Monday, October 23, 2017

It is absolutely certain that Jack Ruby had no intention of shooting Oswald- even according to the official story. If he intended to shoot Oswald, don't you think he would have showed up on time for the scheduled jail transfer? If he intended to shoot Oswald, don't you think he would have left his dog at home? Ruby bringing his dog along was one of those little details that the plotters never anticipated and by which he, unwittingly, thwarted them. And don't you think that if he planned to shoot Oswald that he would have made arrangements, for his dogs, for his business, and for everything since he knew he wasn't going back to his life? It was really the equivalent of suicide- he lost his whole life. 

And since it is absolutely certain that Jack Ruby did not plan to shoot Oswald, it renders ludicrous the idea of him him being ordered to do it by the Mob or anyone else.

And, it leaves only one thing: that he did it suddenly and impulsively and compulsively; that he just went berserk. 

But, there are problems with that too. According to Dallas Police, Ruby immediately started talking like a badass, saying that he hopes the son of a bitch dies, that he wishes he could have shot him again, that he did them all a favor, etc. But, it makes no sense for Ruby to say those things if he acted out of control and without deliberation. If he did it without planning, then he had to be as shocked as everyone else that he did it. And in such a state of shock, he wouldn't be shlepping bravado and saying those things. You've got to realize something: the man had a life. And in that one brazen act, he (supposedly) destroyed every bit of that life. Again: he might as well have just plain killed himself. So, once he came out of the "psychomotor epileptic" state that his lawyers said he was in, wouldn't he be reflecting on the fact that he not only killed a man but he destroyed every single thing in his life, that he was NEVER ever going back to his life, that he had lost everything-every single thing in his life. 

Jack Ruby enjoyed his life. He enjoyed running his business. He enjoyed being a semi-celebrity in Dallas, known and recognized by many people. He enjoyed acting like a big shot. He enjoyed being a friend of the Dallas Police and being treated like a friend by them. He was very close with his family, especially his siblings. And it's not crystal clear to me to what extent he was still involved in the gun-running to Cuba in 1963, but it's something he had been doing for at least 10 years, and I don't doubt that it was another aspect of his life that was important to him. And although he didn't have a wife or a steady girlfriend at the time, he would take trips and bring along a female companion, and there is every reason to think that he enjoyed women. 

So, looking at it all-together, he had a heck of a life, and when he came out of the mental break that caused him to go berserk and shoot Oswald. his first thought must have been that he just destroyed his own life- everything that he held near and dear. So, who is going to start brandishing bravado at a time like that?

Now, here are some things that Ruby could have done and figured that it wasn't him. First, study the images, and I mean critically. For instance, when he saw that the shooter shot with his middle finger, he could have asked himself, "Is that anything I would have done?"


Doesn't everybody pull the trigger with his index finger? And especially in a situation where he acted compulsively and without thinking, wouldn't he just do it the natural way? The pistol was designed to be shot with the index finger. There is no place to put the index finger if you don't shoot with it. If you leave it along the cylinder, it will be exposed to all the hot gases blasting out of the cylinder gap. 

He could look at the Beers photo. Did Ruby stash his glasses in his left coat pocket?


Ruby walked from the WU office to the Main Street ramp, and it was a 2 minute walk. Somebody timed it. Personally, I don't see him doing it with his glasses in that pocket, where they seem to be dangling. Jackets have inner breast pockets; that's standard. Doesn't it seem like he would put it there? I've been looking for images of Jack Ruby in a jacket to see if any show glasses kept in his jacket left pocket and have found one. I have found only one image of Jack Ruby wearing glasses, and that's the one at the Midnight Press Conference, and the Wizard and I are not completely sure that's him. There is this photo of him conferring with his lawyers.


I think that's a pen in Ruby's pocket there. There are simply no other images of him like this:


Here's a court-related image. No glasses in the jacket left pocket.



Considering how shallow that pocket was and how exposed the glasses were, and the fact that Ruby would not be needing them to walk to the ramp, I should think he would have put them somewhere more secure. He would have known if he had the practice of walking around with his glasses there, but again, I can find no other images of Jack Ruby doing it. Jack Ruby would know if he ever wore such light socks with such dark shoes and dark pants. And I'll mention again, as I have many times, that he would know if he ever wore his hair so long in back.

There are plenty more, and there are just no images of him storing glasses like that.





    
At the trial of Jack Ruby for murdering her son, here is Marguerite Oswald chatting it up with Judge Joe Brown. Doesn't she look happy? She looks like she's flirting with him.

I am suddenly thinking of the mother of Natalee Holloway, one of the most famous missing persons of all time. She didn't look like that. I'm thinking of Carryn Owens, the widow the Navy Seal who was killed in Yemen.


Can everyone agree that there was something very weird about Marguerite Oswald? She was no normal mother.





Two months ago, in August, the National Enquirer made the claim that the document-dump that is about to happen a few days from now will reveal that JFK had fired Hoover, that he gave him a date to have his desk cleared out, for him to be gone from the FBI Building. That date was December 31, 1963. 

Here is the link: http://www.nationalenquirer.com/photos/j-edgar-hoover-fbi-jfk-murder/

We'll see if it materializes. The article states that Hoover is the one who brought Guy Bannister, a former FBI agent, into it to groom Oswald as patsy. According to the article, Hoover's hit team was made up of "Cubans." 

But, what I want to see is that document showing that JFK terminated Hoover as of December 31 because that will be big, big, big.

But, regardless if it's there or not, I have no doubt that Hoover was deeply involved in the operation of killing Kennedy. Not just covering it up afterwards, which of course Hoover did, but killing him. 

And that makes it all the more ironic that Hoover should have been the one who called Robert Kennedy. The very murderer called the victim's brother. 

And Robert Kennedy relented; there is no doubt about it. He wasn't a stupid man. He got it. So, why did he do it? Didn't he love his brother? Of course, he did. 

But, his brother was dead, and Hoover's threat included JFK's legacy. You want your brother to be glorified and canonized don't you? You want his dirt to die with him, don't you? Of course, all his dirt did eventually come out, but if RFK had gone on the warpath, it would have come out immediately. 

Imagine for a moment if RFK had gone on the warpath, if he made a public announcement that he does not believe the story that is being told about a lone gunman, that he thinks a coup d'etat took place, that he believes that soon to be fired LBJ, and soon to be fired J. Edgar Hoover, and already fired Allen Dulles were behind the killing of his brother and that his own investigation would prove it. What would have been the response?

First, the media would have stopped giving RFK a mic. LBJ would have immediately fired RFK as Attorney General. A criminal investigation of RFK would have begun. Obviously, it would have been a crisis the likes of which we have never seen in this country. I think most politicians, out of self-protection, would have supported the new leader and the new government and condemned Robert Kennedy. But some, who had close ties to RFK and the Kennedy family, would no doubt have supported him. It would have been unprecedented. It may have led to martial law. There really is no telling what would have happened. 

But, Robert Kennedy thought about it and decided not to oppose. And once he did, all others, including the Kennedy family and Kennedy loyalists within the government and Congress took their cue from him and did likewise. It's interesting that he didn't even resign as Attorney General. If he had done that, resigned, refused to work under Johnson, it would have shaken things up a bit, but they would have spun it, saying that his family needed him now, and dealing with his brother's records and legacy was what he had to do. There would have been plenty of murmuring, but that alone, his resignation, would NOT have thrown the country into crisis.  So, I'm surprised that Robert Kennedy didn't at least do that much: resign. 

Of course, if he had resigned, others may have resigned, such as Pierre Salinger. But, no way would Rusk, McNamara, or Bundy have resigned. Huh. Fat chance. 

But, Robert Kennedy didn't even do that. He didn't even resign. He eventually did resign to run for the Senate, but that wasn't the same as resigning immediately. And I wouldn't be surprised if that phone call from J. Edgar Hoover had something to do with it. 

"I don't have to tell you how important solidarity is at this time. It will not only serve the interests of the country but also of your brother's legacy." 

Robert Kennedy got the message. 







J. Edgar Hoover called Robert Kennedy a few minutes after the shooting occurred to inform him of it. As in Texas, it was an unseasonably warm November day in Virginia, and Robert Kennedy was swimming laps in his outdoor pool when the call came in. I'm surprised Robert Kennedy found out that way. I would have thought that somebody else would have called him first. They did announce it on the radio right away, didn't they? 

So, what did J. Edgar Hoover say to Robert Kennedy? Well, apparently, he did not express any sympathy or compassion. The story goes that Hoover just blurted out bluntly: "Your brother's dead." Alright, so expressing sympathy wasn't part of it. Was providing information? But, what information could he have had at that point in time? If it was, say, 3 minutes, what did they know at that point? Had Brennan given his description to Police Inspector Sawyer yet? I doubt that the TSBD already held its "roll call," the one that found Oswald missing, which provoked Roy Truly to inform the police.  And what's strange about that is that Truly had just seen Oswald shortly before in the lunch room with Baker. If we are to believe that Oswald's absence from a company roll call was enough reason for Roy Truly to suspect he may have killed the President of the United States (and for those of you who work at a company as Oswald did, which I don't, I want you to ask yourself if, for some reason, you were not there for a company roll call, whether your boss would then suspect you of having committed a violent crime)  then why didn't Roy Truly have the same suspicion about Oswald in the lunch room? Why was he so dismissive of the idea then? We all know the account that was given, that Truly said, "Yes, I know him. He works for me." But, either he said more than that, or there was a tremendous amount of innuendo that went with it to imply: "This guy? Huh. He couldn't hurt fly. You're wasting your time with him." 

I think it was all part of the plan. They did not want Oswald to be arrested at the TSBD. They wanted to get him armed first and then hopefully he would die in a shootout with police. Of course, that didn't happen. 

But, let's get back to J.Edgar Hoover and Robert Kennedy. So, Hoover did not call to express compassion and sympathy, and he could not have had much factual information at that point concerning the shooter or shooters. And JFK was presumably being sped to the hospital at that time, his condition unknown. So, what did they talk about for 20 minutes?

Of course, he could not have had much factual information unless Hoover was in on it, and I think that the very fact that he called RFK so soon shows that he was. That's where his information came from; from having been in on it all along. I think Hoover must have told RFK that it appeared to be the work of a lone gunman. That's right; just scant minutes after the shooting, I bet you that Hoover told him that; and that no foreigners or agents of other states were involved. And then came the coup d' grace: 

"The new President and I are expecting your full cooperation. In a time of crisis, we have to pull together as one. It would be extremely disruptive, and dangerous to the future of the republic, if you were to dispute any of our findings as they are revealed. Loyalty and patriotism to this country call for you to support our efforts- wherever they lead. Can I count on you for that, Attorney General Kennedy?"

And there may have been some references to JFK, that the honors and praises he was going to get posthumously, and the willingness to forget about his sexaholic behavior, his Mafia ties during the election, his lying about his health, and more depended on RFK playing his part in bringing the country together and respecting the new administration of LBJ. 

Did Hoover even wonder if Robert Kennedy wondered if Hoover was involved in the plot to kill his brother? I don't think Hoover cared. If RFK wanted to think that Hoover was involved in it, so be it. That's his business. But, you don't breathe a word of it to anyone, publicly or privately, if you know what's good for you. And, you tow the company line, because if you don't, there is going to be trouble for you; big trouble; hell to pay.  

That, I believe, was the message from J. Edgar Hoover to Robert Kennedy. And Robert Kennedy got the message. 

   

Sunday, October 22, 2017

OIC member Paul Stevens has found an alteration in the Altgens4 photo, and I agree with him. 



On the far upper right, there is a dingy image of a little boy being held up by a woman; we're saying that that is fake.


So, why is it fake. First, the lighting is all wrong. The other faces are much brighter, and it's because the sun was streaming in. For two, the image looks very old, like from another time. Look at the old-fashioned cap the boy is wearing. And three, notice that he is looking the wrong direction. And note that she isn't looking correctly either. Shouldn't she be looking at the Kennedys? She's not. She appears to be looking straight ahead. Four, is she supposed to be holding the boy up? How? You can see that her left hand is in front of him, not securing him at all. So, that leave only one hand, her right hand. Notice that he does not seem to have an arm around her, and he does not seem to be leaning towards her. But, if she was holding him with just one arm, he would go to her; instinctively, he would be seeking more support. That hand may not even be hers; they may have added it separately. And again, we are dealing with the fact that this was a parade, a long parade, a very slow-moving parade, and she couldn't possibly hold him to watch it. He would get heavier and heavier with each passing second, which is to say, he would feel heavier with each passing second as her muscles fatigued, and they would fatigue rapidly. She wasn't Superwoman. 

Yes, I think Paul hit the nail on the head; that is another photographic anomaly. No doubt they were trying to cover someone up, some spook. You realize that that was Spook Alley. You're looking at Jim Featherstone, E.Howard Hunt, and Lucien Conien. The photo is cropped, but I believe there are other known CIA-connected people in it.

There are many images like this, where someone standing on the south side of Elm shoots towards the street and captures the downward slant of the road.


So, why don't we see the downward slant as well in the Moorman photo?



It's because of what the Moorman photo is: a cookie-cutout of a larger photo taken by Babushka Lady. And BL shot at a diagonal. And what happens when you shoot at a diagonal? You capture a larger field. 

So, when I say that the Moorman photo was taken by Babushka Lady, I don't mean that it is the entire image that BL took. It's a crop of it. And once you start cropping, you lose your bearing to the ground, and you can turn the crop any which way you want. 
If two men are handcuffed together, I presume they would both try to manage the situation as best as possible, that is, with the least intrusion on the other's space. Neither would move his hand to the center of his body, since that would take the other man's hand there as well. Each would leave his hand at his side and not move it inward. 

But, look at this image. Supposedly, Oswald and Leavelle are handcuffed together, even though we can't see a handcuff. But, look what Oswald is doing with his right hand. He's brought it all the way to the center of his body. Why would he do that if that hand was handcuffed to Leavelle? 


Here is a real life example of a similar situation. And I say real life because what we see above was an act.

They claim that that was done to Oswald, but note that we don't see any shackles at all on Oswald when we study the picture. But notice what that prisoner is doing; he has both hands over to his right to avoid pulling the cop's hand into his personal space.

But supposedly, Oswald didn't care. He went ahead and pulled Leavelle's hand into his personal space. 


Note, however, that their hands aren't actually close enough to be cuffed together. Look at the distance:


And how, in that situation, could we not see the chain? Look how close they are here:






And, we have a picture of the very handcuffs allegedly used.

Look how short the linking chain is. 

But, let's go back to this:


Notice that you see Oswald's whole right arm, from the shoulder on down. So, Oswald, after being handcuffed to Leavelle, chose to draw his right hand all the way over to the center of his body, dragging Leavelle's hand with it? And note that Oswald had to do his action first. If Oswald had left his hand down, then his hand would have blocked Leavelle getting to his pants. And note that what we are seeing on Leavelle is an anatomical impossibility.

It's apparent that Leavelle's upper arm is hanging normally, in a neutral position. But, what about his forearm? He has it angled out- a lot. But, it's impossible because the elbow doesn't allow it. It's a hinge joint. It opens and it closes. That's all. It can't do that. Try it yourself. There is a mechanism by which you can rotate your hand, but you can't angle your forearm like that. It doesn't go there. It is anatomically impossible. No can do it. 


I contacted another forensic photographer and showed him some of my collages of Oswald and Doorman, pointing out alterations. And here is how he responded in an email:

"Ralph, thanks for your email. I can see where you are coming from with this. There was of course no Photoshop in 1963. But, I know hand negative and airbrush retouchers, and this level of manipulation, of which you are asserting, was certainly possible at that time. A good airbrush retoucher can rival with paint anything I can do with Photoshop." 

"I doubt this will help much, but there it is." 

He signed it, of course, but I won't give you his name because he's not willing to get involved. He could lose his job. 

Oh, but for the evil it all. The people who did this, they knew what they were doing. They, the artists, were accessories to murder. They might as well have been painting with Oswald's blood.