evidence that images of the Garage Shooter are a match to FBI agent James Bookhout. Plus, the fact is that Bookhout had no "alibi" for the shooting. His claim that he chose to remain in Fritz' office doing nothing rather than go down watch the jail transfer is not credible, as he was someone who followed Oswald everywhere. He was like Oswald's shadow.  

10) The case against Jack Ruby depends upon accepting that Ruby evaded Officer Roy Vaughan to enter the ramp, and that is not realistic, practical, or credible. Roy Vaughan was a 29 year old police officer at the time, and he went to his grave denying that Ruby ever got past him- and there is no reason to doubt him. Yet, there is also no reason not to believe Ruby who said that he got in that way. Ipso facto, the only logical conclusion, the only thing that makes sense is to conclude that Ruby was there at the ramp and got in that way but at a different time-BEFORE Roy Vaughan was assigned the task of guarding the ramp.
  

11) The very fact that Dallas Police were aware of grave threats to Oswald put the onus on them to move him to the County Jail discretely, without fanfare or announcement- in the dead of the night. The fact that they didn't do that is inexcusable and unforgivable.

12) Although Dallas DA Henry Wade won a conviction and the death penalty for Ruby on the basis that he shot Oswald with premeditation, over time, the case made by Ruby's lawyers that Ruby had no awareness of shooting Oswald, has largely been accepted. As early as 1978, a tv movie which starred and was overseen by Jim Leavelle, made the case that Ruby shot Oswald without being conscious or aware of what he was doing. But, there is no basis to think that such a mental lapse was possible since Ruby remembered so many other things perfectly well. 

13) False Ruby sightings are about as pervasive and numerous as false Oswald sightings. And some of them are utterly preposterous, such as the idea that Ruby watched the motorcade from the corner of Commerce and Houston, across the street from the Postal Annex. Many witnesses, besides Ruby himself, placed Ruby inside the Dallas Morning News building, tending to his ads, at the time of the motorcade. That element is rock-solid and unassailable. Yet, the story of him watching the motorcade in DP with an acquaintance and referring in advance to "watching the fireworks" was given traction by the U.S. media as late as 2017. It was deliberate misdirection and myth-making, and the order to do it must have come from up high since the media covered it so well. And note that this is the same media that repeatedly and frequently mocks "conspiracy theorists" as mental cases.

14) False stories about Ruby's past are also numerous: that he was a gangster, that he was a gun-runner, that he was a pimp and dope peddler; that he did murders for hire; that he threw a woman down a flight of stairs two weeks before the assassination; etc. And yet, this wanton criminal adored the Dallas Police. (which is true)

15) There is no way that Ruby could have known that the jail transfer of Oswald was postponed after it was scheduled for 10:00. There is no way he could have been told or found out. Ruby denied having any expectation of seeing Oswald- let alone shooting him- when he walked down the ramp, and there is no reason to doubt him. And the idea that he did it by sudden impulse makes no sense when you consider that he had no such impulse Friday evening. 

16) The idea that Ruby would go from sending a $25 money order to an employee to shooting Oswald, that his mind could go from one to the other in scant minutes is preposterous. That segue- of sending Western Union money to committing murder- makes no sense. Why would he do the former if he knew that he would be utterly and completely and forever destroying his life with the latter? 

17) Why would Jack Ruby, if he had any intention of shooting Oswald within a nest of police, bring his beloved dog Sheba along, leaving her in his car, if he knew he was never going back to his car?

18) There is compelling evidence that Oswald was not shot in the garage, that it was a hoax, a ruse. And that automatically exonerates Jack Ruby. 

19) It is preposterous that the film record of the aftermath of the shooting includes no images- nor any glimpse- of Oswald being moved into the jail office. It is simply unbelievable that every movie camera missed that. 

20) It is preposterous to think that despite an Olympian effort by Dallas Police to secure the garage in the face of threats to Oswald, that Jack Ruby penetrated their fortress and got to Oswald: outwitting them and outsmarting them. That is ludicrous. 

I will quit at 20 since it's a round number, but this list is by no mean exhaustive. There are more reasons why Jack Ruby could not have shot Lee Harvey Oswald. He most certainly did not shoot him. 




         

I want to stay on this point about LBJ's lackey, Cliff Carter, confiscating John Connally's clothes from Parkland Hospital. There are only two possibilities: either the clothes were evidence in the case or they were just Connally's clothes. If they were just Connally's clothes, then LBJ had no business confiscating them. Why would one man confiscate another man's clothes? But, if they were evidence in the case, he also had no business confiscating them. Neither as Vice President nor as President did he have any jurisdiction in a criminal investigation. He had no right to take possession of any evidence whatsoever. He was not police. He was not FBI. And, as we've often been told, shooting and killing the President was not a federal crime in 1963, and shooting the governor of Texas is not a federal crime even today. So, there was no legal basis, by the wildest stretch, for Cliff Carter to do what he did.

The reason for taking the clothes was in case they conflicted with the official story- and remember that it wasn't fleshed out yet, and wouldn't be for months. However, what this implies is that LBJ not only sought to control the investigation from the start, but had a vested interest in the result. It shows that there is NO CHANCE that LBJ was just an unwily party to what happened. He was a wily party, alright. Wily. Do you know what it means?  

I really think the day may come in which they are forced to abandon the official JFK story, and if they do have to jump ship, I think they will target LBJ, and they'll probably throw in Richard Nixon for good measure. They'll say that those two conspired to kill Kennedy. And of course, there are already numerous books pointing the finger at LBJ. Of course, they'd like to keep Oswald in the picture, but that is so ridiculous: the idea that LBJ would choose Oswald to shoot Kennedy. How many times do I have to say that Oswald was not an assassin, and he wasn't even a good marksman. HE HAD NO EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER AT THE KIND OF SNIPERING THAT WAS INVOLVED. He had just spent 3 years in Russia in which the only shooting he did was a few outings rabbit-hunting with a shotgun, which his Russian friends said he stunk at. What bearing does that have on the shooting feat from the 6th floor? And after Russia, there is no credible evidence that Oswald did any shooting at all. So, how could that possibly qualify him to be THE CHOSEN ONE to shoot Kennedy? It's ridiculous and preposterous to think that anyone would choose him, whether you want to say it was LBJ, the Mafia, or the CIA.

The official story is preposterous. But, there are alternate stories that are just as preposterous, pitching Oswald as infiltrator, as spy on the inside, as having this underworld, under-cover life that not even his wife knew about. Did you see the movie True Lies starring Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jamie Lee Curtis?  In it, he plays a US covert agent against counter-terrorism who lets his wife think that he is a greeting card salesman. That, according to some, is much like Oswald's life with Marina. Ridiculous.  

Amy Joyce found this image of LBJ point man Cliff Carter hauling off John Connally's clothes from Parkland Hospital.

Now, why would an assistant of LBJ be doing that? Carter didn't work for Connally; he worked for LBJ. And he wasn't law enforcement. He wasn't FBI. He had no business collecting evidence in the case. 

But, let's think about it: LBJ knew that the official story was going to be that Lee Harvey Oswald did all the shooting from the 6th floor window. Of course, that is not how Connally got shot. But, at this stage, LBJ didn't know how well the bullet holes in Connally's clothing would support the official story. And remember that the Single Bullet Theory wasn't born yet. So, just as a precaution, they needed to get Connally's clothing out of there.

So, what it shows is the extent to which LBJ and his lackies starting managing and controlling the cover-up. And Cliff Carter is one of the guys who, as soon as Oswald was arrested, started calling  Captain Will Fritz telling him to shut down the investigation because he "had his man." The other was everybody's favorite modern-day mystic philosopher, Bill Moyers. The Power of Myth, Bill? You've created quite a few myths of your own.  How about confessing what you did on November 22, 1963? You're not going to live forever, you know; I don't care how mystic you are. You were an active participant in the greatest cover-up in American history. And you need to make amends. You can't undo what you did, but you can cough it up.  

You listen up, Moyers: Your boss, LBJ, murdered Kennedy. And then he murdered Oswald. He had his friends at the Dallas PD do it and then swindle a poor hapless guy named Jack Ruby into thinking that he did it. The great reckoning has begun, and you can mystify about that. 

Surely, the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 by George W. Bush was one of the most wicked and abominable decisions ever made by a U.S. President. And, it proves that there is something terribly wrong with this country that he got away with it without consequences. In fact, after doing it, the American people re-elected him when he should have been imprisoned- for life.   

Every justification used for the Iraq War turned out to be false. Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. He submitted a 10,000 page document to the UN detailing how he had disposed of all his illegal weapons. Secretary of State Colin Powell called him a liar at the UN, but it turns out that Saddam was telling the truth, and it was Bush and Powell who were lying. Likewise, Saddam was not aiding and abetting Al Qaeda. 

And about the weapons, they claimed that he had chemical, biological, and was pursuing nuclear weapons. And all three of those claims were proven false. 

Then, the cowardly US Congress gave him a blank-check authorization to start a war if he determined that the threat posed to the United States by Iraq was great enough, which is to say, if he felt like it. 

The Constitution states that only Congress can declare war. That means that it was their job to determine if Iraq was a threat to the United States- enough to justify attacking them. Iraq had not attacked the U.S. To do what we did to them on the basis that they might? We didn't even determine that they could- that they had the means. And, they didn't. Nor was there any evidence that they had the intent.

What did the Bush administration and its defenders say afterwards? They said that Saddam was a bad guy anyway, and aren't the Iraqi people better off having him gone? Well, not the dead Iraqi people. And not the loved ones of the dead Iraqi people. Not the ones we killed or maimed and their families. Not the parents of Iraqi children with birth defects or childhood cancers, the result of our use of depleted uranium. And let me make something crystal-clear: I am talking about not just the civilians deaths, the deaths of non-combatants, including women and children, that we killed, but also the killing of Iraqi soldiers. Why not? We invaded their country, and they tried to defend it. You can't assume that every Iraqi soldier was a monster. Remember, it started with our "Shock and Awe" campaign of aerial terror. The former Big Pharma exec Donald Rumsfeld had to approve every bombing run in which 50 or more people were expected to die as "collateral damage." Guess what percentage of those runs he approved? 100%. He never met a bombing run he didn't like. Talk about monsters. 

Iraq was a broken-down Third World country which had never recovered from the first Gulf War. The idea that they were a threat to us was preposterous. Our vicious campaign of sanctions resulted in the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children. That is a well-established fact. And all those deaths are on us.   

AMERICA DIED IN 2003. Some say it died in 1963 when they slaughtered John F. Kennedy, but if it didn't die then, it surely died in 2003. America is dead. We are not the City on a Hill. We are the Evil Empire.   

   

   

Karen Mitchell is coming back tomorrow, Monday, and she will be singing and recording some songs, and because of that, Paul Popa decided to come too, and he's already here. So, to warm up for our endeavors with Karen, he and I recorded this song, Manha De Carnaval, which is classic Bossa Nova, of which Paul and I are big fans. The English version is called A Day In The  Life Of A Fool. 

It was written by Luiz Bonfa as the theme song and musical score for the 1959 Brazilian movie, Black Orpheus.  Throughout the movie, the song is sung, hummed, and played instrumentally. And after that it became a jazz standard and one of the most popular Bossa Nova songs of all time. What a rhythm. It's hypnotic! Gotta love this song. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19zKzKZI_yY&feature=youtu.be