Tuesday, March 5, 2024



Someone sent me this photograph of what is being called Jack Ruby's hat on the floor of the police garage after the scuffle. But, just because it's claimed doesn't mean it's true. The hat in the photo appears to be black. Officially, Ruby's hat was grey. The image of it on the right is from the Library of Congress.

Somebody paid over $58,000 for Ruby's hat, and I have to laugh. Oh, how much faith people have.
Let's be clear: Ruby was not in the garage during the spectacle. He was already being held up on the 5th floor. SS Agent Forest Sorrell was minding him. Ruby got to the garage early, about an hour early, and he told the Warren Commissioners that he sent the money wire at 10:15.
But, it may be that FBI Agent James Bookhout did wear Ruby's suit and his hat. And what supports that is the fact that for a long while, Ruby was kept in his underwear up in the jail. That is reported in two books: Reclaiming History, by Vincent Bugliosi and Moment of Madness: The People vs. Jack Ruby by Elmer Gertz, who was one of Ruby's lawyers. Can you think of a reason why they would keep him in his underwear, other than them needing his clothes?
The framing of Jack Ruby had to be the biggest psychological swindle of all time. 50 years passed before anybody figured it out that it wasn't him in the garage. And the first person to do so was the Russian, Maxim Irkutsk, in 2013.
I"ll leave you with this: the authorities needed Oswald dead. Why do you think they wouldn't let him see a lawyer? If Oswald has seen a lawyer, they would have had to kill the lawyer. And remember: there was no gag order. Whaever Oswald told his lawyer, the lawyer could have gone public with.
And Oswald would have told his lawyer plenty. He would have told him that he was standing in the doorway of the Book Depository during the shooting. And it's likely that his lawyer would have shown him the Altgens photo. The authorities showed the Altgens photo to Lovelady but not to Oswald. How do you make sense of that? If the figure in a photo had to be one of two men, wouldn't you show it to both of them? Oswald was alive Saturday night. That's when they showed the Altgens photo to Lovelady. So, why not show it to Oswald too?
But going on, it's certain that Oswald would have told the lawyer that he owned no rifle and never ordered one from Chicago. Now, if the lawyer believed him, what would his next thought be? He knew that the paper trail from Chicago was proffered by the FBI. So, if he believed Oswald, then he would have known, immediately, that the FBI was framing him.
And then, we can be sure that Oswald would have told the lawyer that he never posed for the Backyard photos. He surely would have told the lawyer the same thing he told the police, that somebody put his face over the body of another man.
The brazen lies would have jumped out at the lawyer, and he would have demolished them in court. There could be no trial for Lee Harvey Oswald. There could only be death for Lee Harvey Oswald. And the FBI didn't just get lucky that Jack Ruby came along and did it. He didn't! The framing of Ruby and the killing of Oswald was all part of the plan-their plan. Not Ruby's plan; theirs.

And I know that when people here this for the first time, they think that it's too far-fetched. But, that really isn't the problem. The problem is the magnitude of the evil involved. They don't think anything this evil could happen in the United States of America. Well, it could happen; it did happen; and plenty more evil followed as a direct result of it.

Tuesday, February 20, 2024

The Bagman bags, and he is covering up the head of James W. Bookhout, impersonating Jack Ruby. 



 

Monday, February 19, 2024

 

Betrayal by JFK's Four Trusted Men: McNamara, Bundy, Hilsman and Forrestal

by Dr. Alen Salerian
Follow Me on Twitter     Message Alen Salerian
Become a Fan
  (2 fans)

I love the beauty of Leibniz law for its simplicity, precision and transparency. a = b if and only if all the properties of a are shared by b is what Leibniz law states. And that is why Robert McNamara's "In Retrospect" and the transcripts of the October 29, 1963 National Security Council meeting edited by John Prados jointly prove betrayal of President Kennedy by Robert McNamara, McGeorge Bundy, Michael Forrestal and Rogers Hilsman, because their collaborative actions have all the properties of betrayal.

The transcripts of the October 29, 1963 meeting reveal McNamara and Bundy did willfully violate President Kennedy's Vietnam strategy and actively sabotage collaboration among the U.S. Armed Forces and the U.S. State Department. More specifically, they directed Ambassador Cabot Lodge in Saigon, South Vietnam to keep General Harkins in the dark about the coup d'tat promoted by Lodge.

The October 29, 1963 NSC meeting reveals misrepresentations consistent with treason by Bundy and McNamara. They are spread all over throughout the meeting, but the following are several specific examples:

White House transcripts page 109, Robert McNamara: "Up to this point, Harkins has not been informed of the coup plan.

Robert McNamara, page 113: "I personally believe Harkins is not informed about this coup planning that has occurred in the last several days.

Page 115, the President: "It's Lodge that didn't want to know what our message is following the August 24th cable, which we worked.

Page 121, Robert McNamara: "It is the sudden feeling we have in the last day or so that Lodge isn't telling Harkins about the coup.

Page 131, the President: "This is Lodge's fault for not bringing Harkins in.

Page 131, McNamara: "We have to say, Mr. President, one of our outgoings could be the basis for Lodge not putting Harkins in.

"We all, a couple of them.

Page 131, Bundy: "We said keep Harkins out of contact.

In "In Retrospect," Robert McNamara reveals the following on page 68: 
"Kennedy saw the letter as a guidance to me but also as a document that I could show to others and say "This is what the President desires." But the anti-Diem activists in Washington (possibly a reference to Bundy, Hilsman and Forrestal) continued their rear guard action. Unbeknownst to Mac and me, Hilsman sent Lodge a letter after reading the President's instructions to me".

Page 70: On September 27, 1963, the handwritten message from Hilsman to Lodge, hand carried by Forrestal, stated the following:

"Dear Cabot, I am taking advantage of Mike Forrestal's safe hands to deliver this message.

I have the feeling that more and more of the town is coming around to our view, i.e., that Diem must be removed by a coup and that, if you in Saigon and we in the department stick to our guns, the rest will also come around. As Mike will tell you, a determined group here will back you all the way."

The English word for what McNamara documents is treason.

So, in essence, Bundy aides Hilsman and Forrestal, according to McNamara, commit treason on September 27, 1963.

It is possible to integrate the information from "In Retrospect" and the transcripts of the October 29, 1963 NSC meeting. The integrated version is consistent with sabotage of the President's Vietnam strategy and treason by four of Kennedy's top aides.

Saturday, February 17, 2024

Tom Rozoff
People didn't have access to the internet back then. We had to pretty much believe what we were told. It's taken us 60 years to come up to scruff. Thank God for the researchers that interviewed people and filmed them.
  • Like
  • Reply
  • Share
Ralph Cinque
Author
Tom Rozoff The reason people refuse to accept that the Dallas Police killed Oswald, even though nothing about their ridiculous jail transfer spectacle makes sense, is because they think that such a thing could not happen in America. But, the U.S. gove… 
See more
  • Like
  • Reply
  • Share
Tom Rozoff
Ralph Cinque Lee was a Dead Man walking.
  • Like
  • Reply
  • Share
Ralph Cinque
Author
Tom Rozoff Yes, absolutely. And it was a comedy of errors, so to speak. They definitely intended for him to die in the Texas Theater. Then, it's very likely that they intended to shoot him at the Midnight Press Conference because the whole idea was ridiculous. Since when does a presumed double murderer and Presidential assassin get a press conference? And Ruby was there, but apparently, he wasn't situated to where they could blame the shooting on him. And Oswald was doing a lot of damage complaining about being denied a lawyer. So, they quickly aborted it. Then on Saturday, Leavelle came dressed in his Easter suit. Who wears such a festive outfit at such a time? What would cause him to wake up on Saturday morning and say, "I think I'll wear my Easter suit."? But, they wanted him in that suit because he was going to be standing next to Oswald in black, and they needed the contrast. But then, it got put off to Sunday morning, as you know.