The book-distributing at the TSBD was a fraud. It was a pretense, a facade, for what they were really doing, which was clandestine CIA activities. Nobody would conduct a book business this way.

How could anyone find anything in that mess? Is that any way to run a book company? Supposedly, the "order-fillers" like Oswald were given titles to retrieve, and apparently, not that many units, since they were not given wagons to roll the boxes on. And, you see all the open boxes, which implies that they were taking out individual books. But, they sold only to schools who ordered for classes. They were not selling retail to the public, like Amazon. So, shouldn't it have all been boxes? 

The small print on the boxes appears to be illegible. Notice the one box below with "Chicago order" written on it. How could that possibly be useful? Who is supposed to see it and act on it? It's most likely a background effect that somebody added because they thought it looked good. Remember, I'm a filmmaker. 

This is the most legible print that I could find. You see the word Mathematics, but I can't make out the word before it. At the bottom, it says 24 books, and, I think, 32 pounds. 

One thing they tell you is to never stack boxes more than 3 high because the weight of the books will crush the ones at the bottom. Plus, it's dangerous to create tall stacks. And note that we are aware of no ladders at the TSBD. So, how did they get to the top of the stacks? 

Below, there are books stacked vertically, which you are never supposed to do. Who would even think to do that?

Below is the northwest corner of the first floor. You see the stairwell in the corner, which are the stairs that Truly and Baker went up. Notice the old-fashioned scale. What did they have to weigh them for? And by the way, they never revealed how books got shipped. Was it through the post office? But, if so, it would be weighed at the post office. And notice again the open boxes, implying that they were selling individual units. But, what does that have to do with schools, who were their only customers? 

Here is a single box which is not the right shape to be books. No one would ship books in an oblong box with such an unwieldly shape. And look at the ridiculous caption: ANOTHER SHIPMENT OF FINE YEARBOOKS. Who labels boxes that way? Nobody. It's not an ad. Who were they trying to impress with that? 

Look at all these open boxes. What, did they just let the rats crawl into them at night? It was an effin' warehouse. 

Here's an image of the Sniper's Nest.

So, there we see a column 7 boxes high. Who would do that? Why would they do it? And how did they do it without a ladder? In the center is the Sniper's Nest. Supposedly, Oswald built that. But, when did he do it? He got off work the same time as everyone else. He went down to the Domino Room and ate his lunch: cheese sandwiches and an apple. He also browsed through the newspaper, as he always did. He reported seeing Junior Jarman and Harold Norman there (who he described as a short negro). But, supposedly, he had to retrieve his rifle from wherever he hid it. Then, he had to take the parts out of the paper bag, assemble the rifle, using a dime as a screwdriver, since no screwdriver was found. And then, presumably, he had to build that Sniper's Nest by moving those boxes one at a time. So, if he got off work at 11:50 and the motorcade was expected to pass the building at 12:25, how could he possibly do all that? And how could he do it when Bonnie Ray Williams was up there eating his fried chicken and drinking his Dr. Pepper on the 6th floor?

And look at this stacking. How is anyone supposed to know what is in those boxes? You face them and what do you see to distinguish them? 

And here are some more boxes with totally illegible print.

And tell me: since the "order-fillers" were working all morning gathering stock, what did they do with it? There was a "mailer" and a "mailing station" with brown paper and even a tying machine, but that was only for small parcels. You wouldn't wrap a big box of books in brown paper. Why would you need to? If they could be shipped to the TSBD without brown paper wrapping, why couldn't they be shipped from the TSBD without brown paper wrapping? And who were they sending small parcels to? Not to schools. What's a school going to do with 3 copies of a book? And even shipping 3 copies in brown paper would be flimsy because paper tears easily.  But, whatever it was, why don't we see a collection of parcels that were ready to go out the door? I mean wrapped, labeled, tied, etc. Ready for transit. Why is a hodge-podge of boxes the only thing we ever see? How come no finished product?  

The TSBD was not a book distributing company. It was a fake book distributing company. The book distributing was just a facade for what they were really doing. It was really a CIA front company that was doing espionage, drug running, and gun running, and that's according to William Westin, who researched it. There is no reason to believe that real book distributing was actually going on.

The lie that Oswald killed Kennedy is grotesque for many reasons, but one of them is the sheer impossibility of the timeline. He had no time to do all that prep work on the 6th floor, plus Bonnie Ray Williams was up there. Bonnie Ray Williams was on the 6th floor eating and drinking during the lunch break. How do you get around that? You don't. You just ignore it. 

 
 

 There is the Latin expression, Cui bono? which means, "Who benefits? That's what you need to ask yourself about the Oswald shooting. Ruby certainly didn't and couldn't benefit from it. But, the Dallas Police could. They were in trouble. The clock was ticking. Oswald was clamoring for a lawyer. He devoted his whole MPC speech to it. And remember, he didn't ask for someone to contact John Abt. He just said that he was asking for someone to come forward to provide him with legal assistance. And that did so much damage, that the next evening, they had civil attorney H. Louis Nichols meet with "Lee" and offer to get him an attorney, which "Lee" turned down. That was not the Oswald of fame. I have tracked the time. Nichols didn't even start the wheels in motion until 5 pm. By the time he was one-on-one with Oswald in his cell, it was after 6:20, at which time Harvey was already on the 3rd floor, heading to Fritz' office.  The Oswald of fame never met with Nichols and NEVER would have turned down that offer. 

And as much trouble as the Dallas Police were in, the FBI was in even more trouble. They are the ones who came up with the false story of Oswald mail-ordering a rifle from Chicago, and everything they submitted as evidence for it was fake. Do you think it would have been hard for Oswald's lawyer to establish that in court? And then, it was the FBI who claimed to find partial prints on the rifle after the Dallas Police could not. 

It wasn't just that they couldn't let Oswald go to trial, though they certainly couldn't. They couldn't even let Oswald speak to a lawyer- not even once. They would have had to kill the lawyer. 

So, the Dallas Police needed Oswald dead about as badly as Putin needs new recruits who can shoot straight. 

So, what do you think, they just got lucky that Ruby came along and got them out of a jam? Luck had nothing to do with it. The whole thing was planned. And I don't mean planned with Ruby. There was no conspiracy between Ruby and the Dallas Police. And if people would just think about it, they would realize it. The Dallas Police testified against Ruby in a death penalty case. How can you be in cahoots with people who are trying to put you to death? 

There was a conspiracy, but it was against Ruby, not with him. And I wish to God people would realize that there was no way the Dallas Police would let Jack Ruby fire a gun in a crowded place with them in it. They didn't let James Bookhout do it either. It was too risky. The Garage Spectacle was pure theater; it was just an act. Oswald was shot afterwards. 

They didn't need Ruby to kill Oswald. They just needed him to take the blame for it. 

It makes perfect sense that the people who framed Oswald and killed JFK went on to kill Oswald. The same people killed both men. Make it three because the same people killed Tippit too.

To those of you who think that Ruby did it, but the Mafia put him up to it, stop thinking it was your idea. From the beginning, that alternate story was decided on as the right one for naysayers to be encouraged to embrace. That story is very safe ground for the perpetrators, and you are doing their bidding if you extol it. Believe me, they don't mind a bit if you want to say that, and that's because it is polar-opposite to the truth, which is: that Ruby didn't do it at all. 

When I started clamoring that there were no images of James Bookhout, not from the assassination (even though he followed Oswald around like his shadow) not from before the assassination, and not from after the assassination, and that even after his death in 2009 at the age of 95, his obituary lacked an image, I knew why.

But, at some point, Bart Kamp, from England, claimed to go to the National Archives and obtain an image of James Bookhout from the assassination weekend. But remember, that I did find yearbook images of Bookhout with the help of Ancestry.com. So, the image Kamp found has to be consistent with the yearbook images, or else it's bogus, right? 

Well, it's bogus. As you can see on the left, Bookhout had very puffy cheeks. He was that way in the earliest image of him that we found, which was from high school. I think he was maybe 15 at the time. But, the collage below compares his 1937 photo from when he graduated from SMU Law School in 1937 with the image Kamp found. 

So, you see the very puffy cheeks on the left, and then on the right, is the Kamp image. Note how gaunt that guy's face was. And remember that, usually, people tend to get fatter as they age. So, how could he go from fat-faced to gaunt? What, did he go on an extreme diet? Did he become a marathon runner? You see he's smoking a pipe there. Bookhout lived to 95. How many pipe smokers live to 95? Those two are obviously not the same man. And notice how fake the tuft of hair is in front in Kamp's image. It obviously isn't hair. It's just painted on and crudely at that. But, the same goes for the swervy eyebrows on Bookhout. Nobody has eyebrows like that. Some women will shave their eyebrows and paint on swervy ones, but that's the only way you get them. So, a concerted effort was made to alter Bookhout's appearance on the left. Therefore, both images are altered. However, there is no reason to doubt that that is Bookhout on the left, and that means that the man on the right can't be him. 

The Wizard put it well when he said, "There is no way that early law school photo could have morphed into that." 

 

 Mike Cunningham responded to a letter I sent to leading JFK researchers about the latest find about Jack Ruby. Mike asked about Ruby's hat. The fact is that in most of his images, Ruby did not wear a hat. I only know of two images in a hat. One was at the opening of the Carousel Club, and the other was at an Easter parade in Dallas in 1960. All of his other images were hatless. 

However, they definitely needed Ruby to wear a hat on 11/24/63 because James Bookhout had to wear one to hide his face. It may be that George Senator, who was Ruby's "roommate" but really his handler, saw to it that Ruby wore a hat on Sunday. But, if Ruby didn't wear one, then they just slipped it among his stuff. Ruby was stripped down to his drawers as soon as they got him up to the 5th floor. There are multiple sightings for it, including Ruby's lawyer Elmer Gertz, who wrote Moment of Madness, and also Vincent Bugliosi in Reclaiming History. It's weird because I don't think most men would stand for it if police ordered them to strip. Maybe in prison, but this was a City Jail. I think most men would probably say something like, "I'm not giving you my clothes to stand here in my drawers; fuck you." But, Ruby went along. Why? You just can't exaggerate the degree of his compliance and submissiveness, due partly to his nature, (the extreme respect he had for the Dallas Police, his heroes) and also because of the drugs he was on. He was heavily drugged on 11/24. It was reported on WFAA that Ruby was muttering incoherently after his arrest. Of course, that was never repeated. 

Just compare the behavior of Oswald and Ruby after their arrests. Oswald was vocal, defiant, and lucid. He proclaimed his innocence 13x that I know of, where we can hear him. But, Ruby never said anything in the hall. He just went along with everything, with his eyes all dilated from the drugs. Look at the drug-glazed stare on Ruby. Compare his eyes to the focused eyes of the policeman and Detective Boyd Webb. Ruby was high as a kite. 

And by the way, notice how neat and well-groomed he looks there. Supposedly, this was him when they brought him in, on the right:

What, did they have a makeup department, like on a movie set? How did he go from that to the image above it? And what happened to his jacket? Reportedly, they didn't remove his jacket until they got him upstairs. So, how could he be jacket-less in the Jail Office? They didn't think it through. In an operation such as this, the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. 

Mike also asked if there are any images of James Bookhout. Yes, although not many. Most of them are from his school yearbooks: high school and college. But, there is this image of him from 11/24/63.

That's James Bookhout. They blackened out his eyes and did other things to obscure him, but that's him. They don't admit it's him. They claim it's Jack Ruby. But, you know it's not Jack Ruby. Ruby didn't have that much hair. He didn't have such a round face. He didn't have such a short neck. He didn't have such a short forehead. He didn't have such a narrow nose. He looked nothing like Jack Ruby.

So, you see the long neck on Ruby, the long forehead, the longer face. Guys, the killing of Oswald and the framing of Ruby was the biggest psy-op of all time. You were bamboozled by it, but don't feel bad because everyone else was too. The important thing now is to set the record straight. No matter what you have written or said before to the contrary, there is no reason to keep doing it. Jack Ruby was innocent.  

 Come on, people, just look at this. On the left is Ruby heading into the courtroom, three months after his arrest. Look at his hair in back, which is nothing like the long mop on the Garage Shooter. And, notice that the Garage Shooter had a very short, burly neck, but not Ruby.

They can't possibly be the same man, and anyone who can't see that is either extremely obtuse and stupid, or they are covering for the killers. Jack Ruby was not in the garage during the televised spectacle. And that's what it was: a spectacle for the public. You see, they knew that if they just said that Oswald got shot, say, trying to escape, that no one would believe them. They had to put on a show, a demonstration. Everything about it looks choreographed with head-nod cues and spontaneous group actions that were pre-planned. But, what you see here is the bottom line, the raison d'etre for Jack Ruby innocence: the fact that Ruby simply was not the Garage Shooter. If you are going to claim that those two are the same guy, then you are capable of claiming anything. 

I have said before that one thing about the Architects and Engineers that irks me is their belief that 9/11 truth can be achieved through the courts, that courts are going to rule in their favor. Recently, they sued NIST over their preposterous report about the collapse of Building 7, which was never hit by a plane, and whose collapse was reported before it happened. The judge ruled that the veracity of NIST's report could not be raised as a legal issue; that their delivery of a report was sufficient to meet the statute. 

The ridiculousness of that should be obvious to everyone. If the content of the report cannot be challenged, then NIST could have said: "Building 7 fell because of gravity. That completes our report." And by the judge's decree, that would be sufficient too and beyond reproach. What the judge really meant was: "NIST is the U.S. government, and the U.S. government cannot be challenged."

The courts are never going to fairly adjudicate 9/11 truth, and for one simple reason: If Osama bin laden and his gang of jihadists didn't do 9/11, then the U.S. government did. 

So, how can the U.S. government fairly adjudicate 9/11 when they are the real culprits? They, the U.S. government, decreed the official story of 9/11, and if that story isn't true, then it can only mean one thing, that the U.S. government did it. 

It's exactly the same way for the JFK assassination: If Oswald didn't kill Kennedy, then the U.S. government did. And I don't mean "rogue elements" within the CIA. I mean the CIA, the FBI, the Vice President, and others across the spectrum of what Vincent Salandria called "the national security state." That's who killed Kennedy. And it's very likely that those who promote the idea that Mafia killed Kennedy are working for the government. The idea that Mafia did it is so stupid that I won't debate it with anyone. I am not willing to waste my time. Anyone who believes that the Mafia did it needs to stay the hell away from me. 

You know that we are in serious trouble. The soaring inflation that is going on is not due to Putin; it's due to all the money printing. Why did they ever think they could print, not billions, but trillions of dollars and not cause prices to rise? To think that you can get away with it is like thinking you can get away with breaking mathematical laws, not realizing that they can't be broken. What's going on now is the direct result of everything we did to kick the can down the road. All the schemes they came up with to deal with prior emergencies, such as cutting interest rates to zero, did tremendous economic harm, and now we're feeling it.  

How bad is it going to get? I don't know. But, I don't put anything past these idiots. They are capable of doing the most idiotic things. They may even get the bright idea that a war is just what we need to revive our economy. I just hope there isn't a complete collapse. I hope there is still going to be food in the stores. 

But, if there is one thing we should have learned from the last 3 years is that there is no telling what is going to happen. Imagine going back to September 2019, which was just a few months before the insane Covid pandemic began. and I call it insane because it involved a lot of medical insanity. Medicine is more religion than science, especially when it comes to pandemics.  But, my point is that back in September 2019, nobody could have predicted how the next three years were going to go; and how the government was going to respond to it. And the government's response was 95% of what happened. The government and the medical profession did far more harm to people than the virus. 

So, what is going to happen over the next 3 years? I don't even want to try to guess. Just about anything could happen. But, one thing that does occur to me is that, now that things are worse than ever with Russia, that Russia may decide to hit back at us by calling out our lies. For instance, in the past, Russian scientists have mocked the U.S. claim of having sent men to the moon. I heard one say that Russia was going to send an unmanned spacecraft to the moon "to take pictures of that American flag the Americans left behind." 

And what if the Russians do it over 9/11? And what if they do it over the JFK assassination? Even before recent events, Putin went on the air with Megyn Kelly and called the JFK assassination a CIA operation. What would he call it now if he was asked again? Recently, I listened to a speech of his in which he mocked the US for blaming him for the raging inflation in our country. And it made more sense than the stuff we are told here. What if he holds a gathering for 9/11 truthers in Russia? What if he contacts me and asks to join the Oswald Innocence Campaign? In the past, I would have welcomed him. But, since he invaded and attacked Ukraine, even I won't take him because starting a war is never right. 

What I believe is that, on the one hand, the worsening situation in the country is going to distract from truther causes, but on the other hand, desperate times often call for desperate measures, and the enemies of the United States may decide that our "stories" are our weak spot, and it's time for them to go after them. It may be that Russia and China will feel that they have nothing to lose any more by telling us how they really feel about our stories. If that happens and word of it travels around the world, it would very damaging. Because, let's face it: even without help from Russia and China, a large percentage of Americans doubt or outright reject the official stories of JFK and 9/11, as well as other things. 

So, as the saying goes, the possibilities are endless. We may be just as shocked and surprised by what happens over the next 3 years as we were about the last three years. The point is that, as things get worse, the official narratives may be on the chopping block. 

There is a 2019 film about the moon landings that debunks them completely; better than anything else I have seen. It is over 3 1/2 hours long, and you can watch it for free on Youtube. It stomps out every glimmer of hope that the moon landings actually happened. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=KpuKu3F0BvY  \

I have never addressed the moon landings issue before, publicly, and I am not going to get into the nuts and bolts of it. But, I will say that it is as preposterous to claim the Man went to the moon as it is to claim that steel skyscrapers collapsed straight down, through the path of greatest resistance, at freefall speed.   

But, I would like to address the sociology of it because for several decades, there wasn't much resistance to moon-landery. If there were, would they have repeated it? Supposedly, there were a total of 6 manned moon landings between 1969 and 1972. So, something they can't do today at all, they did 6 times in 3 years back at a time that computer science was still in its infancy. But obviously, the first 5 fake moon landings must have been well received for them to want to do a sixth. If there was trouble brewing, if there were leaks in the story, they would have quit before that. 

But, I think we should recognize that it was a different era, where respect for government and media were much greater than they are today, and respect for authority, in general, was too. Consider what happened at the JFK assassination in 1963. You had all these people in Dealey Plaza taking photos and shooting films, and every single bit of that imagery wound up in government hands. Obviously, they had authority figures combing the Plaza and confiscating cameras. Does it seem odd to you that not one person protested having to turn over their private property? I would have refused. I would have said, "This is mine. It's private property. I didn't steal it. I refuse to give it to you. So, take me to a judge."  

And of course, those images were very important. Do you realize that every single one of them was altered? There are alterations in every one of the motorcade films: Zapruder, Martin, Bell, Hughes, Wiegman, etc. And the same goes for the photos: Croft, Betzner, Willis, Altgens (of course) Jackson, etc. The Moorman photo, which is the most famous one after Altgens6, went to the moon, so to speak. It was altered to the point of replacing it. What we call the Moorman photo was not the one that Mary took. The so-called Moorman photo was taken by Babushka Lady. It was shot from a diagonal angle from behind, which was confirmed by a physics professor who has a specialty in Optics. He gives lectures to other physicists about Optics. And he established that the Moorman photo was taken from a diagonal angle from behind. Do this experiment: compare the Moorman photo with the Muchmore film. 

The perspective is very similar, is it not? But, why should it be? Mary was right across from the Kennedys. She said, many times, that she took her photo right when they passed her. Just as they, the Kennedys, their bodies, had reached her, she pressed the shutter. So, it was a perfect perpendicular shot, according to her. But, Muchmore was up by the reflecting pool. She wasn't far from Houston Street. So, she was at the top of Dealey Plaza. So, how could two photographers, shooting from two vastly different locations and angles, capture the exact same image, the exact same perspective? 

And if Mary Moorman took her picture when the Kennedy's reached her, why does her picture show the back of their heads? Who waits three hours in the hot sun to photograph a couple, only to capture the back of their heads? And remember, the limo was approaching her very slowly. Reportedly, it was going just 15 mph. Why would she wait until the limo passed her and then shoot the back of their heads? If anything, she would have snapped the shutter slightly BEFORE they reached her. Because: the idea was to capture their faces, right? But, the likeness of those two images tells you that it is impossible for Mary Moorman to have taken the Moorman photo. 

But, let's leave that and go back to talking about the sociology of the moon landings, and the fact that they must have sold well for them to have repeated them 5 times after the first one. And note that two Presidents were involved in the sham: LBJ and Nixon. By the first one, LBJ was already out of the White House for half a year, but there was a lot of planning that went into it; planning that started under Johnson. So, the scheme originated under Johnson.  Just think, that was another thing that Johnson, a Democrat, and Nixon, a Republican had in common besides the JFK assassination, which Nixon referred to as "that Bay of Pigs thing." 

I don't know when the tide started turning against the moon landings, but I do know that it accelerated with the rise of the internet. But, they pretty much got away with it for 25 years. 

But, that is nothing compared to how long they got away with the ruse of Jack Ruby killing Oswald. They got clean away with it, where, apparently, not a single person in the world doubted that Ruby shot Oswald, until 2013, when the great Maxim Irkutsk, the Russian, posted his video on Youtube "Jack Ruby did not shoot Lee Harvey Oswald." You can still watch it today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oh3zvoj9HVc&t=60s

How did they get clean away with it for 50 years? After all, from the very beginning, by which I mean the day it happened, there were Mark Lane, Vincent Salandria, and Harold Weisberg screaming bloody murder that the official story was a lie, that Oswald was innocent. So, how did they miss what really happened to him, Oswald, when he was conveniently and urgently taken out? 

Well, let's compare. In the case of Oswald, he vociferously denied having done it. We could all see and hear him deny it, and he did it with great passion and conviction. He devoted his MPP address to declaring his innocence and exposing the Dallas Police for denying him a lawyer. And I think to a great extent, those great researchers (Lane, Salandria, and Weisberg) took their cues from Oswald. 

But, what about Ruby? He accepted that he did it, but solely because the Dallas Police told him that he did. His account of what happened was that he went down to the garage; he was jumped by police; they dragged him up to the 5th floor, and there, they told him that he shot Oswald. He said he had no memory of doing it; no mental vision of doing it; and no thought or intention of ever doing it. His entire basis for accepting guilt was: "The Dallas Police said I did it." 

And it was a long time before we heard anything directly from Ruby. He said nothing in the hallway that day or any other day. It really wasn't until the time of his trial in 1964 that the public heard anything directly from him. And it wasn't much. 

So, Oswald denied doing it, and it lite a fire of doubt within the public. Ruby said nothing. All we had to go on was what authorities were telling us. So, why didn't ANYBODY doubt the official story? The answer, I think, is that they just didn't have an alternative. There was a lone shooter. He was identified as Jack Ruby. And the idea that it was really someone else masquerading as Jack Ruby was something that nobody's mind could do. Not even Ruby's lawyers were capable of doing it. It was staring them in the face. All they had to do was look CLOSELY at the images of the Garage Shooter and compare him to Ruby, and they would have easily seen that he wasn't Ruby. But, they couldn't do it because of the disease that I call Americana, the belief that this is a good country, and that degree of police monstrousness is not possible in the United States.

And that is exactly what the perpetrators were relying on: the expectation that no one's mind would be capable of going to what they did because it was beyond anyone's wildest imagination. 

And even now, after having blogged about Ruby's innocence for nearly a decade, I realize that we have just barely made a beachhead. The number of people who have any awareness of it is very, very small. However, it's still satisfying knowing that they are never going to get the genie back in the bottle. That's right: the Genie of Jack Ruby innocence is out and about, and she will never be contained again. 

But, watch that film that delivers a death blow to the moon landings hoax. It's impressive; it's inspiring; and it's refreshing. Bravo.