What came out of the brief misstep over James Bookhout's image is the reminder that there really are NO images of him from the time of the assassination; none; but alas there are NO images of him from any time or anywhere. The only images we have of James Bookhout, from his whole life, are his school yearbook images, which were all doctored: with dragqueen eyebrows, etc. And even at his death, he must have given the order to have no photo with his obituary. His wife had one, but he didn't. James Bookhout did not do pictures. The very fact of that is a smoking gun in itself.

But, what I really want to talk about is what happened the morning of November 24. We are told that Oswald was brought from his jail cell on the 5th floor to Captain Fritz' office for his final interrogation at the DPD. That was reportedly at 9:30. That interrogation would last until 11:15, so nearly 2 hours. It would be the longest interrogation he did. Bookhout said that he arrived late and just watched it through the glass partition.  

Mr. BOOKHOUT - Now, yes; on the morning of November 24, 1963, I observed him in interview with Captain Fritz and numerous other officers in the homicide and robbery bureau. Captain Fritz---I did not participate in this interview. It had already started before I arrived. There is a glass partition or wall on one side of the office that you can see what is going on inside there. I took a seat adjacent to this glass area in the office proper of the homicide and robbery bureau, and watched.

I find that hard to believe, even the part about him being late. 9:30? It's not like it was 6:30. And what would be the point of watching an interview? They weren't miming, were they? They weren't using sign language. What was the point of doing that? Presumably, if he had gotten there on time, he would have attended the meeting, right? So, would it have been so terrible if he had entered a little late? Then after it was over, he said he asked Fritz if Oswald had revealed anything, and Fritz said no, nothing. But, Harry Holmes, the postal inspector, said that Oswald sang like a canary about Mexico City. We know from multiple sources that when first asked at the first interrogation, Oswald denied having gone there, saying that the only place in Mexico he had ever been to was Tijuana. So, how could he reverse himself without saying something like, "I wasn't being truthful when I denied going there." Doesn't there have to be a segue between the lie and the truth? An explanation, a reason for the lie? It involved no crime. So, why would Oswald lie about it in the first place? He's accused of killing the President of the United States and a police officer, and he's going to start lying about a trip to Mexico City? And the trip had nothing to do with the assassination. I don't care what people say. The official story has it that it never crossed his mind to kill Kennedy until he saw the motorcade route in the newspaper a couple days before. So, how could a trip to Mexico City in September have anything to do with it? Therefore, again, why would he lie about it? He wasn't the one lying about that; Holmes lied. 

In fact, why assume they even talked about it? If Oswald stated, emphatically, that he didn't go to Mexico City, that the only place he ever went to in Mexico was Tijuana, which is on the opposite side of the country, then why ask him again? 

"Are you sure you didn't go to Mexico City?"

Man, I'll tell you, if that had been me, after explaining to them that I had never been there and giving them a point of reference, if they asked me again? "God damn it, I told you I never went to Mexico City! What the hell is wrong with you? Are you deaf? Are you stupid?" 

So, what did they talk about for nearly 2 hours? Let's look at the Fritz Notes:

So, they apparently talked about nothing, since Fritz wrote nothing down. And according to Bookhout, Fritz told him that nothing important was said. But note the time the meeting started: 10 AM. So really, it was just one hour and fifteen minutes. There was some processing involved because Oswald was leaving the the Dallas Jail for good. He was going directly from that meeting to the garage to be driven to the County Jail. So, there was a checking out process. I can see that. But, it meant that Bookhout had to arrive after 10 in order to be late for the meeting. So, how could he possibly be that late? An FBI agent? Nope. Not buying it. Who were the et al? I suspect Bookhout was one of the et al. 

So, nothing got written down about an hour and fifteen minute interrogation. What did they talk about? How about 'dem Cowboys?

How about: they were talking about the ruse they were about to pull off.  That would explain why nothing got written down. And not just talking about it, but doing it. Let's remember that it was during that time that the incident with the real Jack Ruby had to take place, in which he was arrested. So, did they bring Oswald down for that and go through the motions? The only one who can possibly shed any light on that is Jack Ruby. 

A. When I went into the Western Union to try to send the money, and naturally the clerk took my money, and uh, and uh, turned away after he took the money, I turned away and walked out. I walked down the street, just natural strides, and as I . . .

Q. Main Street?

A. No -- Yes, Main Street, going west to Main Street, the south side of Main Street, as I walked toward the ramp, I noticed the police squad car at the head of the ramp and an officer leaning over talking to him with his back to me. All I did was walk down there, down to the bottom of the ramp and that's when the incident happened, at the bottom of the ramp -- according to the Western Union records -- the time stamped on the Western Union records -- it's 11:17 the time the incident taking place 11:21, it was 11:21.

Q. Did you walk slowly?

A. I walked my natural pace.

Q. You did not rush?

A. No.

Q. Did you recognize anybody when you reached the bottom of the ramp?

A. No. I recognized the police officer in the car -- that was in the car -- it was Lt. Sam Pierce, and this other man was just talking to him, and why Sam Pierce had not seen me, I don't know.

Q. Did you try to avoid him or anything?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. When did you finally realize that something had happened, Jack, when did you finally know?

A. Well, it happened in such a blur -- well it happened in such a blur, that before I knew it, I was down on the ground -- the officers had me on the ground.

Q. Had you realized you had done anything?

A. Well, really it happened so fast, and anything else I cannot recall what happened from the time I came to the bottom of the ramp until the police officers had me on the ground.

Q. Have no recollection?

A. No. But, I knew they were holding my hand and grabbing for the gun.

That's from David Reitzes, a written transcript of Ruby's oral interview, his death bed interview. But, you don't hear the part about 11:17 and 11:21 in the recording. Here's the link to it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mOyyPKMMHY


It goes from: "That's where the incident happened, at the bottom of the ramp" to his being asked: "Did you recognize anybody at the bottom of the ramp?" 

So, what are we supposed to surmise from that? That they edited the interview? That they cut the tape? That they spliced out part of Jack Ruby's death bed statement? But, why would they do that? 


But, let's look at what Ruby said to the Warren Commissioners:

Jack Ruby: And when I walked down the ramp--I would say there was an 8-foot clearance--not that I wanted to be a hero, or I didn't realize that even if the officer would have observed me, the klieg lights, but I can't take that. I did not mingle with the crowd. There was no one near me when I walked down that ramp, because if you will time the time I sent the money order, I think it was 10:17 Sunday morning.

Then his lawyer corrected him about the time, and Jack didn't dispute it. But, maybe the correction didn't take in his mind. If his own memory was 10:17, maybe it stayed at 10:17, and maybe that is what he said at his death bed interview. And since you can't edit an audio tape, all they could do is cut it out. I think it is very likely that that is what happened. Because: why else would they cut it out? And that would make the time that David Rietzes used a lie. 

Here is more of Ruby's testimony to the Warren Commissioners:

Mr. RUBY. I had the gun in my right hip pocket, and impulsively, if that is the correct word here, I saw him, and that is all I can say. And I didn't care what happened to me.
I think I used the words, "You killed my President, you rat." The next thing, I was down on the floor.
I said, "I am Jack Ruby. You all know me."
I never used anything malicious, nothing like s.o.b. I never said that I wanted to get three more off, as they stated.

The implication of that, I presume, is that he saw Oswald. "I saw him" means "I saw Oswald." So, if this happened an hour before, at say 10:21, it means that that's what they were doing: going through the motions of the jail transfer. You've heard of the pre-autopsy? Well, this was the pre-jail-transfer. 

And notice that he said "down on the floor" that he was down on the floor. Well, the televised Garage Shooter was never down on the floor. He was always on his feet. And just think about it: if they had gotten him down to the floor, then why would they have ever let him up from the floor until he was cuffed? Are we to believe that they had him down on the floor but then they let him up from the floor? Without cuffing him? Why would they do that? The whole purpose of getting an offender down on the floor is to cuff him. And you keep him down on the floor until he's cuffed. What they did makes no sense as a police behavior.

So, the incident with Ruby happened an hour before. Then they quickly got him up to the 5th floor- to get him out of the way. Then, the spectacle with Bookhout took place in the same place for the cameras. That's what I think happened. 

That lousy rotten David Von Pein. He quotes me, but then he jumps to something else that was said in a different context. 

[...]

I deny that the guy was Ruby, and I'm not even sure he's real. I suspect he is more photographic flim-flam and probably of recent origin. 

You would think from reading that I was referring to the Garage Shooter whom we can plainly see. We can't see his face, but we can him from behind. 

But, that statement was made in reference to this:

Gary Mack claimed to know that that was Jack Ruby during the scuffle. 

So, that's what I was talking about, not the major images of the Garage Shooter. 

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And Ruby admitting he did it doesn't mean a thing to you, does it Ralph?

And the verification that it was Ruby by the various police officers who were there in the basement on November 24, 1963, also means zilch to you, right Ralph? Such as Jim Leavelle.

Ralph Cinque: Jim Leavelle lied. How many times do I have to tell you? He said he saw Ruby in advance. He said he saw the gun in advance. He said he jerked on Oswald to pull him behind him- to protect him. And he said that he shoved on Ruby's shoulder. All of it was lies! The films confirm it. So, knowing that he lied like a dog, why should anyone believe him? 

And I have listened to Ruby's deathbed interview many times. He said that all he remembered was going to the bottom of the ramp and then being pounced upon by police. The rest was a blur. He used the word "blur" repeatedly. He had no memory of shooting Oswald. He accepted that he did only because police told him that he did. But, they lied to him. They framed him. They took advantage of him, his mental incompetence. Jack Ruby could only remember going to the bottom of the ramp and then being jumped by the police. That's all he could remember. And that is all that happened when he was there. Then, they swifted him out of there; took him up to the 5th floor; and then got ready to do it all over again with Bookhout. But, they brought Ruby down and slipped him into the scene, though forgetting to have him put his jacket on, which was up on the 5th floor. 

It was all a sleight of hand/sleight of mind trick. It may be the most devious, machiavellian, and dastardly manipulation of minds- all of our minds- that has ever been done. The trickery, the manipulation involved in this was just staggering. 

Then, look how David Von Pein had NOTHING to say. 

RALPH CINQUE SAID:

The fact that there are NO discernible images of Ruby doing it doesn't mean a thing to you, does it, David? Despite all those different camera angles, there is not a single frame in which we can tell from looking that it's him.

Then, after the shooting, the police scurried him away without handcuffing him and keeping him totally covered, and I mean blanketed, and that doesn't bother you either?

Then, there is the fact that Ruby had no memory of doing it. He didn't remember a thing about the shooting. He only remembered going to the garage and then being pushed down to the ground by police. Nothing in-between. And that doesn't bother you?

And you have the nerve to bring up Leavelle? A man who claimed to have seen Ruby coming which made him jerk Oswald behind him which we know with 100% certainty did not happen. Leavelle did not react in any way until after the shot went off.

David: It wasn't Ruby. The little bit of visual data we have from the films and photos guarantees that it wasn't Ruby; for instance; different hairline in back, different facial contour, different weight, different height.

Jack Ruby most certainly did NOT shoot Oswald. 


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Talk about a bad case of denial. Ralph's got it.

You might as well be arguing that Dallas isn't in the state of Texas. That's how silly you've become, Ralph.

Is there any end to your "denial" about every aspect of this case? Any end at all?

You said nothing, David. You didn't answer the blows. You just blathered. It doesn't count for squat. 

Then, Von Pein quoted Tim Brennan, a real lightweight from Australia, who said that Bookhout wasn't even in the garage during the shooting, and he quoted Bookhout's testimony. But, what the hell is wrong with these people? OF COURSE, IF BOOKHOUT WAS GOING TO LIE ABOUT THAT IF HE WAS THE GARAGE SHOOTER?

Seriously, what is wrong with them? I'm accusing the man of shooting Oswald. Don't you think I wouldn't put it past him to lie???????????? So, they throw his testimony at me as though I'm obliged to accept it. 

James Bookhout was a liar.
James Bookhout was a liar.
James Bookhout was a liar.
James Bookhout was a liar.
James Bookhout was a liar. 

Now, is that understood? Will you please refrain from quoting him to me as though I am obliged to accept what he said? I am NOT obliged. I call him a LIAR.

But, let's look at what Bookhout said because I don't mind exposing his lies. He said that he arrived a little late for the morning interrogation of Oswald, and not wanting to disrupt it, he remained outside and just watched it through the glass. Do you believe that? I find it hard to believe because I don't think him quietly entering the room after it began would have disrupted anything. Then, he said that after the interrogation, he stayed up in Fritz' office- doing nothing- rather than go down and watch the jail transfer. Now, why would he do that? He followed Oswald everywhere. He wanted to see everything that involved Oswald. And he had nothing to do in Fritz' office. He didn't say that he was doing FBI work there. He just say he waited there. And then when he heard that Oswald was shot, he said he went down to the jail office and followed Oswald's stretcher out to the garage. That was largely true, but he didn't go from Fritz' office to the jail office. He went from what I believe is the 3rd floor foyer next to the elevator down to the office- after a change of clothes. This is Bookhout with Detectives Boyd, Sims, and Hall.

That is James Bookhout in the center; not Jack Ruby. He is too short to be Ruby. His neck is too short. And his face is too round. And I want you to realize that the only place this image has ever appeared is the 1993 30 year retrospective on the killing of Lee Harvey Oswald by Fred Rhinestein of NBC. If that was really an image of Jack Ruby with the three detectives, why didn't it proliferate? Why didn't it spread like a wildfire? Why didn't it go anywhere? It didn't go anywhere because they must have realized afterwards the mistake they made, and they torpedoed the picture. They made sure it didn't go anywhere else. So, James Bookhout, after going through the motions of shooting Oswald in the garage (I don't believe he actually shot him; I believe it was a ruse) was danced into the jail house, and then these three swifted him away. And undoubtedly, shortly after that, they released him. He changed his clothes, and then he went down to the jail office as himself, James Bookhout. He followed Oswald's stretcher out to the garage, just as he said. 

 And this is as close as he got to the ambulance:

That's him, Bookhout, standing in back, taking it all in. He never did get up close to the ambulance. From here, he turned around and went back inside.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And I wonder how the police got Ruby to admit to a murder he never committed? Those cops were amazing, huh?


RALPH CINQUE SAID:

This is a good example of what [I] mean. I said the other day that Ruby was insane. He did plead insanity. And every time he spoke he sounded zany, disoriented, confused, and incoherent. But, David Von Pein asks how Dallas Police got Ruby to admit to a murder he didn't commit, as if Ruby was of sound mind. But, Ruby was NOT of sound mind.


RALPH CINQUE ALSO SAID:

Do you think these two are the same guy? Why? Look how different the ears are. Look how different the sideburns are. Look how phony the sunglasses are on the left. And look at his hairline in back. Jack Ruby was scruffy with hair growth back there. Why would you claim that that guy is Jack Ruby? You just want him to be Jack Ruby, so you say that he is? Is that how it works? 




DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Ralph thinks the NBC footage shows Ruby wearing sunglasses in the basement. Hilarious.


RALPH CINQUE SAID:

Then, what is it? It's a black disc around his eye, and there's a bridge over his nose. What is it?

And you've got some nerve. You mock me, and you don't even say what it is.

You're getting more famous all the time.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's a shadow, Ralph. Simple as that. The same type of blackness (i.e., shadow) can be seen on Ruby's neck. What do you think is causing the blackness on Ruby's neck?



David Von Pein is not a physicist. He knows nothing about Optics. He claims to know that the black discs around "Ruby's" eyes above are shadows, but he doesn't even know that shadows are cast by specific objects. You have a light source; you have an object that is in front of the light source and blocks some of the light; and then you have the resulting shadow. So, what is the object that is casting shadow in the shape of a black disc around Ruby's eye? If you don't know what the object is, you can't claim it is a shadow. 

I would not mind at all getting a physics professor to weigh-in on this, and I think it is important enough to do it. 

Above, you see the correspondence between the shape of the shadow and the shape of the object casting it. The shape can be stretched and deformed by the angle of the light, but still, you get the idea of what cast that shadow. So, what is the corresponding object casting the shadow here, and what is the light source?

If you can't answer that, then you can't claim that it is a shadow. 

David Von Pein:

Plus, do you really think somebody would paint in a pair of sunglasses onto a person's face without also painting in the frame for those sunglasses? Where is the hinged frame that should extend over Ruby's left ear? Are the glasses supposed to be just hanging there over his nose?

Ralph Cinque:

In some of the views, there does seem to be a faint frame:

Don't you see what appears to be a faint frame there passing behind his ear? And look how three-dimensional the glasses look. You think that's shadow? It's shadow that they added! They had to cover his eyes because he's not Jack Ruby. And he's not the Garage Shooter either. He is much taller than the Garage Shooter. 

Then, David put up this image which shows darkness around the eyes of Blackie Harrison:

First, it would be much better if you provided independent examples. Because here, they may have messed with Blackie's eyes just to authenticate the other. I don't know if this legit or not, but regardless, it doesn't compare to this:

Come on, for crying out loud. You should me one other image in which shadow appeared like that, and I mean from the entire world of photography.

Mark Knight ( in support of DVP)

Ruby admitted shooting Oswald.

Millions of witnesses on TV saw Ruby shoot Oswald.

No, no, no. How many times do I have to tell you that Ruby just accepted that he shot Oswald. He believed it because that's what he was told. He had no memory of doing it. And you can't say that millions of witnesses saw Ruby shoot Oswald on tv. They believed it only because they were told it. They didn't "know" it until they were told. 

Hugh Aynesworth knew Ruby well and had seen and interacted with him 3x that weekend. He saw the shooter zoom in, but Hugh didn't know that it was Ruby until he was told. He didn't know from looking at the shooter. He "knew" from being told. 

 Jim DiEugenio (in support of DVP)

If you look at the combination of the clips from Evidence of Revision, and the KRLD tapes, there is no question at all that this is Ruby. And as Bauer said, he was concealing himself behind Harrison. 

There are NO IMAGES, not from the KRLD tapes and not from anywhere else in which the Garage Shooter can be ID'd as Jack Ruby. This is the man who was concealing himself behind Blackie Harrison.

How can anyone look at that and say that from the visual data, they know he's Ruby? They only "know" he's Ruby because that's what they were told. They are looking at the image with their minds, not with their eyes. There is no reason to think that that guy is Jack Ruby. The condition of the hair on the back of his neck alone proves that he's not Ruby. 

Do you not get it that Jack Ruby did not have a high horizontal hairline and a cleanly razored neck? How much difference and deviation does it take to establish different men?

The noses don't match. Can't you see on the left it's much more bulbous and Roman? The sideburns don't match. On the left, it's beveled. And look at the distance from the ear it is. The ears don't match, although it looks like they messed with the ear on the left trying to get it to match. The lines in the face on the left are not present on Ruby on the right. Even the whole angle of the head is different, and that's a postural thing that is very consistent. They are different men. You have no basis to claim that the man on the left was Jack Ruby.

Then, Von Pein put up this collage, in which the only certain thing is that the 2nd and 4th figures are Ruby.

The man on the far left was balder than Ruby. There are phone records proving that Ruby was on the phone talking to his sister Eve at 2 PM on Friday, November 22. He was not at the Dallas PD. 

In the 2nd and 4th images (both Ruby) look at the consistency of the curve of the back of the neck and head. Now look at the #3 who has a neck like Dick Tracy.

I'm telling you: he was not Jack Ruby.

David Von Pein:

If you agree that the man with the torn shirt being taken to an elevator IS Jack Ruby, then what do you think the police are doing with Ruby at that moment? Did Ruby JUST HAPPEN to coincidentally be in that area of City Hall within minutes of Oswald getting shot by someone ELSE?

Or will you simply say that the WFAA video isn't nearly clear enough to determine who the man with the torn shirt is? I expect that will be your only reply.

It's Jack Ruby in that video, of course. And Ruby is being escorted upstairs just minutes after he plugged Oswald. But Ralph will now have to invent some excuse for why the police are escorting an INNOCENT Ruby (or a Ruby look-alike) upstairs. Or maybe Ralph thinks the man in the torn shirt is really James Bookhout. Could that be it?

Ralph Cinque: They brought him back down from the 5th floor just to insert him into that scene. And they left his jacket up on the 5th floor, which is why he is not wearing it. So, what the police are doing there is giving Jack Ruby is catwalk in front of the cameras. It is the "switch" in the "bait and switch." 

After that, DVP repeated his ridiculous argument that Dallas Police "yanked Ruby's jacket off to check it for weapons" which they would not have done since it is standard practice to pat down suspects for weapons. They don't strip them looking for weapons. Then, he also repeated his ridiculous claim that it can be seen that Ruby is putting his jacket back on as he walks across the jail office to the elevator. It simply isn't true. I asked David to post a frame which shows it (the jacket going back on) but he hasn't done so, and he can't do so because it didn't happen. There is only a 3 second different between the last frame of Ruby walking sans the jacket and the image of him by the elevator with the jacket. And it doesn't even look like a jacket. It looks like a black screen.

You can't see any of the specific features of a jacket, for instance, sleeves. So, how you be sure it is a jacket? I think it is most likely a black screen which they added in order to hide the fact that he wasn't yet handcuffed even by this late time. But keep in mind that he had been in custody already for the better part of an hour. What they are doing there is taking him BACK up to the 5th floor. He had already been there. And he was going back there. This whole thing was a fake and a fraud. This was their way of sticking Jack Ruby into the scene. 

There is no doubt that Jack Ruby was not in the garage during the televised spectacle. He was NOT the Garage Shooter. He was too tall to be. Jack Ruby was 5'8 1/2 inches. Look how short the shooter was:

And there is a reason why we never see the Shooter's face. IT'S BECAUSE HE WASN'T JACK RUBY! They deliberately kept his face concealed. 

The discovery of Jack Ruby's innocence is the most important discovery in JFK assassination research in the 21st century. And people like David Von Pein can't stop it from spreading. No one can. 

There is so much wrong with this image, it's chilling. You see the shadow on his face? It's fake. He was standing in the bright sunlight, and there was no shadow. The shadow was added to obscure him. You notice how his right shoulder is completely blackened out where you can't see it? Fake. It was plain as day. You see the inky blackness behind him too? Fake as well. There was a sign on the wall behind him that was perfectly visible, and you could see the vertical molding of the glass door. All blackened out. 

You see his location next to the west column? Wrong. That's not where he was on 11/22/63. Why'd they put him there? It's because in the Altgens photo, Doorman appears to be next to the west column.  But, that was due to the angular effect of Altgens' position, from way down Elm Street. Apparently, a lot of people didn't realize that. The FBI and Warren Commission henchman Joseph Ball referred to Doorman's position as being next to the column, not realizing that it was only an apparent position. 

But, Lovelady was there on 11/22/63. He knew where he was standing.  Are you going to tell me he forgot? 

Continuing, you see the cameraman in the picture, right? So this was a picture of a man taking a picture of Lovelady. Strange. Also, this wasn't a still photograph; it was a film. Why would Lovelady stand so stiff and motionless for a film? He does NOT look relaxed. He looks like he's standing at attention in the military.

And why isn't he looking at the camera? He's not looking at the camera of the man in front of him, and he's not looking at the camera of the other guy either.  Do you know what this reminds me of? It reminds me of a prisoner of war movie, where the prisoner never makes eye contact with his captors. He never engages. He is there under duress. What this tells me is that Lovelady was detached; mentally detached; just going through the motions. He was there under protest. He didn't want to be there. He was not a happy camper.  

We're all seen interviews of assassination witnesses, such as Amos Euins and Tina Towner. They strike me as being involved, attentive, mentally present, and entirely willing to be there. But not Lovelady. 

So, it makes me wonder. This was for the 1967 CBS Special on JFK. So, did they try to interview Lovelady? And why wouldn't they? 

Look: you had a guy in a picture who was either one guy or another guy, but only one of them was still alive. How do you not talk to the one surviving guy? 

But, if they talked to Lovelady, they must have quickly found out that he was nobody to talk to. He wasn't any good at this. He was nervous. He was a terrible actor. And he sounded like he was lying. And that's why 9 years later, the HSCA didn't even consider dragging him to Washington to testify. They dragged hundreds of other people there, but they didn't drag Billy Lovelady. But again: how do you not talk to the one surviving guy? 

You notice that he seems to have facial hair. Did he? I don't know. It seems rather strange to me that he would just show up to be on national television with facial hair, that it was just a phase he was going through in which he was wearing a beard. Did they think that the guy in the Altgens photo had a beard? No, they couldn't have thought that because you can clearly see in the mustache area and on his chin that he was clean-shaven. But, if Lovelady had a beard, they must have wanted him to have it, perhaps just to obscure his face. And who knows, maybe it's completely artificial; something they created afterwards, which would have been very easy to do.

But, getting back to the idea of whether they interviewed him or not, I know for a fact that they did. That's because in his Six Seconds book, Tink Thompson said that CBS told him that they interviewed Lovelady, who told them that he was, indeed, the Doorway Man, etc. But, why didn't Tink go to Dallas and interview Lovelady himself? Wasn't it important enough? Why rely on hearsay? And why didn't CBS televise their interview of Lovelady? How come nobody but nobody wanted to get Lovelady talking in front of a camera? Not Tink, not CBS, not the HSCA. Again: it was because he was a disastrous witness who could not carry the story. He must have broadcast a mile wide that it was all bull shit.

In fact, CBS not only did not televise the interview of him, they wound up trashing the whole segment. Just forget it. It wasn't going to sell in Peoria, and it wasn't going to sell anywhere. 

So, what is this picture?

   
It is the picture of a lie. A damnable, bloodied, evil lie. Everything about it is wrong. Everything about it is designed to mislead, including the plaid shirt, which Lovelady did not wear on 11/22/63. CBS was obstructing justice. They were, and are, an accessory after the fact in the murder of John F. Kennedy. 
     

You deny that Oswald went to the lunch room? But, he said he went there. It ways: "Claims 2nd Floor Coke when Off(icer) came in".

Why would Fritz have written that down if Oswald didn't say it? Fritz never used the notes. Fritz never even owned up to having the notes. In fact, he denied having them. 10 years after his death, somebody turned them over to the AARB.  Note that it also says: "home by bus changed britches".

And what about the testimony of Officer Marrion Baker? I don't mind if you want to suspect Roy Truly of wrongdoing because the TSBD was a den of Ops; it was really a CIA front company, as per William Westin. But, Marrion Baker? He was just a lowly motorcycle cop. If you're going to accuse him of being part of the conspiracy, then you might as well bring the secretaries and janitors at the DPD in on it. 

And Baker identified Oswald as the man he saw in the lunch room. And he turned to Truly, and Truly said that he was OK because he worked there. And Baker and Truly did not know each other beforehand. There is no basis to think that they conspired together to lie. 

And it was right after that that Oswald had an encounter with Mrs. Robert Reid, whose first name was Geraldine. She had dealt with Oswald before in giving him his paycheck and making change for him. So, she knew what he looked like- up close. And she encountered him 2 minutes after the last shot, which worked out perfectly to accord with what happened first with Truly and Baker, which happened about 1 minute and 15 seconds after the last shot. 

So, Oswald left the doorway, walked up the 2nd floor lunch room, got there just seconds before Truly and Baker. He had his encounter with them. Then, he got his Coke, and then he walked past Mrs. Reid without saying anything. Then, he went downstairs. 

Baker described Oswald as wearing a "light brown jacket over a white shirt," and Oswald's outer shirt could easily be taken for a jacket, as you see here.

But, according to you, they not only concocted the bus ride and the cab ride for Oswald, but they concocted the lunch room encounter as well? WHEN did they make these decisions to do this, and WHO made them? Who took responsibility? And who authorized it? This was a big operation: a coup d'etat of the US government. If such a frame-up went wrong, it would have exposed the whole plot. And it wasn't fundamentally a Dallas plot. It wasn't a local thing. So, who would have taken responsibility for making all these claims about Oswald's actions when, if he lived, he could have easily refuted them if they were false? Who decided that the risk was worth taking? 

And I know all about the "problems" with Whaley's testimony and his manifest. So what. It's all small potatoes. It's nothing. Anyone who wants to get the lowdown on Whaley just has to listen to the man.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3G8FZ92vjs

Now, if you watch that and listen to Whaley, and if you're in possession of at least half a brain, you are going to realize that Whaley was no actor, and he wasn't bullshitting. So, somebody got into his cab and asked to be taken to the 500 block of N. Beckley. So, if it wasn't Oswald, then it was somebody else, which would mean that this plan to fake public transportation for Oswald included not just concocting a story but coming up with an actual Oswald double who went through the motions.  And that makes the whole claim even more preposterous. 

Backes ignores the things he can't answer, but how could they decide upon this and arrange it all when the assassination only happened at 12:30, and they didn't know what Oswald was going to do until he did it? 

On what basis could the Dallas police have foreknowledge of Oswald's actions when Oswald didn't even have foreknowledge of his actions? He didn't even know that Kennedy was going to be passing the building that day. He asked Junior Jarman why people were gathering on the sidewalk. And when Jarman told him the motorcade would be driving by, Oswald asked him which direction the motorcade would be coming from, and Jarman told him. But, it goes to show that Oswald didn't know shit from shinola. So, how and why could he possibly have arranged to be picked up that day at 12:30? Why would he have done that? What for?

Backes, this only shows that you are even more demented, more twisted, and more hopelessly mired in non-reality on the JFK assassination than I realized. It's pathetic really. It's sad. You have no business doing this. You are completely incompetent at it. You don't know how to think; you're a dumb pluck. You can't even see that these are the same man wearing the same clothes.

   Then, you say these two are the same man.

Holy Mother of God. Like Kennedy is ever going to get justice thanks to you. Dumb pluck that you are, you are fucking hopeless. You're just plain stupid. 

We have had a very active day in the OIC with some interesting exchanges. I am going to post a very thought-provoking missive from John Hankey, which concerns Presidential submissions, that, in the end, they always do what they're told- at least since Kennedy they have, and it's because of Kennedy that they do. That's John's take. 

But, if you don't know of John Hankey, he has done the definitive work on exposing the role of George HW Bush murdering JFK. You can visit his website at bushkilledjfk dot com. Catchy title, eh?

http://www.bushkilledjfk.com 

And John Hankey has also done the definitive work on the assassination of John F. Kennedy Jr. too. You should watch his film about it on youtube: Dark Legacy II. Dark Legacy I can also be found there, which is about Bush Sr.'s role in killing JFK. Both are riveting.  

But, before I post John's analysis of Presidential submissions, I want to point out that the office of President, which was always powerful, has become increasingly more powerful. 

For instance, do you realize that every war since WW2 has been a Presidential war? The last time that the United States declared war on a country constitutionally, that is, by an act of Congress was for World War 2. Since then, the Presidents have started all the wars themselves and done so without a Congressional act of war. 

Fact: The US Constitution says that only Congress can declare war, and fund war, and take this country to war. And the Founders made it that way on purpose because they figured some hothead might become President, and since war involves tremendous loss of life, horrific carnage and vast devastation, better to make sure that cooler heads are involved in the decision. 

But, when Truman entered the Korean War without getting an Act of War through Congress, that did it. Every President after that said, "Hey, I'm just doing what Truman did. If he could do it, I can do it." 

But, why didn't Congress stop them? Why didn't anyone use the Constitution and the laws of this country to stop them? I think the short answer is that they have all been fascist wars, and in a fascist system, it's efficient to have a fascist leader. It's been building in that direction for a long time.  

But, I think John's point is that this power of the President, which has been growing, is largely an illusion, that these Presidents do the bidding of the real powerbrokers who run the country and put them in office. And if they don't, they just might have a rendezvous with a lone nut the way JFK did. And they know it.  Here is John:

Dear Jim (and everybody!)

I agree so wholeheartedly with the major points that you made in this last post that it seems like quibbling to object to the relatively minor point of whether or not Johnson was involved. I have, furthermore, since 1965, harbored very hard feelings towards Johnson for his responsibility in the death  and dismemberment of so many Americans and Vietnamese. I first met you 10 years ago at a 9/11 truth conference, and you explained your reasoning for thinking that Johnson was involved to me at that time. And it is hard to imagine anything more obvious and reasonable, than to think that the killers of JFK would feel that they needed to have Johnson on their side.

I also agree very enthusiastically that it is necessary to take in the big picture when trying to answer this question.

I have had 10 years to think it over- and to observe how every President since Kennedy has been used and abused by the killers. For example:

There are two irrefutable sources showing that Johnson knew that the Gulf of Tonkin incidents were frauds, and said so, and said that he had no intention of sponsoring the Gulf of Tonkin resolution; which, not coincidentally, was written by McGeorge Bundy, before the incidents were falsely alleged to have occurred. As you have pointed out, this same Bundy wrote NSAM 273, reversing Kennedy's Vietnam policy, and he wrote it BEFORE Kennedy was murdered. Bundy then handed the memo to Johnson, and shoved him into his first meeting with the Joint Chiefs, on the afternoon of Kennedy's funeral. I used to blame Johnson for this memo. But now, having studied the big picture, I know that Kennedy did not keep Johnson in the loop; and it is unlikely that Johnson appreciated that 273 was a reversal of 263. In fact, 273 says that it was written to reaffirm the continuation of Kennedy's policies. I have no doubt that Johnson really thought that that's what he was doing in endorsing 273. I can find you 10,000 so-called historians who will tell you the same thing, that Johnson continued Kennedy's Vietnam policies.

Nixon knew he had a tape machine in the White House. He told us, on that machine, that investigating E. Howard Hunt would uncover the whole Kennedy assassination, "that Bay of Pigs thing" as he called it. So, Nixon knew that Hunt was involved in murdering a President of United States. Do you suppose he wanted such a man to have an office in the White House? I do not. Nixon was, supposedly, "paranoid". He would've been terrified. He was terrified. I think that he had Hunt and the entire Watergate burglary shoved down his throat. Ehrlichman and Haldeman agree with me. He did what he was told, in fear for his life.
  

When Jimmy Carter refused to allow the Shah of Iran to come to the United States, he received a visit from Nelson Rockefeller, who insisted that Carter allow the Shah in. Carter says he asked Rockefeller, "you advise me to do this? And what will you advise me to do when the Revolutionary guards seize  the Embassy and take everyone hostage?"  You know what happened next. Carter let in the Shah, and the Embassy was seized. Why? Why did Carter give in? I would suggest that they showed him the Zapruder film.
  

(P.S. from Cinque: Similarly, when the HSCA issued its Final Report in January 1979, it was laughable. They said there was "probably" a conspiracy to kill Kennedy, but it didn't involve the CIA, the FBI, the Russians, the Cubans or anyone else, except that Oswald, who did everything the Warren Commission said he did, may have had an accomplice shooting from the Grassy Knoll who got clean away like a fart in a high wind. But, the HSCA did, in fact, recommend that the Justice Department reopen the case and look for that Grassy Knoll shooter. So, why didn't Carter, who was a Democrat like JFK, and the first President to assume office since JFK who didn't have JFK's blood on his hands, why didn't Carter act? Why didn't he order his Attorney General to act? I would suggest it's because he'd seen the Zapruder film.) Back to John Hankey:

Reagan went to Helsinki and, to his surprise, found the Soviets to be reasonable, and enthusiastic about making peace.  He came home, likewise enthused, and was shot. And he kept his nose out of politics thereafter, leaving all such matters, especially Iran Contra Cocaine to Bush.

Bushes, obviously are not included in this list of abused presidents, though W appeared scared shitless during most of 9-11; but I think he was just scared of getting caught.
  

Obama sent Nancy Pelosi, Rahm Emanuel, and Joe Biden out to give speeches saying that the government in Afghanistan was too corrupt to possibly justify the loss of another American life. He leaked a top-secret letter from his ambassador which was promptly printed on the front pages of every major newspaper, saying the exact same thing. Then two  uninvited guests, the Salahis, made their way into the most high security function ever held at the White House, and walked up and shook hands with Obama, Biden, and Pelosi. A few days later, Obama sent 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan.
  

That is a short version of the big picture. I don't think the killers feel like they need to have the President on their side. But, I'm sure they want the President understand where his self-interest and self-preservation lie. Certainly they don't want the President to think that he is an equal.  They want him terrified. They want him to know that disappointing the Power Elite has major consequences: deadly serious ones. In Dealey Plaza, both Hunt and Bush were arrested as shooters and brought to the police station, walked in the front door, and were quietly walked out the back door. The killers didn't need Johnson or Hoover on their side.  All the killers had to do was get away clean, and they did. They had Lansdale on the scene to make sure that they did. And the next day, was Hoover's top undercover informant in the field. They called in Bush the same day, they called in Lorenz, Hemmings, Sturgis, and who knows who else.  They knew they were all in Dallas, but they couldn't prove anything. And I don't think they even knew Hunt's name.  I think the killers wanted Johnson to be terrified of them. Helen Thomas says that he was. And she didn't know the story about Johnson being found in the bathroom on Air Force One, sobbing, and crying "they're going to kill us all." I believe that is the relationship that the killers want with the president, unless they can have one of their own, a Bush or a Rockefeller, or a Romney, in the White House.
  

Now. Vernon Walters says that Hoover wrote a memo to all the FBI offices saying that there was going to be an assassination attempt in Dallas. I find it inconceivable that Hoover would not have shared that with Johnson. I believe he shared it with Kennedy. And I believe that the Secret Service used the two supposed foiled "attempts" in Chicago and Miami to persuade Kennedy that they were very competent, and on top of the situation, and that everything was well in hand; so that Kennedy was persuaded to disregard this warning from Hoover. Sheee-it. They told him that what the FBI was hearing was merely the Secret service's own "Able Danger" project, a "B team", of Secret Service employees, going through the motions of plotting to kill Kennedy in order to see whether the Secret Service could pick up the reverberations of their plotting.  I believe these "plots" in Chicago and Miami were frauds, designed for that particular purpose - to give Kennedy false confidence in the Secret Service. I have heard Malcolm Kilduff say that these foiled attempts showed that the Secret Service was doing a great job. I think we all know better. I'm sure that Johnson trusted Hoover more than he trusted the Secret Service. I don't know who the other people were with whom Johnson was communicating on a walkie-talkie, but I don't have any good reason to think it was the killers. There are several channels on those things.  It is reasonable, to me, in any case, that someone in the political leadership would want to be in communication with the police officials, or others in charge of the technical details.  So I don't find Johnson's possession of a walkie talkie especially incriminating.

I suspect that Johnson knew what Kennedy knew, of Hoover's warning. Only Kennedy was taken in by the Secret Service's lies, and Johnson was not.
  

More big picture: the morning after the assassination, at 9 o'clock, McCone called Johnson to tell him that the CIA had audiotapes showing that Oswald was working for the Russians. 40 minutes later, Hoover called Johnson to tell him that the tapes were fraudulent, that the CIA was lying, trying to provoke war with Russia, or at least an invasion of Cuba; neither said that this fraud implicated the CIA in the assassination, but it was clearly understood. No? How not?

More big picture: Hoover wrote the memo, entitled "Assassination of JFK", naming Bush as a CIA supervisor of the "misguided anti-Castro Cubans." He busted Prescott in 1942 for being a Nazi, and seized his bank. He hired Oswald and used him to bust up the CIA terrorist camps at Lake Pontchartrain. He told Johnson that the CIA was lying to him about Oswald in Mexico, and implicated them in the assassination, the morning after. He clearly was not in with the killers. I don't care what any of the whores who worked for Murchison say to the contrary.

As I say, I have been thinking about it for 10 years.