Let's take a close look at the Zapruder film, starting with Part 1, which I define as prior to JFK's emergence from behind the freeway sign at Z225. It starts with the lead motorcyclists. 

So, it shows their names: Grey, Lumpkin, and Ellis. Note that we see the "Croft Ladies" on the left, most notably, the short woman in the blue dress. Here is the comparison to Croft:

So, there she is, well below the Obelisk, the same woman. I am not going to try to explain how they moved her, but they did. It was part of the compression of the Zapruder film, in which they removed the part in which JFK rode down the hill having been shot in the back.  

But, the next important thing to realize is that the Zapruder film jumps from the lead motorcycists to JFK suddenly being on Elm. So, here's Z132, which is blurry.

And here's 133:

So, the lead motorcyclists are gone, and the Presidential limo has completed the 120 degree turn from Houston to Elm. Did Zapruder turn off his camera? No. That isn't possible. They cut out a large swathe, which obviously must have shown something that they didn't want us to see. What was it? I could only speculate about that, which I will not do at this time. 

Note that in 162, LBJ's vehicle is just starting to turn. 

JFK has got his arm down, but he's looking at the spectators, and I don't assume anything has happened yet. 

At 175, he's waving, and Jackie is turned to her side of the street.

In 183, it's more of the same, but note how large the spectators on the north side of Elm look compared to the occupants of the limo.

They are much larger and sharper. They appear to be much closer to Zapruder's camera than JFK. So, is this evidence of the disassociation that others have talked about? 

Here is 186, which is more looking and waving by JFK.

Now, we get to 189, in which his head is turned far to the right, and his hand is held straight up.

As I proved in Dealey Plaza, the freeway sign in the Zapruder film is fake, and if you haven't watched my video about it, you should. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiJMrM_QKyc&t=3s

So, you have to cleanse your mind of the distorting influence of that sign. In 189, Kennedy was still high on the hill, barely out of the intersection. He's right across from the wall around the pool, which is along Houston Street. He hasn't been shot yet, but he's about to be shot, and I mean in the very next frame.

In 189, JFK was looking at the spectators and waving, but in 190, he has put his hand over his face. Nobody claimed to see him do that, and there is no reason to think that he did it. What happened is that he was shot in the back, and his face must have shown a shocked reaction to that. And to make sure we didn't see it, they painted his hand over his face. 

Look at this transition from 187 to 190. In 187: looking and waving.

In 189, he's looking and waving, but there is more blur. 

Then, in 190, it's blurrier yet, and his hand is over his face.  

 

That coverage continues in the ensuing frames into a solid barrier obscuring his face. 

Why is it that no one has observed this face covering and discussed it? If you do a Google search for, "In the Zapruder film, JFK covers his face with his hand" you don't find anything. 

I regret that Kennedy covering his face with his hand in the Zapruder film has been universally ignored.  

Jackie was sitting next to him, and she turned and looked at him, and she said that he had a "quizzical look" on his face. She did not say that he covered his face with his hand. 

Let's proceed. In 198, he unequivocally has his hand over his face.

Same for 201; it appears that his hand is slapped over his face. 

Will all agree that he has stopped waving? That something is wrong? If you look closely, you'll see that Jackie has also stopped waving. She is turned and looking at him. She's not working her side of the street. Both of them are ignoring the spectators. They are not working the crowd any longer. But supposedly, nothing has happened yet. 

204 is more of the same; he's covering his face, and she's looking at him. But remember, I'm not saying he did that. I think his face was uncovered displaying that "quizzical look" that Jackie talked about. 

It's small, but in 207, his hand is right over his face, and it's almost a perfect circle. His hand looks as round as the moon.  

Then, it jumps to 212.

What happened to 208, 209, 210, and 211? Go to this Youtube vid and adjust the speed to the lowest setting, which is .25 speed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HZc99iD7ho

Then, start playing it starting at frame 200. You'll see it going from frame to frame, one at a time, and you'll see the numbers, but then, it will jump from 207 to 212.

So, did they cut those frames out? Maybe, but not necessarily. It may be that they shortened the duration of those frames so much that even at one-quarter speed they don't register. Maybe if it was slowed to .05 speed, we'd see them. 

After that, we don't see Kennedy again until he emerges at 225.

So now, they're letting us see his face. Why? Because he's been shot, and it doesn't matter if he looks distressed. Prior to this, he was not supposed to be shot, so his distressed face would have conflicted with the story they were telling. And that's why they had to cover up his distressed face with his hand. 

So, the truth is that Kennedy was shot in the back at frame 189 in the Zapruder film, and they had to start covering up his face at 190. 

Now, what do we know about the impact of the shot that struck him in the back? We know where it struck him: to the right of his spinal column at the level of T3. That's on the death certificate, but one doctor, Dr. John Ebersole, said it was at T4, so even lower. And we know it was a very shallow wound that just seemed to abruptly end. Several of the Bethesda doctors probed it with their pinkie fingers and said that the bullet track ended in what felt like a wall. Navy medical technicians James Jenkins and Paul O'Conner said that it was probed by several of the autopsy doctors, and it was agreed that it had no point of exit. 

At the time, the autopsy doctors did not associate the back wound with the throat wound. They assumed that the throat wound was nothing more than the tracheotomy that Dr. Perry performed. Afterwards, the story became that there was a single bullet that traversed JFK, entering his back and exiting his throat. But, that was not the doctors' finding, nor their conclusion, at the time. It was just a fiat statement that was issued afterwards. 

So, let's stick with what was found on examination: a shallow wound in his back.  If JFK was struck in the back with a bullet, is there any chance that the resistance of his tissues could have stopped the bullet in 1 to 1 1/2 inches of penetration? No. We know the mass and hardness of a bullet, and we know the minimum velocity that it had to have in order to reach him at all.  So, could JFK's soft tissues, meaning his skin, fascia, and muscle, have provided enough resistance to cause a bullet traveling at approximately 1800 feet per second to come to zero velocity over a span of no more than 1 1/2 inches of travel? No. Of course not. That degree of deceleration is not possible. 

But, had it been possible, and had it been a FMJ bullet, then the bullet would have been there. It would have come to rest inside of him. It wasn't superficial enough to "fall out." And if it had been dug out, then the wound would not have been so clean. If it had been dug out at, say, the pre-autopsy, they would have had to get forceps around it and pulled it out, and that would have disrupted the tissue, which was not seen in this very clean wound. 

So, it didn't fall out, and it wasn't dug out, and yet, it wasn't there. 

JFK had on three layers of clothing: a tee shirt, an outer shirt, and a jacket. For the bullet to have come out spontaneously, it would have had to go back out the same holes that it came in.  That's impossible. 

So, if he had been hit with a FMJ bullet, it would have been there, inside him. The fact that it wasn't tells you that he wasn't hit with a FMJ bullet. 

Now, let's consider that if he was hit with a FMJ bullet that only penetrated an inch and a half through soft tissue, i.e. skin, fascia, and muscle, the significance of the trauma would have been zero. In other words, it would have been a harmless scratch. But still, he would have felt it. And there would have been no confusion in his mind as to what happened. He would have known that he was shot, that he was under attack. 

So, what would he have done? Remember: his mind would not have been impaired. He would have reacted, in pursuit of self-preservation, as well as protecting his wife and the others. He would have gotten down as low as possible in the car, and he would have directed his wife to do the same- and the others. And he would have ordered the driver to floor it and get them out of there. He didn't do either of those things. He did absolutely nothing. 

And let's consider the time involved. The Secret Service admitted that the limo slowed to 15 mph, but there is good reason to believe that it slowed much more than that. By the time it was approaching Jane Hill and Mary Moorman, Jane said to him, "Mr. President, look this way. We want to take your picture." You wouldn't have time to say that to someone who was traveling past you at 15 mph. 15 mph is the speed of a fast-moving bicycle. So, imagine that a fast bicyclist was passing you on the road. You wouldn't have time to say all that to him. 

But, if Kennedy was shot in the back high on the hill at Z189, and he wasn't struck again in the throat until, say, Z222 across from the pergola, how much time really passed? I could only guess, but surely. it was enough seconds for him to mobilize a defensive response to being shot in the back. However, he never mobilized any defensive response. Why not? It must be that he was incapacitated- not physically, because the scratch was nothing- but mentally. Apparently, that shot to his back did insignificant physical damage but a lot of mental damage.  It must have been a "blood soluble round" as Jack White described it that contained a chemical agent (or more than one) that acted very quickly to derange him mentally. 

Now, I realize that many people will close their minds instantly to this upon hearing it. But, if it was an ice bullet laced with a drug, or more than one, it accounts for the known facts in this case better than any other theory.  It deserves serious consideration by all mature and intelligent researchers. 

 

Since it is almost November 22, 2023, the 60th anniversary of the assassination of JFK, I am going to review the current state of knowledge about what happened. I won't address everything, as I am not an expert on everything. But, I will address the most important thing, which is that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent, that he was standing in the doorway of the Texas Book Depository at the time of the shots. We have a photograph of him there which proves it, conclusively. 

The physical traits of a human being are determined by the random mixing of the genes of his or her four grandparents. That is the reason why brothers, born of the same two parents, are not identical. They aren't even close to being identical. You can distinguish brothers as easily as you can unrelated strangers. Even though they may look alike, to some extent, it's not an issue because the threshold to distinguish them, as individuals, is greatly exceeded. That's how individual each person is, save for identical twins, and it is determined by the genetic lottery I just described.  

Now, I realize that we've all heard of famous people who have had body doubles. Saddam Hussein had several. Did you know that they underwent surgeries to acquire the likeness to him? And there is the use of stunt doubles in Hollywood, but there, it relies heavily on getting the hair to match, the eyebrows, of course the heavy use of makeup. So, to a great extent, it is an illusion. 

When we look at the resemblance between Oswald and Doorman, the match is striking.

  

That's impressive, even though an intense effort was made to alter Doorman's image to deceive the public about his identity. A photo-altering team was sent to Dallas, which I believe was organized by Dino Brugioni,  the head of the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center. They did their nefarious work at the CIA-connected Jaggars/Chiles/Stovall photo lab in Dallas, where, ironically, Oswald worked for 6 months from October 1962 to April 1963. What Dino's team did, among other things, was replace the top of Doorman's head with that of another TSBD employee, Billy Lovelady. 

The image in the upper right corner of Billy Lovelady was used. They took the top of his head and put it over Doorman, thereby replacing all of Oswald's head hair and the top of his head. But, what confirms with certainty that Doorman was Oswald is their identical clothing. The world of men is big, but so is the world of clothes. Every man is an individual, and every one of them can wear any outfit of clothes. In this case, the two men above are wearing the exact same clothes. Let's start with Oswald, on the left. Notice how unusual his shirt was. It looks nothing like a standard American shirt. It looks more like a light jacket. Notice on his left side, which is central to us, that the "shirt" is folded over down the length of it. It looks like the lapel of a jacket. Do your shirts do that? I can tell you that they don't. And because it's folded over, it's a double layer of material. You can see how much thicker the left side of his shirt looks than his right side, and I am using those terms from his perspective, not ours. So, on his right, our left, the margin of his shirt looks thin and sharp, and on his left, our right, the margin of his shirt looks thick and blunt and not so sharp, since it's folded over. 

Now, if you look at the Doorman, you'll see the exact same thing. The margin on his right, our left, looks sharp and thin, and the other side looks thick and blunt and more padded, and that's because it was folded over the exact same way. 

Now, look at the shape of the opening of their t-shirts. Both have a v shape. You see that it looks sunken into a v, yes? That t-shirt didn't come that way. Oswald had the habit of stretching and deforming the collars of his t-shirts. However, the visibility of this homemade v fluctuated. If his t-shirt was tucked in a lot in front, it pulled the t-shirt down and stretched the v, making it more prominent. But, if his t-shirt was tucked in a lot in back, that made it rise higher in front, making the v less noticeable. But, we do have multiple images of him in which the v is apparent. So, the extent of the v fluctuated, but it was always there to some degree. The collar of the t-shirt always looked stretched and deformed because it was. 

 But, returning to the preceding collage:

Look at the right collar of Oswald's shirt, that is, the collar and the little furl beneath it. It's the exact same on Doorman. Notice that both shirts are unbuttoned. That was not a matter of choice or coincidence. It's the same shirt, Oswald's, and his buttons were missing. It was a very old shirt, one that he acquired in Russia, and he was living alone. He didn't have a wife to sew his buttons on.

Now, look at the unusual configuration of Oswald's left collar. You see the collar, which lied flat; it wasn't stiff like American collars. And beneath it was a button loop that was parallel with the collar. That's a very distinctive look. On Doorman, that part of the shirt was covered up by the weird figure who is melded to him on his left side. Who is that guy? Nobody has ever asked. But, I'm telling you he wasn't there. Dino's guys put him there. Why? To cover up the distinctive look of Oswald's shirt on that side. Imagine if we saw the exact same lay of the collar and the button loop beneath it on Doorman. Who in his right mind would doubt that he was Oswald? Nobody. It's as though every man walks around dressed like that. So, that's why they put that freaky guy in.

Now, notice how tattered Oswald's shirt looked at the bottom left. You can see that the material of the shirt is shredding. It's disintegrating. It's coming apart. What about Doorman? We can't tell because of the face of the black man beneath him, which is another phony image. That was an image taken by Congressman Phil Willis about 3:00 that afternoon. It's on the left below. 

So, the image on the left was Phil's original photo, and they inserted just the face into the Altgens photo. You can't assume that both James Altgens and Phil Willis captured the same image because they shot from completely different angles. It's the same image.

The black man's name was Carl Jones. So, why did they install his image in the Altgens photo? They did it to cover up the tattered, torn bottom of Oswald's shirt, and they had another reason: to cover up the fact that Oswald was clasping his hands in front of his body, left over right, as he stood in the doorway. It was a deeply ingrained  habitof his,, and he did it repeatedly that weekend. 

On the right above, you see how Oswald clasped his hands prior to the first lineup. He did the exact same thing in the doorway. But, they couldn't let us see that. Billy Lovelady never stood that way. He posed once, for the FBI, with his hands clasped BEHIND his back, but never in front, like we see above.

And speaking of Billy Lovelady, the only reliable image we have of him is the one taken by Mark Lane, which is on the left below.

The real Billy Lovelady on the left had protruding ears, otherwise known as prominent ears, otherwise known as Dumbo ears. Up to 3% of Americans have them, and Billy was among them. Oswald did not have protruding ears, and neither did Doorman. Their right ears, center and right, are identical. 

But, what clinches it that Oswald was Doorman is the simple fact that both the man and the clothing match.

The matching clothing confirms the match of the man and makes it ironclad absolute that Lee Harvey Oswald was the Doorway Man in in the Altgens photo. .

It means that Oswald was innocent, and that terrible crimes were committed to falsify evidence and obstruct justice. And those crimes were committed by agents of the U.S. government. It's a sickening fact, I know, but, nevertheless, true. 

When it comes to who killed Kennedy, the answer is: the United States government. It was a covert operation of the intelligence agencies (CIA and FBI), Vice President Lyndon Johnson, and the U.S. Military. Obviously, the whole government wasn't involved. However, as soon it happened, because Lyndon Johnson instantly became President, the entire government instantly became a bulwark in support of the official story that Oswald did it, and did it alone.

That narrative instantly became the litmus test for patriotism and loyalty to the U.S. government.  So, even though the whole government wasn't involved in killing Kennedy, the whole government was involved in implementing the official story into the national culture, consciousness, and record.  

So, you might say that a relatively small group of men were involved in killing Kennedy, but millions were involved in covering it up, and deceiving the American people.  And not just the American people, but people the world over.  I'm sure there were plenty of people- in government and in media who brandished the official story and embraced it in their own minds, choosing to believe it out of self-interest, as well as out of the conviction that the relatively sanguine story of a lone nut doing it was a relief. It meant that nothing was wrong in the apparatus of the U.S. government. The system wasn't bad, and one solitary lone nut could not undermine the inherent goodness of America and its institutions. Kennedy was gone, but all was well within the ship of state. That was the message of the official story, and Americans, in and out of government, chose to believe it. And if you worked for the government- at any level or capacity, or even if you worked for a big corporation, you were expected to believe that and support it. Patriotism and loyalty to the government have always cut to the heart of corporate culture in America. Thus, most Americans cooperated. There were a few who didn't, but the vast majority did.  Foreigners, however, were not so easily convinced. Foreigners have always been more skeptical and remain so to this day. 

Yet, despite more than half a century of lies, propaganda, and mental manipulation (such as conducting surveys in which they ask people whether they think Oswald acted alone or within a conspiracy- as if there is no chance that he was innocent) there is still an eerie feeling among Americans that the official story of the JFK assassination is a lie. The concerted effort, by state and media, to eradicate JFK skepticism has been a failure. In fact, if anything, that skepticism is growing. Americans are catching up with the rest of the world who doubt the veracity of the official story of the JFK assassination.  

So, how is it going to end? I can tell you. It is going to end with the complete unraveling of the official story, including the exoneration of Oswald, and the incrimination of Johnson, Dulles, Hoover, and others who were directly involved. But, I can't tell you when it will happen.  The Bolsheviks murdered the Romanov family in 1918, and the Soviet government lied about it for 73 years. Relentlessly, they tried to suppress it. You could be sent to the gulag just for suggesting it. But, as soon as the USSR fell in 1991, the lie died. A cabal within the U.S. government, which took over the U.S. government, murdered John Kennedy, and their lies about it, which became institutionalized, are going to die too. Of that I am certain.   

 

 It's very unfortunate that the "Paul is dead" theory ever got legs. And not only did it get legs, but it's often associated with the JFK assassination and the claim that Oswald was innocent. The presumption is that if you believe in one, you must believe in the other. 

Well, I believe in the innocence of Lee Harvey Oswald, but I do not believe that Paul McCartney died in 1966 and was replaced. 

Supposedly, the man who replaced Paul was 4 inches taller. This collage was sent to me by a prominent espouser of this theory. In both images, Paul is with his then girlfriend Jane Asher.

He seems to be about the same height in both pictures. She's the one whose height looks different. She seems much shorter on the right. But, there are numerous images of the two of them together, and that image on the right is an outlier. But, what can account for it? Well, you can see that both her knees are bent, which lowers a person. His right knee is bent, but he may have been up on his toe, whereas, she is squatting some. And what about her footwear? What if she was in flats on the right, whereas she usually wore heels? But, regardless what the explanation is, the idea that Paul got replaced by a guy who was 4 inches taller is ridiculous. That wasn't going to fly with anyone.  

Then, there is the issue of his teeth. 

So, supposedly, the replacement Paul had good teeth, but the original Paul had big spaces. But, if that were true, then it would have appeared so in all his images, and the whole world would have noticed it. Here are his teeth when he was young, before, he, supposedly, got replaced: 

Here he is older.

So, on both you see the recessed second right incisor and the prominent and slightly misaligned right canine tooth. Again, we have to remember that Paul McCartney is one of the most photographed persons who ever lived. You have to go by the preponderance of the evidence and not obsess about outlier photos. I read that he chipped his left center incisor in a moped accident and had to have it restored. And who knows what other dentistry he has had. And he's old now, so does he have dentures? Does he have implants? He certainly has pearly whites. 

As a former chiropractor, I connect with this collage.

Wow. It shows how deeply ingrained postural habits are. He has the same head bearing, with the slight right lateral bending and left rotation and then the slump through the torso. You are looking at the same neuromuscular signature there. And we are talking about something that people do without even being consciously aware of it. 

But, the biggest reason of all why it is impossible for Paul McCartney to have been replaced is his talent. He is one of the most gifted and talented musicians of all time, and the idea that they found someone who not only looked extraordinarily like him but had his voice, his guitar playing ability, his drum playing ability (a lot of people don't realize how good a drummer he is. When asked if he thought Ringo Starr was the best drummer in the world, John Lennon said he wasn't even the best drummer in the Beatles.) 

But, it wasn't just his playing ability, it was his songwriting ability and his lyric writing ability. Take McCartney's song Blackbird from 1968. It's a masterpiece. So, besides looking like him, the doppelganger could create like Paul McCartney too? 

We know that looks comes from genetics, that every person is a random mix of the 46 chromosomes of their 4 grandparents. But, where does musical talent come from? It's not understood nearly as well as physical traits. But, the idea that Paul McCartney was replaced with a dead ringer lookalike who could also create and perform musically at the caliber of the original is mathematically impossible. Absolutely impossible. 

It's time to stop the nonsense that Paul McCartney is dead and has been since 1966. And as an ardent defender of Lee Harvey Oswald, I vociferously denounce the Paul is dead theory precisely because it is often bundled together with Oswald innocence, which is most unfortunate for the latter.  

I have been asked to provide a concise statement, for a historical journal, of the evidence proving that Jack Ruby did not shoot Lee Harvey Oswald. And that's what this is.

It starts by recognizing that when you do a close inspection of the images of the Garage Shooter, and compare them to images of Jack Ruby from that day, you can see that they were different men.

On the left is the Garage Shooter. You see how is hair was, which was rather long and thick in back and matted. It looks like it could have been a wig. You don't see any hair growing out of his scalp. And the skin in back of his neck was razored clean; he had no fuzzy hair growth. However, Ruby, on the right, did not have long hair that abruptly ended in a clean horizontal line; rather, he had the typical tapering of the hair in back, and A LOT OF FUZZY HAIR GROWTH. I am referring to the "dirty neck look" that men get between haircuts. Ruby had that dirty neck look on 11/24/63, but the Garage Shooter did not. 

Note second, that the Garage Shooter had a very short neck. Ruby's neck was much longer. Compare the distance from the hairline in back to the collar on each man.

Note third, that the Garage Shooter was a short man, the shortest man in the garage, that we know of. He was like a midget compared to the "penguins," as I call them, who subdued him.

Jack Ruby was 5'9". That was average height then, and it still is today. How, in a garage with 50 men, could a man who was 5'9" stand out as being the shortest man in it? And note on the left above the image of Captain Will Fritz, who was a short man, much shorter than 5'9". But, even he appears to be taller than the Shooter.  

I could go further with the physical comparisons, but let's move on to what Ruby said. It is widely claimed that Ruby admitted shooting Oswald. That is not true. Ruby accepted that he shot Oswald. Big difference. Ruby said he had no intention of shooting Oswald, that for the whole weekend, he never had the slightest thought of harming Oswald in any way. And when he went to the Garage, he didn't even have the expectation of seeing Oswald, let alone killing him. And all he could remember was going to the basement, being jumped by the police, hustled up to the 5th floor jail, where he was told that he shot Oswald. His entire belief that he shot Oswald was derived from police telling him that he did it. 

But, if he did it, why couldn't he remember doing it? Ruby's lawyer, Melvin Belli, argued at trial that Ruby had "psychomotor epilepsy" in which he lost consciousness and shot Oswald in the midst of an epileptic seizure.  It was nonsense. The disorderly and chaotic nervous discharge of an epileptic seizure could not possibly produce the organized, precise action of pulling the trigger of a gun. So, why did Belli make that absurd argument?

It was because Ruby told him, "Look, I can't remember what happened. All I remember is going down there and suddenly the cops jumped me, and I didn't know why. And I even said to them at the time, "What are you doing? You know me. I'm Jack Ruby." 

The problem was that Melvin Belli was mentally incapable of considering that the Dallas Police were lying. Belli had a mental defect, what I call "Americana," the belief that America is good, and it couldn't happen here that police would lie, after framing Ruby and tricking him into believing that he shot Oswald. 

There is no reason to think there was anything wrong with Ruby's memory. He remembered seeing and recognizing Lt. Rio Sam Pierce at the top of the ramp, just a couple minutes before the shooting. So, if he could remember that, why couldn't he remember shooting Oswald? He couldn't remember shooting Oswald because he didn't shoot Oswald. 

And that brings me to another issue that is almost comical. In the famous Beers and Jackson photos, you can see that the Garage Shooter used his middle finger to pull the trigger. Why would Jack Ruby do that? I have heard ridiculous claims, such as that that was the Mafia way to do it. The fact was that Jack Ruby's left index finger was partially amputated. But, the people who plotted this must have had the mistaken belief that it was Ruby's right index finger that was missing. And so, they had Ruby's surrogate, who was FBI Agent James Bookhout, stage it with his middle finger. 

So, that is the middle finger in the trigger compartment above. I do not believe that Oswald was shot in the garage. I think the Garage shooting was a theatrical spectacle for television, and Oswald was shot for real afterwards. But, here is the image of Ruby exposing his amputated left index finger.

So, that mistake was a production error, which I know about since I am a filmmaker. It's very easy to make production errors. Then, likewise, there was the sock an shoe fiasco, in which Ruby's mug shot showed that he wore a high-top work shoe and jet black socks, whereas the Shooter wore a dressy wingtip shoe and light socks.

So, on the left is the Garage Shooter, and on the right is Ruby in his mug shot. How were they going to explain this discrepancy. It was like a chess game, and their only move was to claim that the Dallas Police, not only changed Ruby's shirt and pants, but his shoes and underwear too. Do you know how ridiculous that is? It was a City Jail. Nobody stays there. Defendants get arraigned, then they either go to the County Jail to await trial, or they go home. So, no uniforms or clothes of any kind are provided to prisoners at a City Jail. Was Oswald provided with clothes? No. Even the clothes he wore on Sunday morning were his own clothes obtained from his boarding room. But, look at this ridiculous thing, an invoice claiming that they confiscated Ruby's underwear.

You see that it says "1 set underwear." Supposedly, they took that from Ruby, and put it in a bin, and presumably provided him with a set of their underwear, because this was a PD and prisoners had to be in regulation underwear. Do you see how ridiculous it is? And they did this even though Ruby was going to the County Jail the very next morning. It is absolutely absurd. 

There is much more that I could tell you about the framing of Jack Ruby, which was the greatest psy-op in the history of psy-ops.  But, I am going to give you just one more thing: we know the identity of the Garage Shooter. He was FBI Agent James Bookhout. This discovery was made upon realizing that there were no images of James Bookhout from the JFK assassination, even though he followed Oswald around like his shadow and attended every Oswald interrogation. We have only one straight-on image of the face of the Garage Shooter, and it's from the 30 year retrospective on the killing of Oswald by NBC. So, it was from 1993.

On the right is the face of the Garage Shooter, although deliberately compromised. For instance, his eyes were blackened out. They look more like racoon stripes. And notice how round his face was, which Ruby's wasn't. On the left is James Bookhout in 1937 when he graduated from SMU Law School in Dallas. Those two are the same person separated by 26 years of time. It's called aging. And I'd have to say that Bookhout's resemblance to his younger self was more striking than most. 

And the Garage Shooter was definitely not Jack Ruby, who had a longer face, a longer forward, a much longer neck, and pyramidal shaped nose. 

Ruby, on the left, could not possibly be the man on the right, even though the photos were taken on the same day. 

Like Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby was innocent. Note that Ruby told the Warren Commissioners that he sent his money wire to Karen Carlin at 10:15. Right away, a Secret Service agent who wasn't even in the state of Texas on 11/24/63 corrected him and said it was 11:15. And Ruby didn't dispute it. But, then again, Ruby didn't dispute anything from authority because he respected authority so much.  

But, he wasn't mistaken. He did send the money wire at 10:15. He got to the garage an hour earlier than reported, and he was already in custody up on the 5th floor when the Garage Spectacle went down. A few hours later, they wove the real Jack Ruby into the story for the first time when they brought him down from the 5th floor to the 3rd floor and let reporters and cameramen see him. It was a classic bait and switch. 

Jack Ruby was innocent! It is the best kept secret of the JFK assassination. The first person to realize it wasn't me; it was Maxim Irkutsk, the Russian researcher who proclaimed it in 2013. So, the plotters went 50 years before anyone unraveled it. Here is Maxim's Youtube video about it, which has been up since 2013. It now has about 10,000 views, but help me get it up to 10 million.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oh3zvoj9HVc

Jack Ruby was innocent! Stop fighting it! Take your mind back. We've all been like Pavlovian dogs over this. So yes, take your mind back and help destroy the most diabolical and Machiavellian lie in the history of lies. Jack Ruby was not a Mafioso. All those stories and sightings are lies. He was not a pimp. He was not a hit man. And he did not kill Oswald. Jack Ruby was innocent. 

 The people who are fighting me are being ridiculous. We have an FBI document which says, "Lovelady stated that he wore a red and white vertical striped shirt and blue jeans." Then, we also have an image of Lovelady wearing such a shirt on 11/22/63.

It's definitely Lovelady in the image on the right because that's where her said he was at that time, heading for the railway yard. So, if that's not him, he still needs to be there, which means that there should be another guy there as him. But, there is no other guy there as him. So, it has to be him.

And if you look closely, you can see the alternating vertical stripes of his short-sleeved shirt. I put and RWR, which is short for red, white, red.

I realize that it's extremely blurry. Still, you know it's not a plaid shirt, and you know it's not a longsleeved shirt, since you can see his naked elbow. It's an either/or situation. Either it's a short-sleeved vertically striped shirt or it's a longsleeved plaid one. Obviously, it's the former. So, that's what Lovelady wore, and it conforms to what he told the FBI, and what he wore to pose as Doorman on 2/29/64 for the FBI.

So, it's over. That's what Lovelady wore, a short-sleeved vertically striped shirt, which means that all the imagery of Lovelady in a plaid shirt was faked. Our own government did that to us; they fabricated false evidence, which was a criminal act, then and lied, lied, lied. And they're still lying. They've been lying ever since.

 We have it in writing from the FBI that Lovelady stated that he wore a red and white vertical striped shirt and blue jeans. Here it is in plain English. And then, they went on to photograph him in that shirt precisely because he wore on 11/22/63. I underlined it. "He stated that he was wearing a red and white vertical striped shirt and blue jeans."

So, Lovelady did NOT wear a plaid shirt. All the imagery of Lovelady in a plaid shirt is fake. That consists of the Gorilla Man footage and the Squad room footage, which are fake, fake, fake. It was your tax dollars at work faking evidence and obstructing justice in the Crime of the Century.

Billy Lovelady wore a short-sleeved, vertically striped shirt, and therefore, Lee Harvey Oswald was the Man in the Doorway, which means that he was innocent of shooting President Kennedy.

So, you should join me and others in tearing down a 60 year old State lie. Join us in chanting: Stop the lies! Oswald outside.

To you naysayers, Lovelady said he wore the striped shirt. Lovelady said he wore the striped shirt. Lovelady said he wore the striped shirt.

 It's 2023, and they are still altering JFK films. This phony compilation is being heralded as the "full" Darnell film. It just went up a month ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxtb3PVci9I&t=1330s

It took 60 years to find it? Remember that I said that I contacted Gary Mack and asked him if the Sixth Floor Museum had a version of the Martin film that had the infamous Lovelady clip, which features Gorilla Man milling around smoking in front at a time when Lovelady was DEFINITELY not there in front of the TSBD. The Martin film was claimed to be the source of the Gorilla Man clip, but it didn't have it. However, eventually, someone came up with the "full" Martin film in which the phony clip was added. So, this is more of the same bull shit.

It's happened again, with the phony clip of "Prayer Man" in the doorway after the assassination, which has been added to the Darnell film. Be aware that there was never any Prayer Man. He is nobody. He's a complete fabrication.

But right now, focus on the fact that that film jumps from somewhere early in the motorcade, long before Dealey Plaza is reached, to suddenly being after the assassination with Officer Marrion Baker running across the street. That phony clip was first scene in Oliver Stone's JFK, 30 years after the assassination, and it's a pity that he included it, considering how shaky its origin and authenticity are.

Jimmy Darnell was the cameraman for a local Dallas station, WBAP, and he was in the 3rd camera car back. How could these two images have been captured by his camera when they are qualitatively so different?

So, the first frame is from 2:26 in the film, and then at 2:28, it suddenly goes to the other. But, how could that be the same camera?

And why would Darnell have turned his camera off between the times that those images were taken? They are not temporally or spatially juxtaposed. There is a huge gap of time and space between them.

Darnell did shoot his film in chronological order, didn't he?

But, what's funny is that they got some of the footage for this Frankensteinian fraud from Shutterstock. That's a stock image/stock footage house, and I know about them because I'm an indie filmmaker. It's considered a crime for Hollywood to use stock footage, but indie filmmakers do it all the time. I've done it many times, although I prefer to use Pond5.

But, all these stock suppliers splatter their name over their offerings, precisely to prevent someone from using it until they pay for it. Once you pay for it, they let you download the version that doesn't have the name splatterings. But, whoever made this phony thing just used it with the name, and you see it repeatedly: Shutterstock.

So, what is Shutterstock doing over the original film by Jimmy Darnell shot in 1963? Oops. Whoever made this phony thing fucked up badly.

And by the way, whoever did it, don't bother removing it from Youtube because I have downloaded it.

Now, as to the source, it's no surprise that one of the "discoverers" of this was Bart Kamp. He's the guy who claimed to find the one and only image of James W. Bookhout from the JFK assassination. I am referring to the image of the freaky guy who was standing in the Homicide Bureau where Will Fritz is talking to officers, and everyone is paying close attention except for this one guy who is preoccupied smoking his pipe. We call him Pipe Man.

Kamp claimed that Pipe Man was Bookhout, but he most certainly was not. Kamp claimed in a lecture that he went to the National Archives seeking an image of James Bookhout and that they directed him to this image, that they identified him as Bookhout. But then, I went to the National Archives and put it to them, and they denied ever claiming that Pipe Man is Bookhout or knowing that he's Bookhout. What they told me was "we leave that to researchers." Not only was Pipe Man not Bookhout; he wasn't even there. He was dropped into the photo. The story of this photo is that Will Fritz, on the right, is talking to his men, and everyone in the room has their eyes and ears on him, including the guy sitting at the desk, who apparently is looking through Pipe Man like he wasn't there. He wasn't. He was pasted in.

I am not going to revisit all the freaky things about Pipe Man, his hair, his glasses, his right hand, etc., but I will point out that he most definitely was not James Bookhout. You know how genetics works right? That you get half your genes from your mother, and half from your father? Well, here is Pipe Man with Jim Bookhout, the son of James Bookhout, and I can guarantee you, as a doctor, that these two guys were not genetically related.

So, the bottom line is that, just as the Martin film was fraudulently used to source the phony Gorilla Man clip of Lovelady that was made in 1966, so too was the Darnell film used to source the phony Prayer Man clip, hence the "full" version that includes it. So, where'd you get it, Bart? How'd you find it after 60 years, with Shuttershack nameplate included? Did you go back to the National Archives, did you? Is that where you got it?

So, you see, falsification of JFK assassination imagery never ends. They are still doing it in 2023.