Tuesday, October 25, 2016

Paul Craig Roberts: The Prestitutes have Set Up the Election to be Stolen

Paul Craig Roberts

Over the course of its history, the New York Times has reported on many American elections that have been rigged or stolen or are suspected of having been being rigged or stolen. For example, as a supporter of the black civil rights movement, the NY Times has many stories in its archives of elections rigged by disenfranchisement of black voters.

But this was when the NY Times was an independent voice before it became a whore for the Oligarchs who rule America. When the NY Times reported that black Americans could have no confidence in the integrity of American elections, the NY Times did not denounce itself for delegitimizing American democracy.
The NY Times forgot all of this when it published Max Fisher’s article yesterday. Fisher fished up “scholars” among the Hillary advocates, and they obligingly told him that Trump’s questioning of the integrity of American elections were the tactics of a would-be dictator who is at work delegitimizing democracy so that he can take over.
What Fisher and his “scholars” overlook is that the US government is already delegitimized in the eyes of the American population, as well as foreign populations. If the US government was not already delegitimized, Donald Trump would not have been successful in what, despite Trump’s damnation by the presstitutes, was an easy sweep-aside of the Establishment’s candidates for the Republican presidential nomination.

The US government is delegitimized, not only in the eyes of Americans, but also in the eyes of most of the world. Millions of Americans have lost their jobs, their careers, their hopes, because corrupt bought-and-paid-for-Washington enabled Globalism to send the futures of the American people to China and India. Millions of Americans lost their homes, because the corrupt Federal Reserve came down on the side of five “banks too big to fail” at the expense of the American people. Millions of Americans along with much of the world know that the US government has been slaughtering millions of peoples in seven countries based on lies, wasting not only countries and the lives of millions of peoples, but trillions of American dollars that Americans needed for their welfare. Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. Assad did not use chemical weapons. Gaddafi was innocent of all the absurd charges that Washington used to destroy Libya, a country that had the most progressive social system on earth. Russia did not invade Ukraine. The Taliban had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. Yet countries are in ruins because of Washington’s war crimes justified by transparent lies.
If the NY Times does not know this, the organization is too stupid to justify its existence. Of course the Times knows it. But the NY Times is no longer a newspaper. It is a cog in the Ministry of Propaganda that works to create a Matrix in which brainwashed Americans accept the dictates of the Oligarchs. 
The purpose of the Times’ article is to discredit in advance criticism of an election that the ruling Oligarchs intend to steal. If the Times believed that Hillary would have a clear election victory, there would be no point to Fisher’s article.
We see voluminous signs of the intended theft of the election. For example, Hillary’s lead in the polls is based on the pollsters skewing the affiliation of those polled to Democrats. The percentage of Democrats in the samples is far higher than their percentage of registered voters.  

In the past it was difficult to steal elections unless they were very close. Exit polls were a check on vote count, and the disenfranchisement of blacks could be risky if it attracted the attention of the US Department of Justice. The new method, which is unfolding before our eyes, steals the election in advance with the Oligarchs’ candidate far ahead in the polls (now by 12 points according to the latest fiction) and by making anyone who questions the faked results into a fascist dictator.
Obviously, if Hillary was really ahead by 12 points — a landslide — there would be no need for Fisher’s article or for the constant drumbeat against Trump. Judging from the hysteria, as reflected in Fisher’s NY Times article, for example, the Oligarchs are aware that objections to their rule has elevated Trump. In order to hold on to power, the American Oligarchs must smash Trump and put their bought-and-paid-for-candidate, Hillary — whom the Oligarchs have provided along with Bill a personal fortune of $120 million and endowed the Clinton Foundation with $1,600 million — into the Oval Office.
Pollsters by nature of their business are unreliable. If truthful results offend the establishment political organizations, the pollsters are out of work. Polls have to serve the Oligarchs or the polling firms go down. Trump is an outsider toward whom the ruling Oligarchy is totally opposed, which is why Americans support him. Therefore, polling firms are adverse to betting their future on poll results favorable to Trump, especially when the whores who constitute the American print and TV media, such as the NY Times, are all out to put Hillary in the White House.
As Hillary’s public statements have made clear, Hillary is antagonistic toward Russia and the Russian government, calling the president of Russia “the new Hitler.” She promises conflict with Russia, which would certainly be nuclear and end life on earth.
Trump says in the face of contrary ruling neoconservative opinion that he sees no point in conflict with Russia and no point in NATO’s continued existence a quarter century after the purpose of NATO collapsed with the Soviet Union. Trump might not be successful in appointing a government that serves his instincts, but at least he gives us hope of avoiding military conflict with Russia and China. With Hillary there is no hope whatsoever. My opinion is that the world would not survive Hillary’s first term. I have known the neoconservatives since the 1970s. They are crazed fanatics, and they hate Russia. Hillary is their agent.
It is unclear that the Russian government understands, or takes seriously, the neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony. Putin’s hesitant, indecisive behavior in Syria has done more to set himself and Russia up for demonization than to defeat ISIS. 

The Western world is corrupt and evil. The list of its victims is almost endless. What disconnect makes some Russians desire association with the Western world?

The Orchestrated Trump-Putin Connection

Integrity Of US Elections Among Lowest Of All Countries
According to Shyla Nelson, the co-founder of Election Justice USA, US elections are manipulated in many ways, including «voter suppression, unauthorized registration purges, district gerrymandering, gross exit poll variances, the privatization of voting machinery, and the lack of transparency in ballot processing – our elections will continue to rank among the lowest in the world in integrity.

But we must not tolerate Trump’s lewd comments. 
Bill and Hillary are lawless because they have never been held accountable. As the justice system has given Hillary a pass, will voters hold her accountable in November, or will the American public also give her a pass?
Hillary Has Never Been Held Accountable For Anything
What is worse, Hillary laughing about her success in getting a child rapist off or Trump’s lewd comments about women?

Why is it that the TV women can’t come up with the right answer? How can democracy function when a propaganda ministry takes the place of the media?
A Comparison of Trump’s and Hillary’s Crowds
Trump’s crowds are hundreds of times larger than Hillary’s, so how is it that she is
in the lead? We are being told lies in order to cover up the coming election theft.

Poll of Likely Voters Finds 53% Want Hillary Indicted
If 53% of voters want Hillary indicted, how can she be leading in the presidential race?

Which of the polls is wrong ?


Stephen Lendman pleads: don’t let them steal the election, reject the presstitutes’ propaganda:
November 8 isn’t election day. It’s orchestrated grand theft theater to anoint Hillary Obama’s successor. Americans are deluded to believe their vote matters.
This year’s outcome was decided well in advance, likely last year before aspirants announced their candidacy for the nation’s highest office.
Power brokers running America bear full responsibility for concocting a sham system, fantasy democracy, not the real thing.
Disgracefully one-sided pro-Hillary media scoundrels and corporate pollsters share blame for creating the impression of her unbeatability.
Press agent journalism proliferates. Biased corporate polls are easily manipulated to show what sponsors want. On Sunday, The New York Times virtually declared Hillary November’s winner and next president, saying she “has a 93% chance to win.”
The dirty game aims to discourage Trump supporters, convince them he has no chance to win, hoping many will stay home, while encouraging rank and file for Hillary to show up en masse.
Any number of dirty tricks can be used to assure she’s anointed president-elect. Stolen elections are a longstanding US tradition from the early days of the republic.
Now it’s done by methods explained above, electronic ease, voter roll stripping and other dirty tricks.
Paul Craig Roberts explains turnout for Trump stump speeches overwhelming exceeds what Hillary attracts.
So how come most polls show her leading, he asks? “We are being told lies in order to cover up the coming election theft,” he justifiably explains.
Want more evidence? Here it is. Citing an October 18 – 19, Rasmussen poll, RT International reported 65% of voters surveyed saying Hillary acted extrajudicially by storing classified State Department emails on her private server.
A 53% majority believe she should be indicted. When asked if Hillary’s email scandal was important in influencing their vote, 70% replied affirmatively – 49% calling it very important.
If Hillary wins as expected, around 70% of Republican voters believe it’s by election-rigging, according to a separate Reuters/Ipsos poll RT cited.
If most voters want her indicted, polls showing her leading Trump lack credibility.
She’s the establishment candidate, Wall Street’s choice, Trump an outlier, relentlessly denigrated, things rigged to assure he loses.
Democracy in America serves its privileged few alone — indifferent to the needs, rights and welfare of most others, especially the nation’s poor and vulnerable.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts' latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the WestHow America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.

Monday, October 24, 2016

Believe it or not, Lee Harvey Oswald was shot by an FBI agent impersonating Jack Ruby (Part 2)

by Ralph Cinque with Jim Fetzer

Part 2

In Part 1, we have addressed the reasons why the garage shooter of Lee Oswald cannot have been Jack Ruby: he was too short, had different ears and was razor clean on the back of his neck. Since they would have been one and the same only if they had the same features at the time, the shooter was not Jack Ruby. In Part 2, we provide reasons for concluding the man who shot Lee Oswald was instead an FBI agent by the name of "James Bookhout".

Ralph was initially apprised of the issue from a video sent to him that features James Bookhout. The source shall go unnamed out of concern about his safety. Bear in mind that, at least officially, there are no images of James Bookhout from the time of the assassination or thereafter. Which is strange considering that Bookhout attended more Oswald interrogations than anyone else apart from Captain Will Fritz, who was conducting them. 

The only confirmed images we have of Bookhout, therefore, are school pictures of him from when he was much younger. Since that is all we have, that is what we have to use, where further finds of other photos may provide further proof or disconfirmation. First, let's take a look at the video. It's not very long.

It shows Oswald and his interrogators filing into Fritz' office for the Saturday 6:30 PM interrogation. But in the hallway, you see Oswald go up to Bookhout and say something to him. You hear Oswald remark, "What have you got against (something)?" You can't make out the last word, but it might well be "me". Here is the frame in which Oswald is speaking to him:

So, that's Bookhout on the left. He is a short guy, like the garage shooter, as we explained in Part 1. Note that there are some obfuscations, which appear to be intentional. Were his eyes really closed? Probably not. Did he have hair growing over his ear? Definitely not. He was an FBI agent, not a hippie. And look at the next frame:

We trust that you will accept that he should not have a blank or entirely missing face. That means this is not a normal photograph. They clearly did not want us to see his face to make him difficult to identify as James Bookhout and, indeed, impossible on the basis of this image alone. Then, we see them filing into the office, where you can see how short Bookhout was:

That this has to be Bookhout follows from an argument by elimination. They were going to that Saturday evening interrogation, where we can account for everyone else who attended: Will Fritz; several of his detectives; Secret Service Agent Thomas Kelley; US Marshall Robert Nash; and FBI Agent James Bookhout. We know that, unlike Bookhout, none of those other men were short. Here is an excerpt from James Hosty's book, Assignment Oswald:

That is in reference to the first interrogation on Friday afternoon, but James Bookhout had to find something to stand on (which Hosty called "a pedestal") in order to spot Hosty amid the crowd of reporters in the hall. And that, of course, was because Bookhout was short.  Here's another last look at him from the film. Notice how well he matches the garage shooter from behind:

We mentioned that the only images we have of Bookhout are from his school days. We accept these images, but with reservations that they were altered in certain respects. But here is an image from his ROTC days in high school, which we do not accept at all (because it provides a false identification):

That rather tall fellow on the far right is said to be Bookhout, where his height rules him out. Bookhout is present in the photograph, but that young man was named "Tommy Collins". And we know that because there is another copy of the photo in which Tommy put his signature on it and wrote directly over himself. In other words, he autographed it for somebody:

We have confirmed it independently by finding other images of Tommy Collins:

The left is from the same photo. The middle is an image of him from the Silver Sabre Club, to which he belonged. And on the right is an image of him from a one-act play in which he performed. They are all the same young man, Tommy Collins. So that tall guy was definitely Tommy Collins and not James Bookhout. By going back to the ROTC photo, we have correctly identified James Bookhout:

That is him, James Bookhout at the age of 17, as a student at Woodrow Wilson High School in Dallas. And that image compares very well with other images of Bookhout that would follow:

So, there it goes from 1931 to 1937, and you see the progression. On the left, we believe that an attempt was made to broaden his narrow nose with flim-flam. Look how much wider his nose is on the right than the left. That's our right and left, viewing the photo, which of course were his left and right side. 

So, that's artificial. Nobody's nose would be that unbalanced absent plastic surgery. The fact is that James Bookhout had a narrow nose and pinched nostrils. But otherwise, the match is very good; and note that there is no one else in the ROTC photo that even comes close. Once Tommy Collins has been ruled out, as we have, all you are left with is candidate to be James Bookhout. 

OK, now we need to look at another film. It's called The Killing of Lee Harvey Oswald. It was a retrospective made 30 years later, in 1993, and it was made by the same man who produced the NBC "live" footage of the Lee Oswald shooting, Fred Rheinstein. Here is the video:

That film contains this image, which appears to have been taken inadvertently:

Officials claim the man in the white shirt is Jack Ruby shortly after his arrest, but it is clearly not Jack. It appears to be Bookhout. Compare him with Ruby:

Ruby had a longer face; Bookhout had a rounder. Ruby had a long forehead; Bookhout had a short forehead. Ruby had a pyramidal-shaped nose with wide visible nostrils; Bookhout a narrow nose with hardly visible nostrils. These are two different men. And the image on the right compares well with Bookhout's known images:

We believe they gave young Bookhout on the left those "drag queen" eyebrows to undermine identifications. And it looks as though they gave him an "elf ear", too. And on the right, they blackened his eyes. But nonetheless, those images compare very favorably. Here is another comparison from a few years earlier:

And here is one more that is even earlier yet:

We suspect they build his hair up on top. It probably didn't stick up that much. But otherwise, that is a very good comparison of their similarities. And it is a very plausible biological progression: the manifestation of aging in one person. 

Now let's look at it circumstantially. Bookhout claimed to have attended the final interrogation of Oswald shortly before the shooting. However, he said he arrived late and watched it through the glass partition in Fritz' office. Is that true? Should we believe it? 

Doesn't it seem more likely that he would have entered regardless? How many people have arrived at meetings late? They still go in. Fritz listed the people who attended, and it doesn't include Bookhout. He added "et al." It's the only time that he did. Was Bookhout the "et al."?

Bookhout also claimed that he didn't go down to watch the jail transfer. He said he hung around Fritz' office instead. But why? It wasn't his office. It was Fritz' office. Bookhout didn't have an office there. And why wasn't he interested in watching the jail transfer? He was interested in everything else that Oswald did. 

Bookhout said when word arrived that Oswald had been shot, he went down there, and he got to see Oswald being loaded into the ambulance. But then, without explaining why, he said that he did not go to Parkland Hospital. Why not? Again, he had been sticking to Oswald like glue for two days. And now he wasn't interested in learning Oswald's fate? 

It isn't credible. On the other hand, if he was the garage shooter and he lied about being up in Fritz' office at the time, then we can understand why he would want to deny having been present. And note that there is ample footage of Oswald being loaded into the ambulance where you don't see Bookhout in the vicinity. So he appears to have lied about that, too.

Immediately following the assassination, James Bookhout took off work from the FBI for a full year. He was granted an extended leave of absence, which you might describe as a very long, paid vacation. There are no images of him from the assassination, nor after the assassination or for the rest of his life. And when he died in 2009, no images of him were published. Here is his obituary:

He seems to have had a photograph-avoidance complex. We doubt anybody else was as "camera sky" as James Bookhout--other than the assassins in Dealey Plaza, of course.

And remember that we have established independently that Jack Ruby was not the shooter. But we have evidence that Oswald knew the shooter, which is an inference from his having glanced at the shooter as though he knew him:

It's unlikely that Oswald would have looked at a stranger that way. He knew the man who would shoot him. And James Bookhout was the one he had spent the most time with the preceding two days--even more than Fritz because, between interviews, Fritz turned Oswald over to his detectives to take him wherever. He didn't follow him around, but Bookhout did. Recall the image in the hallway:

There you have Oswald talking--in a very friendly manner--to James Bookhout.

Once you rule Ruby out, and you can, there is no one else the shooter could have been but James Bookhout. And think about the implications. If a U.S. government agent shot Lee Harvey Oswald, how could it not be the case that the assassination of President John F. Kennedy was under government control?

Could there be a more important development in JFK assassination research than this? It has the potential to refashion the JFK landscape and decimate "the official account" of the assassination. The 53rd observance of his death is only weeks away. What better way to affirm the conspiracy and the cover up than to acknowledge that the man who shot Lee Oswald was in fact not Jack Ruby but an FBI Agent named "James Bookhout"? 


Ralph Cinque, a chiropractor by profession, has been instrumental in securing the identification of Lee Oswald as "the man in the doorway" by emphasizing that his height, weight, build and clothing were the key rather than his facial features. He is also the founder of the Oswald Innocence Campaign.

Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer and McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth, has published extensively on the death of JFK and has chaired or co-chaired five national conferences on the conspiracy and cover up in the assassination of our 35th president.

Believe it or not, Lee Harvey Oswald was shot by an FBI agent impersonating Jack Ruby (Part 1)

by Ralph Cinque with Jim Fetzer

Part 1:

The very idea that someone other than Jack Ruby shot Lee Harvey Oswald, unsurprisingly, is rather difficult for many people to accept, where their initial response, mentally, tends to be to recoil. "Oh, that's nonsense. We all saw Ruby do it!  He admitted doing it. He never denied it. There are so many images of him." But the fact of the matter has never been properly established.

Is seeing really believing? Was Lee Oswald shot by Jack Ruby?
Bear in mind: the man who shot Lee was the man known as "Jack Ruby" only if they have all of the same features at all of the same times in their lives. That is a principle of the logic of identity: if they differ in any traits in which they cannot have differed and still been the same person, then the conclusion follows that they were not the same person, after all, no matter how many of us may believe that they were.

We are familiar with a lot of images of Jack Ruby being led around the police station after the shooting, but the only thing that matters are the images of the shooter in the garage. He's the one who has to be "Jack Ruby", that is, the real Jack Ruby.  And the fact is that there are no revealing images of the shooter. There are no images of the shooter that provide sufficient visual information to confirm that he is the real Jack Ruby. 

Of course, there is a general resemblance, especially in relation to the hat he is wearing. But all the images of the shooter are from the side or from the back, and with the low-riding fedora he was wearing, you never get a good look at his face. What little visual information they provide, however, conflicts with this man being the real Jack Ruby. Here's a simple example. In this image of the shooter, he is wearing sunglasses, but Jack Ruby did not wear sunglasses: 

There is a famous photo of the Oswald shooting, the Jackson photo, in which you can see that the Shooter had a pair of glasses in his suit coat pocket, but they aren't sunglasses. They are regular, clear-lensed glasses.

Also, the picture with the sunglasses was taken so soon before the Shooter acted, which would have made it impossible for him to whip them off in the brief interval of time between the photo and the shot. Notice, too, that the shooter is not wearing sunglasses. So what happened to those sunglasses? 

If that were the only issue, by itself, that would be substantial. But there are others of even greater importance. Look above at the Jackson photo again. The shooter had a straight horizontal hairline and a clean, razored back of his neck. But Jack Ruby had a scruffy neck--"scruffy" as in having hair growth below his hair line. And he still had that scruffy neck after the shooting!

Do you see all that hair on the back of his neck? It goes all the way down to his collar. But the shooter was razor-clean. If the shooter had a razor-clean back of his neck during the shooting, then he should have had a razor-clean back of the neck after. But he didn't. And there was obviously not enough time for his neck to have grown hair in the meanwhile. That means they cannot be one and the same person. Here are both of them. While you're at it, compare their ears. 

Doesn't Ruby's ear look clearly larger? Unfortunately, we don't have a better view of the shooter's ear, but that appears to be deliberate. Those who did this made sure that we never got a good look at the shooter, especially of his face. Yes, they paraded Ruby around the police station afterwards, but during the act itself, we do not get a good look at the shooter. 

That image on the right is the best view of him that we have. That's the largest area of his face that we see. And, after the shooting, he disappears completely. All we have is chaos, commotion and "noise". We do not actually him again as he is being dragged into the police station. And we never see Oswald as he is being carried away either. None of that is accidental. 

Let's consider one more discrepancy between the shooter and Jack Ruby: their height. The shooter was short--very short. We know Jack Ruby's was 5'8". That was at least one inch shorter than Oswald. But, the shooter has to have been even shorter than that. Here's another very famous photo, the Beers photo: 

Here is a frame from the video footage of Lee being shot in television footage:

Oswald on the right. The shooter appears to have been shorter than Oswald, but since he also seems to be leaning forward, this comparison is not decisive. And, remember, that the fedora hat is adding to the shooter's height artificially. Look how short the shooter looks here:

The shooter's stature will arise again when we discuss James Bookhout, who, we believe, is the man who actually shot Lee Oswald. Bookhout was very short, like the shooter, which is a point that appears to have been covered up. But if you were not considering that he might have played such a role, you would not have noticed, which partially accounts for why it hasn't mattered in the past. We all have taken for granted that Jack Ruby shot Lee Oswald!

And Jack Ruby never explicitly claimed to have shot Lee, which in and of itself does not settle the matter. During his testimony to the Warren Commission, he was virtually incoherent. That should have been apparent even to non-experts in psychiatry. The Warren Commissioners cannot have missed it. And he said he had no memory of shooting Oswald. He explained that he remembered going there and that he remembered being swarmed by the police. But he could recall nothing in-between. 

The rest was "all a blur." A blur, a blur, a blur! That's what he said, over and over. And, he said that when the police swarmed him, his reaction was to ask, "What are you doing? This is me, Jack Ruby. You know me." Now, if he had just shot someone, would he not have known why they were pouncing on him?  And where and when he got pounced upon? But we don't really know, because it doesn't appear to have happen in that garage at that time.

There are striking parallels between the case of Jack Ruby and the case of Sirhan Sirhan, who likewise does not remember having shot Robert Kennedy. Many have suggested that Sirhan was a CIA MK-ULTRA subject. Could that have also been true of Jack Ruby? Are you aware that the government flew the leading CIA mind-control doctor in the world at the time, Dr. Louis Joylan West, from UCLA, out to Dallas to treat Jack Ruby? 

Now, look at the big picture. The space in which the Oswald shooting happened was really no more than a cubby-hole between the building and the ramp to the ramp. The description of it as "a cubby hole" fits because it was closed on three sides and open on just one, the side facing the ramp.

So, the ramp refers to the access-way between Commerce Street on the left and Main Street on the right. And the "cubby-hole" is the indentation there in the center. We don't know exactly how deep it was, but it wasn't very deep. 

On this occasion, it was swarming with cameramen. They were on both sides and in the center. And there was at least one cameraman in back, that is, behind the trio of Oswald and his two police escorts, Detectives Leavelle and Graves. That would be the WFAA cameraman, Bill Lords. 

But, despite all these cameramen, not a one of them was able to capture an image of the shooter's face where we can distinctly see him. And we don't see anything of the shooter or of Oswald once the melee begins. Before you blame this on the commotion, the chaos, etc., these were professional cameramen. 

Think of them like paparazzi. They were trained to capture images--to get the scoop. Their failure to capture a single conspicuous image of the shooter has to have been intended. Such an image would have disclosed the impersonation, because the shooter wasn't Jack Ruby. 

And what about the police? As they sought to subdue the shooter, they did not do the one thing that police invariably and indubitably do in subduing a hostile subject: cuff him. 

A group of police instead drag the shooter from the cubby-hole area into the building without cuffing him first, which hasn't been done in any other case of which we are aware before or since. Their purpose does not appear to have been to subdue the shooter but to cover him up to conceal his identity and get him out of there as quickly as possible. And that's because he wasn't the man who would be fingered for the crime, Jack Ruby. 

All the footage and photographs show are chaos, commotion, and pandemonium with plenty of curtain shots (of some guy's back sprawled across the screen, for example) until finally, it's over, and Oswald and "Ruby" are gone: disappeared. You shouldn't buy it. You shouldn't accept it. It was all designed to keep us from seeing them. How could so many trained cameramen fail to get a photographic glimpse of either one? It's so unprofessional as to be beyond belief. 

If the shooter had a different back of his neck, different ears and different height than Jack Ruby, then the shooter cannot have been Jack Ruby. The first person to have realized they were not the same appears to have been a Russian researcher named Maxsim Irkutz. You can watch his video about it on Youtube:

What we have presented here is a prima facie case that the man who shot Lee Oswald was not Jack Ruby, in spite of the widespread belief that it was. From a logical point of view, what we have laid out would require a convincing rebuttal to be overcome. that most or all of you can accept now that the Garage Shooter was not Jack Ruby. And now we turn to the evidence that identifies that man.


Ralph Cinque, a chiropractor by profession, has been instrumental in securing the identification of Lee Oswald as "the man in the doorway" by emphasizing that his height, weight, build and clothing were the key rather than his facial features. He is also the founder of the Oswald Innocence Campaign.

Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer and McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth, has published extensively on the death of JFK and has chaired or co-chaired five national conferences on the conspiracy and cover up in the assassination of our 35th president.