Saturday, September 3, 2016

How come we got a clear view of Arthur Bremer's face in the aftermath of his shooting but not of "Ruby"? It just worked out that way, did it? Happenstance, you say? Luck of the draw, you think?

Well, if that's what you think, you can go straight to Hell. They deliberately saw to it that we didn't see Ruby's face. And in what you see on the right, there are not enough data points to establish that that's Ruby. And keep in mind that that is the most substantial and abundant look at his face that we have. And you cannot tell from looking at that picture that he is Jack Ruby.  You cannot claim to know it. Remember who makes the rules here; it's not you. The safekeeper is me. The fact is that the claim that that guy was Jack Ruby is based solely on circumstantial stuff: the fact that officialdom says he was; the fact that later on Jack Ruby can be seen in handcuffs looking tired, disheveled, and subdued; the fact that he kind-of confessed to it but also said that he had no memory whatsoever of doing it. He said he couldn't answer any specific questions about the shooting because he had no memory of it.  

If you know that Oswald was framed and innocent and that the official story is false, I presume then that you know that there are a lot of LIES involved in it. The whole official story is a lie, a big lie, but there are also a lot of little lies that are the building blocks of the big lie. So, the only basis you have to believe that that guy was Jack Ruby is to take the word of liars. Filthy, rotten, bloodied liars. 

And let's remember what this was about. It was about silencing Oswald. It was about killing him before he could talk to a lawyer. So, why would you believe what "they" have to say about it when "they" were in the hot seat if Oswald lived? If Oswald lived, he would have told his lawyer that he was standing in the doorway during the shooting. And his lawyer would have made it the cornerstone of his defense. And he had an image of Oswald in the doorway to show the jury!

His lawyer, as an officer of the court, could have issued subpoenas to Shelley, Lovelady, and others. Can you imagine Lovelady on the witness stand with a defense attorney grilling him as a hostile witness? Lovelady would have peed his pants. Talk about getting broke on the cross. 

And that's why "they" had to kill him. Everything was at stake for them. So why, if you are an Oswald defender, would you believe them? That shooter was NOT Jack Ruby.  

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.