JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Rob Conti on December 26, 2020, 10:08:06 PM
-
Hello, I am new here. After researching the video footage of Oswald getting shot, as well as photos of Jack Ruby, his own words, etc... as well as the work of other independent researchers on this topic, I am convinced there is more to Oswald's killing than meets the eye. The short man in the fedora who killed Oswald, how can we be sure it was really Jack Ruby? We never see his face. The Oswald shooter is shorter, has stocky legs wider and has a wider face than Ruby did. He was also wearing a different colored suit jacket than Ruby was in the Dallas County jail corridor, minutes before, and he had no fedora on and an entirely different build, hairline, messy hair cut, and ear shape. Plus no one ever photographs or films the Oswald shooters face EVER. When he is wrestled to the ground after he shoots Oswald, everyone seems to carefully cover him so NO ONE sees him. There is zero photographic or film evidence of this man's face. Then only afterwards do you see Ruby walking without his suit jacket on, supposedly right after he was arrested and apprehended. It just doesnt match up. Why doesn't he still have his suit jacket ojn? Maybe because they knew it is much lighter than the Oswald shooter's jacket? That is just one inconsistency in all this. Plus, listening to Ruby interviewed convinces me he was set up as a patsy, just like Oswald was. RAlph Stinky did some interesting work on this subject: I agree with a lot of his thesis. What do you guys think? Isn't it strange we NEVER see the Oswald's shooter's face from the time he appears to the time he is wrestled to the ground and apprehended?
-
You lost me at “Ralph Cinque”.
-
Yes. He did so on national TV and was taken into custody at the scene.
-
Yes Ruby was taken into custody and prosecuted. But that does not automatically prove Jack Ruby shot Oswald. Look at the footage. We never see the shooters face, ever. There is no way Ruby can be identified positively from the back view of a stalky man's head, and even that is half covered, wearing a fedora.
-
Yes Ruby was taken into custody and prosecuted. But that does not automatically prove Jack Ruby shot Oswald. Look at the footage. We never see the shooters face, ever. There is no way Ruby can be identified positively from the back view of a stalky man's head, and even that is half covered, wearing a fedora.
Does every murderer have to be seen on national TV? The DPD arrested him at the scene. Are they all lying? You can see Ruby in later footage in the elevator. Ruby never denies shooting Oswald.
-
- "The DPD arrested him at the scene."
In the video footage no arrest is made. The Oswald shooter is wrestled to the ground. Why was he not handcuffed moments after? All we can hear on film are the words, " Get him out of here!!". Then a bunch of officers, who seem to be working together in meticulously covering every square inch of the shooter's body, seem to be pushing and dragging the shooter into the other room and we can clearly see the door being closed by an officer, and that is that. Those are the facts. Everything else is what we are told happened officially, and we just must believe it.
-"You can see Ruby in later footage in the elevator. "
Maybe the real Ruby was in the same Dallas County jail building (perhaps on the 5th floor in another holding room being questioned) prior to Oswald being shot, was arrested, then moved by elevator from the fifth floor to the first floor. And it could have all happened right after Oswald got shot by another shooter. The footage we see could hsave been conveniently spliced in order to make the arrested Ruby taken to the elevator look like the Oswald basement shooter. Plus the arrested Ruby footage shows Ruby with no jacket. The shooter was wearing a jacket while he shot Oswald. Wasn't he arrested right after, while his jacket was on? How could he have taken the handcuffs off to take his jacket off? There is no definitive photographic proof Ruby was even in the hallway, moments before the shooting. Only FBI, police and a few hand picked reporters who were screened in advance were allowed to be in that hallway. Ruby could not have just went unnoticed. The idea that Ruby was just casually let in through the back door of the Dallas County Jail, undetected by anyone and everyone around him, let in by a 'buddy' police officer (with so many police officers and FBI present??)and know one sees him? - is just too hard to buy.
-" Ruby never denies shooting Oswald."
Would you also not deny it if your life was threatened and were told, "if you talk, we kill you, you die? In fact, Ruby does happen to die mysteriously not long after, and just before he was able to, in his own words in 1964: " Let the true facts be known to the world..." Just before his second trial. Ruby said he didn't remember what happened. It's an established fact that Ruby's assigned psychologist, after Ruby was taken into custody, also worked on MK Ultra (mind control) projects. Ruby was obviously brainwashed and became an incoherent emotional wreck.
-
Keep in mind, Rob, that as far as “Richard Smith” is concerned, it’s always a matter of cop said it, he believes it, and that settles it.
-
Keep in mind, Rob, that as far as “Richard Smith” is concerned, it’s always a matter of cop said it, he believes it, and that settles it.
That is a problem if we simply accept by blind faith what is told to us by our government, police officials, etc. Have they ever lied to us before? Yes! Gulf of Tonkin incident, no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and MANY other times. We should believe the facts. If government and high officials have lied to us in the past, they CAN still lie to the people. It is our job to question what we are told and allow the Truth to prevail. Or else we are all sheeple and we deserve a Communist takeover.
-
Hello, I am new here. After researching the video footage of Oswald getting shot, as well as photos of Jack Ruby, his own words, etc... as well as the work of other independent researchers on this topic, I am convinced there is more to Oswald's killing than meets the eye. The short man in the fedora who killed Oswald, how can we be sure it was really Jack Ruby? We never see his face. The Oswald shooter is shorter, has stocky legs wider and has a wider face than Ruby did. He was also wearing a different colored suit jacket than Ruby was in the Dallas County jail corridor, minutes before, and he had no fedora on and an entirely different build, hairline, messy hair cut, and ear shape. Plus no one ever photographs or films the Oswald shooters face EVER. When he is wrestled to the ground after he shoots Oswald, everyone seems to carefully cover him so NO ONE sees him. There is zero photographic or film evidence of this man's face. Then only afterwards do you see Ruby walking without his suit jacket on, supposedly right after he was arrested and apprehended. It just doesnt match up. Why doesn't he still have his suit jacket ojn? Maybe because they knew it is much lighter than the Oswald shooter's jacket? That is just one inconsistency in all this. Plus, listening to Ruby interviewed convinces me he was set up as a patsy, just like Oswald was. RAlph Cinque did some interesting work on this subject: I agree with a lot of his thesis. What do you guys think? Isn't it strange we NEVER see the Oswald's shooter's face from the time he appears to the time he is wrestled to the ground and apprehended? http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2016/10/oh-my-god-its-him-its-bookhout-impostor.html
Ruby had Melvin Belli and William Kuntsler as his defense attorneys. Neither would have failed to raise as a defence that he did not shoot Oswald if that defence had any merit. Robert Jackson's photo of Ruby shooting Oswald speaks for itself. It is not as if Ruby (the guy with the gun) was hiding his face.
-
Ruby had Melvin Belli and William Kinsler as his defense attorneys. Neither would have failed to raise as a defense that he did not shoot Oswald if that defense had any merit. Robert Jackson's photo of Ruby shooting Oswald speaks for itself. It is not as if Ruby (the guy with the gun) was hiding his face.
J. Tonahill and Melvin Belli were Ruby's defense attorneys. After researching both of them I see no reason why they would have had any reason to go against the official narrative put forward by the media, the Dallas Police and FBI that their client did the actual shooting. These defense attorneys were not on the scene. There was absolutely no proof for them to go by to the contrary. Outside of the testimony of the 'higher ups', there was nothing. And if they were all in on a cover-up (or die), Ruby had not a chance. He wanted to talk in Washington. He was itching to get a different version out to the public. He said so in an interview, just before he died. He wanted to "Let the true facts come above board to the world. " and "The world will never know the true facts, his motives, etc unless he was taken to Washington." It never happened. He dies mysteriously before he was able to have a second trial. Ruby's lawyers did plead for Ruby as not guilty by reason of temporary insanity. So they also defended his innocence. The guy with the gun was hiding his hair, face, and everyone around him was hiding him! We never see his face, whether he didn't want to hide it or not and what we see is not enough for a positive identification that it is Ruby. Indeed, when you put a photo of Ruby in the same angle with the basement hallway Oswald shooter in same angle, you can see it is NOT the same person's head. Hairline is different, sideburn and ears are different, shape of head is different, shape of body is different. Age and height are different.
-
J. Tonahill and Melvin Belli were Ruby's defense attorneys. After researching both of them I see no reason why they would have had any reason to go against the official narrative put forward by the media, the Dallas Police and FBI that their client did the actual shooting. These defense attorneys were not on the scene. There was absolutely no proof for them to go by to the contrary. Outside of the testimony of the 'higher ups', there was nothing. And if they were all in on a cover-up (or die), Ruby had not a chance. He wanted to talk in Washington. He was itching to get a different version out to the public. He said so in an interview, just before he died. He wanted to "Let the true facts come above board to the world. " and "The world will never know the true facts, his motives, etc unless he was taken to Washington." It never happened. He dies mysteriously before he was able to have a second trial. Ruby's lawyers did plead for Ruby as not guilty by reason of temporary insanity. So they also defended his innocence. The guy with the gun was hiding his hair, face, and everyone around him was hiding him! We never see his face, whether he didn't want to hide it or not and what we see is not enough for a positive identification that it is Ruby. Indeed, when you put a photo of Ruby in the same angle with the basement hallway Oswald shooter in same angle, you can see it is NOT the same person's head. Hairline is different, sideburn and ears are different, shape of head is different, shape of body is different. Age and height are different.
So who was the shooter? Why did he look a lot like Ruby? Why was Ruby identified as the killer? Why did Ruby say he killed Oswald? Why did he use Ruby's gun? How did the killer know not only that Oswald would be there, two hours after Oswald was supposed to be transferred but that Ruby would also be there to take the fall? Why did Ruby not mention this to his defence counsel?
-
That is a problem if we simply accept by blind faith what is told to us by our government, police officials, etc. Have they ever lied to us before? Yes! Gulf of Tonkin incident, no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and MANY other times. We should believe the facts. If government and high officials have lied to us in the past, they CAN still lie to the people. It is our job to question what we are told and allow the Truth to prevail. Or else we are all sheeple and we deserve a Communist takeover.
Ruby committed the crime on TV. He was immediately arrested. He admitted the crime and never denied it even at his trial. To compare that situation to those noted in your post is silly. A healthy skepticism can be a good thing when there are legitimate grounds for skepticism, but it can also be the paranoid ravings of a lunatic when there are no grounds whatsoever to doubt a conclusion. There is zero doubt that Ruby shot and killed Oswald.
-
So who was the shooter? Why did he look a lot like Ruby? Why was Ruby identified as the killer? Why did Ruby say he killed Oswald? Why did he use Ruby's gun? How did the killer know not only that Oswald would be there, two hours after Oswald was supposed to be transferred but that Ruby would also be there to take the fall? Why did Ruby not mention this to his defence counsel?
The shooter was FBI agent James Bookhout. He had interrogated Oswald that day with Hosty, another FBI agent, and no one but Captain Fritz had greater access to Oswald that day than Bookhout. He looked a lot like Ruby? Or maybe Ruby was chosen bec, among many other reasons (besides being a CIA informant, having a criminal record, the Dallas police knew him very well, etc), he also looked quite like agent Bookhout. Ruby was identified as the killer bec they needed SOMEONE to take the blame that day, and Ruby was the perfect patsy to do so, being there at the right time, the right place, with the right criminal record, having the right ties with law enforcement, being the right build. How did he know Oswald would be there, you ask? What if the Police lured Ruby to the Western Union building, which was less than 200 steps away from the police station, via the stripper employee named Karen Carlin and her plea to Ruby for money? The police could have easily jumped Ruby (an hour before Oswald gets shot) and have taken him into the police station next store on some pretext or another. This would put Ruby exactly in the same building and at the same time where Oswald was and where Oswald was about to be moved from the police station to the County Jail. Ruby used the gun of the shooter? What if it was the other way around? What if the shooter's gun was planted on Ruby, after the shooting? How can this not be plausible if Ruby was now in police custody and being held on the 5th floor, and they had fingerprinted him? How do we know the gun was truly Ruby's? I have seen no independent ballistics test results done to prove Ruby's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon moments after. And even if they were, they could have been planted on the murder weapon by the police, who were in on it too - along with the higher ups, all the way up to LBJ. YES, these are bold claims. And if what I say is even remotely true it is the greatest cover-up and best kept secret in history. And I believe it truly is. Why did Ruby not mention this to his defense council, you ask? Ruby told his defense council that he didn't remember anything. That he didn't remember shooting Oswald. "I just remember going down there, then suddenly, the police pounced on me, pushing me down to the ground". " Then, they dragged me upstairs. And that's when they told me that I shot Oswald.", Ruby said.
-
Ruby committed the crime on TV. He was immediately arrested. He admitted the crime and never denied it even at his trial. To compare that situation to those noted in your post is silly. A healthy skepticism can be a good thing when there are legitimate grounds for skepticism, but it can also be the paranoid ravings of a lunatic when there are no grounds whatsoever to doubt a conclusion. There is zero doubt that Ruby shot and killed Oswald.
Yes, the crime was televised but no one EVER actually clearly sees the shooter's face, only a backview. You can't positively identify someone without a shadow of a doubt from a second back view where half the shooter's head is covered up. It isn't silly if the premise is that government and police officials can lie to the public and have lied to us in the past. Why couldn't they have done it in this case? The grounds for skepticism are that there is so much mystery surrounding this incident. So much we don't know and we can't verify or even see or question. You claim there is zero doubt, but you say that on the basis of what you were told by the police agents who were present. I'm saying they were all told to lie by pointing out that Ruby was the shooter, not an FBI agent. Yes, it was a higher up who really did the shooting. It had to be. No way Ruby could have been that close to Oswald without being left alone or go undetected. An FBI agent with more access to Oswald than almost anyone - other than the chief of police Fritz - and with supreme clearance and authority to be there? Yes, THAT is plausible! Not a nite club owner helping out a stripper when he happens to cross the street and waltz into the police station undetected at the last minute - out of rage for Jackie and pity for his country.?? It's a fake story and the public just believed it as fact without any questioning. Look again at known photos of Ruby and the shooter's back view. It is NOT the same person. I am a specialist in portrait photos and can tell you with 100% certainty that is not the same person, in the famous photo taken the moment Oswald gets shot.
-
It's also interesting to note that that morning Ruby went to Western Union to send the money to his stripper employee Karen Carlin, his beloved little dog was left waiting in the car. This showed that Ruby intended to go to Western Union, get back into his car and then leave. I believe he had no intention to ever walk over to the police station, get in via the back door entrance, and shoot Oswald to defend Jackie's honor and his country (ha). Ruby would have been seen and would never have been allowed into the police station at that crucial moment in history. No, instead he was seized upon by police and brought into the station and held against his will. It is telling that he never had a chance to go back into his car to drive away with his dog.
-
DICK SMITH SAYS:
Ruby committed the crime on TV. He was immediately arrested. He admitted the crime and never denied it even at his trial. To compare that situation to those noted in your post is silly. A healthy skepticism can be a good thing when there are legitimate grounds for skepticism, but it can also be the paranoid ravings of a lunatic when there are no grounds whatsoever to doubt a conclusion. There is zero doubt that Ruby shot and killed Oswald.
This reply by Dick is so, so funny. So here we have him talking about a "legitimate grounds for skepticism." But when you mix in something like skepticism for could it just possibly be that Oswald didn't kill Kennedy, then all of *those" folks are "paranoid ravings."
Hahahaha. So, so funny, Dick. Thanks for the Monday humor of the day.
-
DICK SMITH SAYS:
Ruby committed the crime on TV. He was immediately arrested. He admitted the crime and never denied it even at his trial. To compare that situation to those noted in your post is silly. A healthy skepticism can be a good thing when there are legitimate grounds for skepticism, but it can also be the paranoid ravings of a lunatic when there are no grounds whatsoever to doubt a conclusion. There is zero doubt that Ruby shot and killed Oswald.
This reply by Dick is so, so funny. So here we have him talking about a "legitimate grounds for skepticism." But when you mix in something like skepticism for could it just possibly be that Oswald didn't kill Kennedy, then all of *those" folks are "paranoid ravings."
Hahahaha. So, so funny, Dick. Thanks for the Monday humor of the day.
I'm not sure I follow. We are discussing Ruby here instead of whatever rabbit hole you want to go down on another topic. I don't believe that I have ever heard even the most outlandish JFK assassination CTer suggest that there was doubt as to Ruby's guilt in the death of Oswald. And those folks have proffered some amazing fantasies. In fact, most argue Ruby was assigned the task as part of the conspiracy. Are you suggesting that there is doubt that Ruby killed Oswald?
-
The shooter was FBI agent James Bookhout. He had interrogated Oswald that day with Hosty, another FBI agent, and no one but Captain Fritz had greater access to Oswald that day than Bookhout. He looked a lot like Ruby? Or maybe Ruby was chosen bec, among many other reasons (besides being a CIA informant, having a criminal record, the Dallas police knew him very well, etc), he also looked quite like agent Bookhout. Ruby was identified as the killer bec they needed SOMEONE to take the blame that day, and Ruby was the perfect patsy to do so, being there at the right time, the right place, with the right criminal record, having the right ties with law enforcement, being the right build. How did he know Oswald would be there, you ask? What if the Police lured Ruby to the Western Union building, which was less than 200 steps away from the police station, via the stripper employee named Karen Carlin and her plea to Ruby for money? The police could have easily jumped Ruby (an hour before Oswald gets shot) and have taken him into the police station next store on some pretext or another. This would put Ruby exactly in the same building and at the same time where Oswald was and where Oswald was about to be moved from the police station to the County Jail. Ruby used the gun of the shooter? What if it was the other way around? What if the shooter's gun was planted on Ruby, after the shooting? How can this not be plausible if Ruby was now in police custody and being held on the 5th floor, and they had fingerprinted him? How do we know the gun was truly Ruby's? I have seen no independent ballistics test results done to prove Ruby's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon moments after. And even if they were, they could have been planted on the murder weapon by the police, who were in on it too - along with the higher ups, all the way up to LBJ. YES, these are bold claims. And if what I say is even remotely true it is the greatest cover-up and best kept secret in history. And I believe it truly is. Why did Ruby not mention this to his defense council, you ask? Ruby told his defense council that he didn't remember anything. That he didn't remember shooting Oswald. "I just remember going down there, then suddenly, the police pounced on me, pushing me down to the ground". " Then, they dragged me upstairs. And that's when they told me that I shot Oswald.", Ruby said.
That might make an interesting novel. But as far as fitting reality, it requires an enormous conspiracy that involves the press, including Detective Jim Leavelle. Leavelle was looking right at Ruby as he fired his pistol. Leavelle knew Ruby and recognized him. You are not going to go anywhere with suggesting that Jim Leavelle was lying.
-
RAlph Cinque did some interesting work on this subject: I agree with a lot of his thesis. What do you guys think?
"Interesting" work does not mean factual.
-
From Ruby's WC testimony:
Mr. RUBY. I had the gun in my right hip pocket, and impulsively, if that is the correct word here, I saw him [i.e., Oswald], 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 only words, and I was highly emotional; to Ray Hall--he interrogated more than any other person down there--all I believe I said to him was, "I didn't want Mrs. Kennedy to come back to trial."
Ruby admitted he was there, he admitted to firing his revolver - he didn't want to "get three more off". If Ruby didn't shoot Oswald then why is he admitting to all of this?
-
From Ruby's WC testimony:
Mr. RUBY. I had the gun in my right hip pocket, and impulsively, if that is the correct word here, I saw him [i.e., Oswald], 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 only words, and I was highly emotional; to Ray Hall--he interrogated more than any other person down there--all I believe I said to him was, "I didn't want Mrs. Kennedy to come back to trial."
Ruby admitted he was there, he admitted to firing his revolver - he didn't want to "get three more off". If Ruby didn't shoot Oswald then why is he admitting to all of this?
Ex-Stripper and former girlfriend of Jack Ruby Gail Raven was asked: "Did Ruby kill Oswald to spare First Lady Jackie Kennedy the ordeal of a criminal trial?" Gail Raven's response: “That was absolutely made up.”
I'm not the only one who thinks Ruby's WC testimony was made up, and even ridiculous... Yes, he admitted it but people will admit a lot of things under extreme duress - or when brainwashed by his MK Ultra psychologist, Jolyon West. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Jolyon_West
Interviewer also asked Gail Raven: "Did you think that killing Oswald was Ruby’s original plan on November 24, 1963?"
Gail Raven responds: “He would have never done it with Sheba (his weenie dog) left in his car, knowing they would arrest him and Sheba would be alone,” she said. “Sheba was a child to Jack.”
-
That might make an interesting novel. But as far as fitting reality, it requires an enormous conspiracy that involves the press, including Detective Jim Leavelle. Leavelle was looking right at Ruby as he fired his pistol. Leavelle knew Ruby and recognized him. You are not going to go anywhere with suggesting that Jim Leavelle was lying.
Yes, it does require a conspiracy between the Dallas police, the FBI all the way up to LBJ. That's exactly what I'm saying! But people cannot fathom something like that could actually occur. Oh nooo, the gov't wouldn't do that. The police could never lie to us. They could not have faked the whole thing. Ha. Why not? Yes, they could have, and did. Another point: Why did LBJ order the washing and fixing of the JFK crime scene ? I'm talking about the Motorcade. This is crazy to me. It's sent immediately to Michigan to be washed and repaired, and front windshield replaced.
-
"--But as far as fitting reality, it requires an enormous conspiracy that involves the press, including Detective Jim Leavelle."
Yes, of course Jim Leavelle was part of the conspiracy to LIE and say nothing about the identity of the true shooter, FBI agent James Bookhout. It was probably sold as a matter of "national security" for the police officers at the scene to say absolutely nothing regarding what had just transpired. All were instructed by higher ups like LBJ and Hoover to say Ruby killed Oswald. I just rewatched Leavelle's original 1963 testimony. To me he is unconvincing. It looks, feels and sounds like he is just rehashing something he was told to say that day.
-
The shooter was FBI agent James Bookhout. He had interrogated Oswald that day with Hosty, another FBI agent, and no one but Captain Fritz had greater access to Oswald that day than Bookhout. He looked a lot like Ruby? Or maybe Ruby was chosen bec, among many other reasons (besides being a CIA informant, having a criminal record, the Dallas police knew him very well, etc), he also looked quite like agent Bookhout. Ruby was identified as the killer bec they needed SOMEONE to take the blame that day, and Ruby was the perfect patsy to do so, being there at the right time, the right place, with the right criminal record, having the right ties with law enforcement, being the right build. How did he know Oswald would be there, you ask? What if the Police lured Ruby to the Western Union building, which was less than 200 steps away from the police station, via the stripper employee named Karen Carlin and her plea to Ruby for money? The police could have easily jumped Ruby (an hour before Oswald gets shot) and have taken him into the police station next store on some pretext or another. This would put Ruby exactly in the same building and at the same time where Oswald was and where Oswald was about to be moved from the police station to the County Jail. Ruby used the gun of the shooter? What if it was the other way around? What if the shooter's gun was planted on Ruby, after the shooting? How can this not be plausible if Ruby was now in police custody and being held on the 5th floor, and they had fingerprinted him? How do we know the gun was truly Ruby's? I have seen no independent ballistics test results done to prove Ruby's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon moments after. And even if they were, they could have been planted on the murder weapon by the police, who were in on it too - along with the higher ups, all the way up to LBJ. YES, these are bold claims. And if what I say is even remotely true it is the greatest cover-up and best kept secret in history. And I believe it truly is. Why did Ruby not mention this to his defense council, you ask? Ruby told his defense council that he didn't remember anything. That he didn't remember shooting Oswald. "I just remember going down there, then suddenly, the police pounced on me, pushing me down to the ground". " Then, they dragged me upstairs. And that's when they told me that I shot Oswald.", Ruby said.
YES, these are bold claims
>>> NO, they are crackpot claims
-
Ex-Stripper and former girlfriend of Jack Ruby Gail Raven was asked: "Did Ruby kill Oswald to spare First Lady Jackie Kennedy the ordeal of a criminal trial?" Gail Raven's response: “That was absolutely made up.”
I'm not the only one who thinks Ruby's WC testimony was made up, and even ridiculous... Yes, he admitted it but people will admit a lot of things under extreme duress - or when brainwashed by his MK Ultra psychologist, Jolyon West. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Jolyon_West
Interviewer also asked Gail Raven: "Did you think that killing Oswald was Ruby’s original plan on November 24, 1963?"
Gail Raven responds: “He would have never done it with Sheba (his weenie dog) left in his car, knowing they would arrest him and Sheba would be alone,” she said. “Sheba was a child to Jack.”
Do you think someone else shot Oswald and then they got away? And nobody else at the scene - the basement was filled with reporters and others - saw this switch or escape? How did they switch the real shooter with Ruby? And why did Ruby go along?
What evidence would you accept that he shot Oswald? We have him admitting it, we have the police arresting him (there are photos), we have witnesses saying they saw him shoot Oswald, we have witnesses saying they saw the police grabbing him, we have the police saying they grabbed him, we have the police saying he confessed...
What more would convince you of this?
-
"--But as far as fitting reality, it requires an enormous conspiracy that involves the press, including Detective Jim Leavelle."
Yes, of course Jim Leavelle was part of the conspiracy to LIE and say nothing about the identity of the true shooter, FBI agent James Bookhout. It was probably sold as a matter of "national security" for the police officers at the scene to say absolutely nothing regarding what had just transpired. All were instructed by higher ups like LBJ and Hoover to say Ruby killed Oswald. I just rewatched Leavelle's original 1963 testimony. To me he is unconvincing. It looks, feels and sounds like he is just rehashing something he was told to say that day.
And all of the people in the basement - it was filmed live with numerous reporters around - went along with this?
Okay, at this point there's no way of finding common ground with someone who thinks something like you believe could be pulled off. It simply cannot be done. And it wasn't. Ruby shot Oswald - as he admitted in numerous interviews.
-
Did Rob Conti loose his:
(https://i.vgy.me/LDvIuJ.jpg)
-
Did Rob Conti loose his:
(https://i.vgy.me/LDvIuJ.jpg)
In his defense there are a lot of conspiracy people here who believe things that are simply not possible; so, he's not alone. Was the Oliver Stone movie or the Garrison thesis any more unbelievable, any more illogical? Millions of people saw Stone's movie - it was widely praised; thousands of people hear Garrison's claims - he is still heralded for his work by some.
We have people who come here day-after-day for years saying "There's no evidence Oswald shot Tippit" or "There's no evidence Oswald owned the rifle." That's almost as illogical as the claim that Ruby didn't shoot Oswald.
-
This was all done 6 months ago.....
Try using search [top right of every page] that is why we have it ---------
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2564.msg87966.html#msg87966
-
Ruby admitted that he shot Oswald, and later he clearly indicated that he was forced to do it. It's obvious to all but the blind (i.e., lone-gunman theorists) that the Mafia forced Ruby to shoot Oswald.
-
Also see....
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2460.msg81678.html#msg81678
-
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1247.html
A few excerpts (just for laughs)....
DAVID VON PEIN SAID [in 2016]:
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?
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?
Isn't it time to give up this nonsense, Ralph?
RALPH CINQUE SAID:
Shadows are cast by objects, where an object is between the source of the light and the surface on which the shadow is laid. The object blocks the light, and that produces the shadow.
So, what is the object casting the disc-shaped shadow around his eye? I'm looking for an object here. Object. Object. Object.
[...]
What did I tell you, David? I told you that every shadow is cast by something; some object. So, you can't say it's a shadow without naming the object that cast it, and how it was in position to cast it. It has to make sense according to physics. But, you haven't even named the object.
The shadow on his neck is presumably cast by his chin, though what is casting the shadow on the lower part of his face I do not know.
But, the inky black disc around his eye with the stripe across the bridge of his nose, what could possibly be casting such a shadow?
And if you look closely, there does appear to be an eyeglass temple going over his ear.
Now, when you complain about the missing frame, don't blame me. There is a lot of crude stuff they did, photographically speaking, thinking that no one would care or even notice. They were very arrogant people who had nothing but contempt and scorn for the common man and his inability to observe details.
So yes, I really do think they would paint in a pair of sunglasses onto a person's face without also painting in the frame. And if you look closely, you can see the "temple" of his glasses which is going over his ear. Apparently, you're not too good at observing details either.
Alright, now you know that you can't claim shadow for the black disc without pointing to the object that is casting it. So, you can either cite the object, which will then be scrutinized, OR you can retract the claim. Take your pick. But, that's it. That's where you are at. That's the crossroad that you are at.
So, what's it going be? Cite the casting object or retract the claim.
And if you won't retract it, I'll retract it for you.
RALPH CINQUE LATER SAID:
Alright, so let me dumb this down for you: On the left is the NBC reporter Tom Petit [sic], and his face is partially in shadow. That is what shadow looks like. Understand? That's the density of it, the color of it, etc. But, the guy on the right with the massive black disc over his eye, which has much greater density, which has inky blackness, which has three-dimensionality and form, that is NOT shadow. And if you think it's shadow, then show me another photo from the entire history of photography in which someone showed shadow that looked like that. What you submitted does not come close to that.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Ralph,
I'm officially done with this foolishness about Ruby and the nonexistent sunglasses. You can play your silly games by yourself from now on. I joined in for a few posts merely for the fun of it.
As everyone can easily see, Ralph Cinque's imagination has now reached new heights in the "fertile" and "ridiculous" departments.
The truth is (and always was, of course): the person who shot Lee Harvey Oswald in the Dallas Police Department basement on 11/24/63 was Jack L. Ruby, not FBI agent James W. Bookhout. And Mr. Ruby was definitely not wearing any eyeglasses when he murdered Oswald.
DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:
It's amazing to see the amount of absolute trash and junk that crops up when people discuss the JFK case, as this ludicrous "RUBY NEVER SHOT OSWALD" hogwash clearly illustrates.
Is the next theory going to be: "TIPPIT WAS NEVER SHOT AT ALL"??
As Vince Bugliosi said....
"I know that conspiracy theorists have a sweet tooth for silliness, but is there absolutely nothing that is too silly for their palate?"
-
Rob...If you haven't done it yet, take your response out of David's quote and re-post it as your reply.
Also...for dummies like me, I would like to see a link to this picture that Ralph Cinque & DVP is talking about [if possible]
-
Are those sunglasses in his left chest pocket?-------
(https://s3.wp.wsu.edu/uploads/sites/609/2013/11/Jack-Ruby-300.jpg)
(https://3.img-dpreview.com/files/p/articles/3735300356/ruby-shoots-oswald-01.jpeg)
-
I would now say that they are not sunglasses.
(https://kottke.org/plus/misc/images/ruby-shoots-oswald-02.jpg)
-
I would now say that they are not sunglasses.
(https://kottke.org/plus/misc/images/ruby-shoots-oswald-02.jpg)
I agree, perhaps reading glasses with clear lenses.
-
As Vince Bugliosi said....
"I know that conspiracy theorists have a sweet tooth for silliness, but is there absolutely nothing that is too silly for their palate?"
Is this the same Vince Bugliosi who said that the rumor that Oswald preferred Dr Pepper to Coke somehow constitutes evidence for Oswald’s guilt?
-
Here is an interesting exerpt from an interview, from “No More Silence” by Larry Sneed, of David Harkness, DPD regarding seeing Jack Ruby on 11/23/63 in Dealey Plaza:
We didn’t know when Oswald was going to be moved, so I had a no parking area across the street, put up some barricades, and assigned some officers there to keep everybody back. Some newsmen were there including Wes Wise, who later became mayor, but we wouldn’t let anyone next to the area where they would back him in to the jail. I also noticed that Jack Ruby was down there at Elm and Houston, and I wouldn’t let him in the area either. But I did see him there that morning. I didn’t know him very well, but he had a nightclub downtown, and when I was working downtown I’d see him there at night. He had a couple of little dogs that he’d walk in the area around the hotels. But when I saw him in this restricted area, I just told him that we wouldn’t allow any pedestrians on this side of the sidewalk. I don’t recall whether he said anything, but he left.
I knew Wes Wise had seen him there, but didn’t realize that Harkness had to run him out of the restricted area near the jail entrance. At any rate, in my opinion, it is more evidence that Jack Ruby was likely stalking LHO.
-
Is this the same Vince Bugliosi who said that the rumor that Oswald preferred Dr Pepper to Coke somehow constitutes evidence for Oswald’s guilt?
It's always a good idea for CTers to truncate and mangle (and, above all, isolate) an LNer's argument in order to attempt to make the LNer look like an idiot (as John just did above). Par for the CT course....of course.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/isolating-evidence.html
-
It's always a good idea for CTers to truncate and mangle an LNer's argument in order to attempt to make the LNer look like an idiot (as John just did above). Par for the CT course....of course.
Generalization is another of their favorites...
-
Generalization is another of their favorites...
And their all-time favorite....
Let's Pretend All The Evidence Against Oswald Is Fake & Phony So We Can Summarily Dismiss Every Last Piece Of It.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/09/was-all-of-this-evidence-planted.html
-
It's always a good idea for CTers to truncate and mangle (and, above all, isolate) an LNer's argument in order to attempt to make the LNer look like an idiot (as John just did above). Par for the CT course....of course.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/isolating-evidence.html
This is the LNer method
Reverse this and get the CTer method
Terminator 2
-
This is the LNer method
Reverse this and get the CTer method
Terminator 2
Exactly!
-
If we are all finished playing juxtaposition.. collation.. differentiation and Mr Chapman's obsession with the T 1000---
I would still like to know how the Oswald shooter went from being a mop head here ....
(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/nintchdbpict000027281664.jpg?w=620)
to a more business type hairstyle here....
(https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/5114787ee4b0807f570d7372/1491241585414-6Q7H0M9H2SHYC7T22A2N/Ruby+Mug+Photo.png?content-type=image%2Fpng)
Or did Jack Ruby receive a haircut at the police station before his mugshot?
Oh..I know what the Oswald only troupe will say...camera angle--lighting blah blah
Also....has anyone else noticed that [deliberately?] washed out face in the top picture [at the very top right]?
-
Let's Pretend All The Evidence Against Oswald Is Fake & Phony So We Can Summarily Dismiss Every Last Piece Of It.
Not even necessary. What little evidence you have is weak, circumstantial, and tainted. Even if it was all genuine, including the shells with the disappearing initials, the bag that’s invisible in the crime scene photos, and the magic disappearing and reappearing partial palmprint, it still doesn’t demonstrate that Oswald shot anybody.
Which is why empty rhetoric like Dr Peppers and rings in cups is so ridiculous.
-
It's always a good idea for CTers to truncate and mangle (and, above all, isolate) an LNer's argument in order to attempt to make the LNer look like an idiot
LNers don’t need any help in that regard.
Bugliosi make the ridiculously idiotic argument. Don’t blame me because I pointed it out.
-
This is the LNer method
Reverse this and get the CTer method
Terminator 2
For once I agree.....
First the LNs make up, by assumption, pieces of "evidence" that did not exist before and then they create a monster.
-
For once I agree.....
First the LNs make up, by assumption, pieces of "evidence" that did not exist before and then they create a monster.
What 'pieces of "evidence" did 'LNs make up'?
-
What 'pieces of "evidence" did 'LNs make up'?
How about, for starters, a bag that was "big enough to conceal a broken down MC rifle", despite the denial of the only witnesses who actually saw the bag.
Or, how about, a white jacket that suddenly became grey when it was handed in at the identification office, several hours after Oswald's arrest.
Or the overall assumption that there actually was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage for two months and that it was the MC rifle that was later found at the TSBD.
Or the assumption that Oswald somehow managed to build a paper bag at the TSBD and take it to Irving without anybody seeing it.
Or that he managed to come down the stairs to the 2nd floor lunchroom without anybody hearing or seeing him, in particular Dorothy Garner who was next to the stairs on the 4th floor from the moment Victoria Adams went down until Truly and Baker came up
Or that leaving a ring behind is somehow evidence of the intent to kill the President....
And the list goes on and on
-
I see that things like denial and isolation of evidence are things that are still as strong as ever amongst the conspiracy theorists at this forum.
(What a surprise.)
-
I see that denial and isolation are things that are still as strong as ever amongst the conspiracy theorists at this forum.
(What a surprise.)
Spoken like a true believer.
Denial? Care to explain?
Could it be that valid questions about dubious and weak, speculative, evidence is the same to you as "denial"?
-
Denial? Care to explain?
The extensive SBT debate (below) perfectly illustrates what I mean by a conspiracy theorist's "denial". I couldn't have asked for a better made-to-order demonstration:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
And the very same kind of denial exists at this forum too. Always has. And, I surmise, always will.
And now we're even being treated to denial with respect to Ruby shooting Oswald! And it can't get much worse on the "denial" scale than that.
-
The extensive SBT debate (below) perfectly illustrates what I mean by a conspiracy theorist's "denial". I couldn't have asked for a better made-to-order demonstration:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
And the very same kind of denial exists at this forum too. Always has. And, I surmise, always will.
I see. You present a highly speculative subject matter, like the SBT, which can not be duplicated in real time, and leaves a lot of questions unanswered and when somebody doesn't instantly take your word for it, he's in denial... Is that your position?
Please note, I've stayed well clear of any discussion about the SBT, mainly because of of it's speculative nature, but also because IMO it's not sufficiently germane to the overall case, as it's only purpose is to keep the case a one shooter affair. If, by other means, a second shooter could ever be proven (to be honest, I don't think it ever will) the entire SBT will be a moot point in an instant.
If you could present a persuasive argument for the SBT, beyond a reasonable doubt, you might be right in saying that somebody who doesn't believe it is in denial, but that's not the case here.
-
You present a highly speculative subject matter, like the SBT...
The SBT is not "highly speculative" at all, IMO. Quite the opposite, in fact.
-
The SBT is not "highly speculative" at all, IMO. Quite the opposite, in fact.
The Z-film demonstrates it's not speculative at all.
To not recognise what's happening in it is a phenomenon I've described elsewhere as "unseeing"
-
I see. You present a highly speculative subject matter, like the SBT, which can not be duplicated in real time, and leaves a lot of questions unanswered and when somebody doesn't instantly take your word for it, he's in denial... Is that your position?
In the SBT discussion I linked earlier, I wasn't asking James R. Gordon of The Education Forum (or anyone else) to simply take my word for anything. I presented a multitude of looped video clips to prove my case. Gordon then went into his Ultimate Denial mode for several days, resulting in him banning me from the EF Kingdom, then unbanning me when he realized he was wrong, and then going back to his Ultimate Denial mode yet again.
That particular 2015 SBT discussion should be propped up as an example whenever a CTer continues to ignore (or deny) something that is obvious.
-
For once I agree.....
First the LNs make up, by assumption, pieces of "evidence" that did not exist before and then they create a monster.
What pieces of evidence did not exist before..
No, the evidence is gathered and completes the prosecution's preparations for court. Thus we have the melted man 'gathering himself'... just as Oswald gathered evidence on himself by dint of his actions that day.
-
What pieces of evidence did not exist before..
No, the evidence is gathered and completes the prosecution's preparations for court. Thus we have the melted man 'gathering himself'... just as Oswald gathered evidence on himself by dint of his actions that day.
"The evidence is gathered"?
I refer to a post I made elsewhere:
The remains of a lunch were found at the Sniper's Nest, a half eaten piece of chicken found on top of the boxes forming the nest. Part of this lunch was a bottle of soda, presumably covered in fingerprints, absolutely key evidence from the scene of the crime. For quite a while everyone assumed the assassin had eaten his lunch there whilst waiting for the President to pass.
So what happened to this absolutely key piece of evidence?
When it was discovered Oswald's fingerprints weren't on it it was destroyed.
So much for following the evidence.
How can you trust evidence when selected parts of it have been destroyed?
How much other evidence was destroyed?
-
...and a silence filled the room...
Here's a third chance to respond to this point Bill, concerning the denial LN's have to deal with (is there another phrase to use other than LN's?)
It's a previous post highlighting something quite obvious. If Oswald was the lone assassin there would be no need for the amount of blatant lying that is to be found in the testimonies and statements of various TSBD employees:
"If it was as simple as that Bill then everyone's story would be very straight-forward. No need for the deception, falsehoods and confusion that permeate the testimonies of many who worked at the TSBD. Everyone would have a pretty good idea of where they were and what they were doing, sure some insignificant details would get mixed up, that's human nature, but the wholesale fabrications that take place are ridiculous.
We can agree to disagree on that. You may be able to rationalise it but it's not something I can ignore."
How can you explain this discrepancy?
-
It's hilarious to see the contrarians here day and night grasping at any straw that might lend itself to Oswald's innocence while always denying they are CTers. Who is responsible for all this skullduggery which would, by implication, be necessitated should any of their contrarian theories prove valid is left to our imagination. Just lots of bad luck for Old Lee Harvey? Very lazy and tiresome. My guess is that they feel some type of insecurity and are seeking attention from their intellectual superiors by denying the obvious conclusions to be drawn from the evidence. Ironically, not unlike LHO himself. Malcontents seeking attention. Birds of a feather.
-
It's hilarious to see the contrarians here day and night grasping at any straw that might lend itself to Oswald's innocence while always denying they are CTers. Who is responsible for all this skullduggery which would, by implication, be necessitated should any of their contrarian theories prove valid is left to our imagination. Just lots of bad luck for Old Lee Harvey? Very lazy and tiresome. My guess is that they feel some type of insecurity and are seeking attention from their intellectual superiors by denying the obvious conclusions to be drawn from the evidence. Ironically, not unlike LHO himself. Malcontents seeking attention. Birds of a feather.
Is this a response to my posts?
-
...and a silence filled the room...
Here's a third chance to respond to this point Bill, concerning the denial LN's have to deal with (is there another phrase to use other than LN's?)
It's a previous post highlighting something quite obvious. If Oswald was the lone assassin there would be no need for the amount of blatant lying that is to be found in the testimonies and statements of various TSBD employees:
"If it was as simple as that Bill then everyone's story would be very straight-forward. No need for the deception, falsehoods and confusion that permeate the testimonies of many who worked at the TSBD. Everyone would have a pretty good idea of where they were and what they were doing, sure some insignificant details would get mixed up, that's human nature, but the wholesale fabrications that take place are ridiculous.
We can agree to disagree on that. You may be able to rationalise it but it's not something I can ignore."
How can you explain this discrepancy?
...and a silence filled the room...
Here's a third chance to respond to this point Bill, concerning the denial LN's have to deal with (is there another phrase to use other than LN's?)
It's a previous post highlighting something quite obvious. If Oswald was the lone assassin there would be no need for the amount of blatant lying that is to be found in the testimonies and statements of various TSBD employees:
"If it was as simple as that Bill then everyone's story would be very straight-forward. No need for the deception, falsehoods and confusion that permeate the testimonies of many who worked at the TSBD. Everyone would have a pretty good idea of where they were and what they were doing, sure some insignificant details would get mixed up, that's human nature, but the wholesale fabrications that take place are ridiculous.
We can agree to disagree on that. You may be able to rationalise it but it's not something I can ignore."
How can you explain this discrepancy?
'and a silence filled the room'
>>> LOL
'Here's a third chance to respond to this point'
>>> LOL
And Oswald went at least 1 for 2* that day, a fine batting average in any man's league. And you lot have had 58 years, yet still haven't come up with a pinch-hitter for your hero.
*Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy
-
I see that things like denial and isolation of evidence are things that are still as strong as ever amongst the conspiracy theorists at this forum.
(What a surprise.)
I see that arguing with rhetoric rather than evidence are things that are still strong with Bugliosi’s minions.
(What a surprise.)
-
The Z-film demonstrates it's not speculative at all.
To not recognise what's happening in it is a phenomenon I've described elsewhere as "unseeing"
How egocentric is it to just declare that your subjective interpretation of “reactions” in a film is the only correct one?
-
That particular 2015 SBT discussion should be propped up as an example whenever a CTer continues to ignore (or deny) something that is obvious.
Everyone thinks his own subjective opinion is “obvious”.
-
...and a silence filled the room...
Here's a third chance to respond to this point Bill, concerning the denial LN's have to deal with (is there another phrase to use other than LN's?)
There’s no point in trying to engage with Chapman on the evidence. He doesn’t know it or understand it. He’s here to post lame parodies and movie clips.
-
It's hilarious to see the contrarians here day and night grasping at any straw that might lend itself to Oswald's innocence while always denying they are CTers. Who is responsible for all this skullduggery which would, by implication, be necessitated should any of their contrarian theories prove valid is left to our imagination. Just lots of bad luck for Old Lee Harvey? Very lazy and tiresome. My guess is that they feel some type of insecurity and are seeking attention from their intellectual superiors by denying the obvious conclusions to be drawn from the evidence. Ironically, not unlike LHO himself. Malcontents seeking attention. Birds of a feather.
Says the malcontent seeking attention. :D
-
I see that things like denial and isolation of evidence are things that are still as strong as ever amongst the conspiracy theorists at this forum.
This is a lot like arguing that if you throw a few broken car parts up in the air, you will somehow end up with a working automobile.
-
I see that arguing with rhetoric rather than evidence are things that are still strong with Bugliosi’s minions.
(What a surprise.)
Says the guy who sticks up for Charlie Manson.
Who's next? Richard Kuklinski?
-
'and a silence filled the room'
>>> LOL
'Here's a third chance to respond to this point'
>>> LOL
And Oswald went at least 1 for 2* that day, a fine batting average in any man's league.
And you lot have had 58 years, yet still haven't come up with a pinch-hitter for your hero.
*Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy
This response is something I would expect from the tinfoil brigade.
I've made two serious points about the destruction of evidence and the complex of lies and deceit that permeates the testimonies of many of the TSBD employees.
You like to bang on about how all the evidence points to Oswald (who was a snivelling creep and most definitely involved) but when I point out key evidence has been destroyed you go into denial. Just like a good CTer.
You also can't deal with the point about the TSBD employees so you go into denial about that too.
It must be weird to be in the position you so often ascribe to others (and rightly so)
Be careful, I don't think you'd look good in metallic headgear.
-
The SBT is not "highly speculative" at all, IMO. Quite the opposite, in fact.
David, you wouldn't be presenting it, as a battle you think you can win, if you didn't believe that. However, that doesn't make you automatically correct. My entire point is that IMO the SBT is far from conclusive, no matter how many video representations are made for it.
-
Is this a response to my posts?
No, it's just "Richard" venting one of his obsessions. It's of very little value.
-
No, it's just "Richard" venting one of his obsessions. It's of very little value.
I like the way he modestly refers to himself as an intellectual superior.
-
I like the way he modestly refers to himself as an intellectual superior.
Of course he does. If he doesn't say it himself, who else will say it for him?
And to demonstrate just how superior he is; he shows that he doesn't even know it should be intellectually superior
Oh well, show me a fool and I'll show you a man who thinks he is a genius and intellectual superior.
-
The shooter was FBI agent James Bookhout. He had interrogated Oswald that day with Hosty, another FBI agent, and no one but Captain Fritz had greater access to Oswald that day than Bookhout. He looked a lot like Ruby? Or maybe Ruby was chosen bec, among many other reasons (besides being a CIA informant, having a criminal record, the Dallas police knew him very well, etc), he also looked quite like agent Bookhout. Ruby was identified as the killer bec they needed SOMEONE to take the blame that day, and Ruby was the perfect patsy to do so, being there at the right time, the right place, with the right criminal record, having the right ties with law enforcement, being the right build. How did he know Oswald would be there, you ask? What if the Police lured Ruby to the Western Union building, which was less than 200 steps away from the police station, via the stripper employee named Karen Carlin and her plea to Ruby for money? The police could have easily jumped Ruby (an hour before Oswald gets shot) and have taken him into the police station next store on some pretext or another. This would put Ruby exactly in the same building and at the same time where Oswald was and where Oswald was about to be moved from the police station to the County Jail. Ruby used the gun of the shooter? What if it was the other way around? What if the shooter's gun was planted on Ruby, after the shooting? How can this not be plausible if Ruby was now in police custody and being held on the 5th floor, and they had fingerprinted him? How do we know the gun was truly Ruby's? I have seen no independent ballistics test results done to prove Ruby's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon moments after. And even if they were, they could have been planted on the murder weapon by the police, who were in on it too - along with the higher ups, all the way up to LBJ. YES, these are bold claims. And if what I say is even remotely true it is the greatest cover-up and best kept secret in history. And I believe it truly is. Why did Ruby not mention this to his defense council, you ask? Ruby told his defense council that he didn't remember anything. That he didn't remember shooting Oswald. "I just remember going down there, then suddenly, the police pounced on me, pushing me down to the ground". " Then, they dragged me upstairs. And that's when they told me that I shot Oswald.", Ruby said.
Gosh, Ralph (uh, i uh, mean, uh, Dave Conti). How come you don't post anymore? How's your new movie comin' along??? LOL !!!
-
I like the way he modestly refers to himself as an intellectual superior.
That's a not a high bar around CTers. And on a thread questioning whether Ruby killed Oswald! HA HA HA.
-
That's a not a high bar around CTers. And on a thread questioning whether Ruby killed Oswald! HA HA HA.
It's always the biggest idiot who proclaims himself to be superior.
People who truly are intellectually superior don't (need to) make such statements.
For crying out loud, "Richard" supports Trump, the biggest idiot of them all. That alone should tell you all you need to know.
-
This response is something I would expect from the tinfoil brigade.
I've made two serious points about the destruction of evidence and the complex of lies and deceit that permeates the testimonies of many of the TSBD employees.
You like to bang on about how all the evidence points to Oswald (who was a snivelling creep and most definitely involved) but when I point out key evidence has been destroyed you go into denial. Just like a good CTer.
You also can't deal with the point about the TSBD employees so you go into denial about that too.
It must be weird to be in the position you so often ascribe to others (and rightly so)
Be careful, I don't think you'd look good in metallic headgear.
Tell us who 'destroyed' the soda bottle with the 'key' evidence
And what makes you think I'm a Cter
-
Says the guy who sticks up for Charlie Manson.
Who's next? Richard Kuklinski?
I didn’t “stick up” for Charlie Manson. You can’t get anything right.
-
Tell us who 'destroyed' the soda bottle with the 'key' evidence
And what makes you think I'm a Cter
I'm assuming it was Lieutenant J C Day:
Mr. McCLOY. On the crime scene, that is, on the sixth floor, did you notice any chicken bones or chicken remnants of a chicken sandwich or lunch or the whereabouts, if you did see them?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; there was a sack of some chicken bones and a bottle brought into the identification bureau. I think I still have that sack and bottle down there. The chicken bones, I finally threw them away that laid around there. In my talking to the men who were working on that floor, November 25, they stated, one of them stated, he had eaten lunch over there.
Mr. McCLOY. Someone other than Oswald?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; so I discarded it, or disconnected it with being with Oswald. Incidentally, Oswald's fingerprints were not on the bottle. I checked that.
Mr. McCLOY. They were not on the bottle?
Mr. DAY. No, sir.
At the time of his WC testimony Day is saying he still has the lunch sack and soda bottle. The bottle was never offered up as evidence because it didn't have Oswald's fingerprints on it (it had somebody's fingerprints but it seems Day never bothered to actually find out whose fingerprints). This is the last we hear of the soda bottle.
-
I'm assuming it was Lieutenant J C Day:
Mr. McCLOY. On the crime scene, that is, on the sixth floor, did you notice any chicken bones or chicken remnants of a chicken sandwich or lunch or the whereabouts, if you did see them?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; there was a sack of some chicken bones and a bottle brought into the identification bureau. I think I still have that sack and bottle down there. The chicken bones, I finally threw them away that laid around there. In my talking to the men who were working on that floor, November 25, they stated, one of them stated, he had eaten lunch over there.
Mr. McCLOY. Someone other than Oswald?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; so I discarded it, or disconnected it with being with Oswald. Incidentally, Oswald's fingerprints were not on the bottle. I checked that.
Mr. McCLOY. They were not on the bottle?
Mr. DAY. No, sir.
At the time of his WC testimony Day is saying he still has the lunch sack and soda bottle. The bottle was never offered up as evidence because it didn't have Oswald's fingerprints on it (it had somebody's fingerprints but it seems Day never bothered to actually find out whose fingerprints). This is the last we hear of the soda bottle.
So how does that qualify as 'destroyed' evidence? And you still need to point out where I qualify as a CTer.
-
Are the bottle and bag still available for examination?
-
I agree, perhaps reading glasses with clear lenses.
These?.......
(https://cryptome.org/jp-journo-ruby.jpg)
-
These?.......
(https://cryptome.org/jp-journo-ruby.jpg)
They appear to be similar. However in that photo it would appear that he was near sighted and needed glasses for distance viewing. Reading or distance, either way the point that I was making is that I was agreeing that they had clear lenses versus dark sunglasses lenses. Reading glasses would be more common for middle aged people, so that was my first guess.
-
Has anyone else ever found a picture of Ruby wearing glasses? Or a report of some sort that he wore glasses or needed them for vision.
Most people who are near sighted have to wear corrective lenses all the time [for driving and stuff]
Probably far too late to obtain vision exams records huh?
-
Hello, I am new here. After researching the video footage of Oswald getting shot, as well as photos of Jack Ruby, his own words, etc... as well as the work of other independent researchers on this topic, I am convinced there is more to Oswald's killing than meets the eye. The short man in the fedora who killed Oswald, how can we be sure it was really Jack Ruby? We never see his face. The Oswald shooter is shorter, has stocky legs wider and has a wider face than Ruby did. He was also wearing a different colored suit jacket than Ruby was in the Dallas County jail corridor, minutes before, and he had no fedora on and an entirely different build, hairline, messy hair cut, and ear shape. Plus no one ever photographs or films the Oswald shooters face EVER. When he is wrestled to the ground after he shoots Oswald, everyone seems to carefully cover him so NO ONE sees him. There is zero photographic or film evidence of this man's face. Then only afterwards do you see Ruby walking without his suit jacket on, supposedly right after he was arrested and apprehended. It just doesnt match up. Why doesn't he still have his suit jacket ojn? Maybe because they knew it is much lighter than the Oswald shooter's jacket? That is just one inconsistency in all this. Plus, listening to Ruby interviewed convinces me he was set up as a patsy, just like Oswald was. RAlph Stinky did some interesting work on this subject: I agree with a lot of his thesis. What do you guys think? Isn't it strange we NEVER see the Oswald's shooter's face from the time he appears to the time he is wrestled to the ground and apprehended?
We never see his face.
I just happened to read this today and it reminded me of this thread. I have a vague memory of seeing a film in which Ruby looks back to where the camera catches one side of his face. Does anyone know which film it is and possibly have a frame capture of it?
Mr. HUBERT. Did you hear anybody running down the ramp just before the shooting, running down or possibly walking down?
Mr. PHENIX. No, I think if he had been running I would have heard him because the sound just echoes in that basement.
I saw some film, and I'm sure you've seen it too, some of the film that showed Ruby positioned down there, and he looks back where you catch almost a full shot of his face before Oswald comes down, and that anyway--it just looks like he was there for a while
-
Gosh, Ralph (uh, i uh, mean, uh, Dave Conti). How come you don't post anymore? How's your new movie comin' along??? LOL !!!
Raff* posted about this not too long ago on his oh-so famous blog, oddwalski in the doorwayski, uh........ yes, he's still at it. And he's coming out with another movie. This is priceless !!!