Saturday, June 10, 2017

I'm very interested in talking to the "2-and-1ers". That refers to people who think that the first two murder stories (JFK and Tippit) are lies, but the third one (that Ruby shot Oswald) is true. I'm not interested in talking to "0-and-3ers" who think there were no lies, only truths. I do fight with them in public forums, but only because it's a public forum where other people will also see it. I wouldn't waste my time talking to David Von Pein privately. What for? I know very well that he is NEVER going to be swayed. 

Of course, I am a "3-and-0er" because I believe that all three stories are lies, that none are true.

But, "2-and-1ers" should be convertible. And I say that even though I admit that their initial reaction is usually to recoil, as in "What????" 

But, they really aren't thinking when they do that. They aren't thinking at all. They are just reacting. They'll say things like, "But, you can see Ruby doing it." No, you can't. You can see a short, pudgy, white man in a Fedora hat doing it. But, the number of men he could potentially be, based on what's showing, is probably in the thousands. I'm sure there was no shortage of short, pudgy, white men then, just as there isn't today. And anyone can put on a Fedora hat- even if he never wore one before. So, the Fedora hat means nothing. 

What about this image nails the shooter as Jack Ruby?

 Nothing does. You are not "seeing" Jack Ruby there. You are just "thinking" Jack Ruby there. It's your mind; your conditioned, brainwashed, manipulated mind that sees Jack Ruby there.

First, realize that there's not much to work with. Shortness, pudginess, and whiteness are too broad, both individually and collectively. They're just not specific enough to identify anybody; they are not individual enough. They're not individual at all. So, we have to look for things that are specific and individual- the attributes of a distinct, individual human being. We've got the condition of his neck in back. And we see that his hair is long, relatively speaking. If you look closely, you'll see that it's curling up. That's how long it is. And we see that his hairline is straight. And we see that his neck is clean; it's free of stubby, scruffy, fuzzy hair growth. OK, so that's something, and when we compare it to Jack Ruby, this is what we get: 

That was taken the same day, an hour later. And it conflicts. Ruby did not have a cleanly shaven neck in back. And his hair in back wasn't as thick and long as we see on the garage shooter. 

So, that is 1 strike against the Ruby claim. What else have we got? We've got the shooter's height. He's obviously short- and you've got a lot of other men in that photo with whom to compare. Do you realize that the Garage Shooter was the shortest man in the whole garage? And there were a lot of men there. 

How much shorter than Oswald would you say he is? Some harp on the idea that he wasn't standing up straight, but neither was Oswald. You see that Oswald's knee is bent there, right? So, how much shorter than Oswald was the Garage Shooter? I'm going to be conservative for the sake of being conservative and say 2 inches shorter. I think it's more than that, but I'll go with it for the sake of being cautious. Well, Oswald was 5'9" and Jack Ruby was 5' 8 1/2". A difference of just one-half inch. So, that's another strike against the Ruby hypothesis.  Then for our 3rd strike, we'll turn to the second most famous photo of the shooting, the Beers photo.

Wow! Let me say first that here the shooter looks a good 3 inches shorter than Oswald. But, what I want to stress is the fact that he was wearing light-colored socks. I'm tempted to call them grey, but who really knows since this is a black and white photo. But, they were definitely light. Compare them to Oswald's socks. 

OK, so now, let's look at Ruby's socks. 

So, Ruby had on black socks. Note also that his shoes are different. The shooter was wearing a nice pair of dressy shoes, wingtips I believe.  But above, Ruby is wearing what looks to be a black work shoe. Ruby's shoes are high, meaning the ankle part was high, as in high-top sneakers (although not that high) whereas the Garage Shooter's shoes were cut low. They are definitely different shoes.

So, if that's the footware that Ruby left home in, it's time for the fat lady to start singing. But, of course, the other side plays the card that they must play, claiming that the DPD changed Ruby's shoes and socks.

But, that is NOT reasonable. This was a city jail, not a state penitentiary. I called the Dallas City Jail and spoke to the jailer. I asked him if they provided clothes or uniforms to prisoners, and he said no. I asked him if they ever did, say back in the 1960s, and he said: "not that I've ever heard." 

People aren't kept at city jails that long. The U.S. Constitution says that if a cop arrests you, you have the right to see a judge: fast. It falls under your habeus corpus rights. And the different states have set up their own time limits for it. In Texas, it's 24 hours. And once you see the judge, he either dismisses the charges against you; lets you post bail; or remands you. But, even if he remands you, you still get sent elsewhere. In New York City, you get sent to Riker's Island. Hey, I've watched Law and Order. And it's true. When that French IMF bureaucrat got trapped in the sex scandal, where a hotel maid accused him of rape, he got sent to Riker's Island. They say it's a rough place, and I believe it.

But, the point is that you don't stay at the city jail. So, they don't have uniforms there. They don't even have the cabana outfit that we see Jack Ruby wearing. Why would they give him that? They didn't give Oswald any such thing. They didn't put him in any outfit. So, why the double standard?

That's bad enough, but if you try to tell me that, in addition to giving him that cabana outfit, that they replaced his shoes and socks (and presumably his drawers) I'm going to tell you to snap out of your trance. That was City Hall, and it wasn't all police department. There was a lot else going on there. And the idea that they were warehousing and inventorying pants, shirts, socks, shoes, and drawers for all the prisoners that could potentially be brought in, meaning all the sizes of shoes, etc. and then what? They're confiscating soiled socks and drawers and t-shirts and putting the smelly stuff into hampers? And then what? Did they have washing machines and dryers on the premises, or did they send it all out? And how did they keep track of whose was whose? So, they had a complex inventory system- for all the clothes they were providing and all the clothes they were confiscating? Is that it? What was served by doing all this? How did it serve justice? How did it serve public safety? How did it protect the rights of the prisoners? How did it do anything except create work? And if it was such a good idea, then why aren't they doing it today?

But, it had to be such a big operation, that if they were doing it way back then, then there would still be records of all the purchase orders for the clothes, all the bills of laden for the laundry servicing of it all, and surviving paperwork which tracked it all. But, there is none of that. We don't even have an image of any other DPD prisoner in a cabana outfit: just Jack Ruby. 

And again, why was Oswald exempted? Why didn't he get a change of clothes? Where was his cabana suit? I'm told that even the clothes he wore on Sunday were his own clothes, obtained from his boarding room. So, they never gave him a stitch of clothing. 

Yet, Ruby was redressed from head to foot? So, minutes after he lethally shot Oswald and tried to shoot a policeman, they wanted his drawers? Just think about how funny it must have been. 

Jailer: Let me have your clothes, Jack. Take 'em off. 
Jack: You mean my jacket and pants and shirt, right?
Jailer: No, I mean everything. Socks, shoes, drawers, the works.
Jack:  I shoot a man, and you want my fuckin' underpants? 
Jailer: Hey, I don't make the rules around here; I just enforce them.
Jack: Well, enforce this: you ain't getting my fuckin' drawers. 

It would have been like an Abbott and Costello routine. Nobody who reported on the handling of Ruby said anything about underclothes being replaced. But, in response to those photos, the defenders of the official story have to say they were replaced. How can they keep going with the story if they don't? It is like an obligatory move in Chess. You either make it or you concede. So, they came up with this. It is supposedly from Ruby's property invoice. 

1 set underwear? What even is 1 set of underwear? How could it not be specified? And did they just throw the soiled underwear in with the white dress shirt and brown suit? A man's shirt and pants may not be all that clean, but you expect them to be handle-able, right? You wouldn't be afraid to touch them, right? But, his used undergarments? They just threw them in with the suit and the white shirt? Or did they have to put them in a separate bin? Then, how did they keep track of it all? 

It is ridiculous. They were not confiscating men's underwear at the Dallas City Jail in 1963, just as they are not doing it today. It is a lie. It is a fake. It is a fraud. And, they did it all precisely because of this, to counter it:

Now, if you're a 2-and1er, you know that authorities lied. They lied about Kennedy's murder, and they lied about Tippit's murder. You already know that. So, why should it be hard for you to accept that they also lied about Oswald's murder? that they lied about confiscating Ruby's socks and drawers? It is preposterous, in and of itself, and it's laughable. You can't even imagine it, really. There is really no reason to believe it- and especially since you know that they are liars. The thing about liars is that they will lie anyplace, anytime, anywhere, anyhow. (which reminds me; there is a song, Anytime Any place, Anywhere that I really need to do; it's a great tune) And this is a particularly ridiculous lie. 

So, we are left realizing that there is NO REASON to believe that Ruby shot Oswald- based on the photographic evidence, which all points the other way. 

But, what about other evidence? Didn't Ruby say he did it? No. He did not. He just accepted that he did it because he was told that he did it, and he believed the people telling him. He liked the Dallas Police. He respected the Dallas Police. The Dallas Police told him that he shot Oswald, and he believed them- even though he had no memory of doing it. Ruby said- including at his death bed interview- that he remembered going to the bottom of the ramp, and being pounced upon by police, and nothing in-between. "All the rest is a blur." That's what he said. 

But, let's discuss it for a moment. Ruby said it, but he never elaborated. Even when something is blurry, you do see something. But, Ruby spoke of it very much as though there was no time interval between the two: he reached the crowd gathered at the bottom of the ramp. and then the police pounced on him. So, it really wasn't that it was a blurred memory for Ruby; it was an absent memory for him. You can listen to his death bed interview here:

It was from December 16, 1966.  He died on January 3. 

So, the "Ruby said he did it" argument doesn't pass muster either. What about witnesses in the garage who claimed to recognize the shooter as Ruby? 

First, why would you put anybody's lip-flapping above the photographic evidence, which I have showed you? Which trumps which? I am telling you that the photographic evidence trumps anybody's lip-flapping. 

Lip-flapping????? How much stock do you put in lip-flapping, in general? Even in everyday life. You meet people, and they tell you things. Do you automatically believe them? How many times a day are you with somebody, and he's telling you something, and you're thinking to yourself that he's full of shit? And, you often don't say anything because you're a polite person. "Uh-huh, uh-huh, well good luck with that." 

Now, in this case, it's much worse than the usual, and that's because we know the whole case is rife with lies and liars. Remember, you already know that the first two murder stories are utter, dastardly lies. I don't have to convince you of that. And in this regard, we have already proven that there were liars: For instance:

Detective James Leavelle said that he saw Ruby in advance, jerked Oswald trying to protect him, and then poked Ruby in the right shoulder, none of which he did; it's all lies. Detective LC Graves said that Oswald wore handcuffs, his own handcuffs- besides the ones he shared with Leavelle. And that's a lie too, and you only have to look at the Jackson photo to see it. Detective Combest said that Oswald was communicating with him in the jail office, shaking and nodding his head to answer questions yes or no, and that is definitely a lie. A man who got his aorta and vena cava blown out with a gunshot could not possibly do that, and nobody else made such a claim, just Combest. 

So, Dallas Police lied. We know that beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt. Therefore, why should we believe them about having recognized Ruby in the garage? 

And remember too what the alternate story is in this case: it is that the Dallas Police were the real culprits, that they set Ruby up to be the patsy, taking advantage of his mental incompetence and his devotion to them, knowing that they could convince him that he did it- even though he wasn't in the garage during the televised spectacle.  His incident with them came earlier; he got to the garage earlier than reported; and he was up on the 5th floor during the televised spectacle. They brought him back down soon afterwards to mingle him in the scene.  This was the "switch" in the bait and switch. This really is Jack Ruby, but it's the first time he's seen.

So, obviously, lying would be part and parcel of their plan. Therefore, you can't believe any of the Dallas cops. 

Did any civilians recognize Ruby in the garage? Hugh Aynesworth was there, and he knew Jack Ruby well and had seen him 3x that weekend. He said that he saw the shooter rush Oswald. The way he put it was to say that he saw him "zip" in. But, he said he did NOT recognize him as Jack Ruby, that he found out later that he was Ruby the same way everyone else did- from police announcing it.

So, the fact is: you don't have any reliable, dependable lip-flapping to go by either to support the claim that Ruby did it.  

So, what do you have to go by? Nothing except official pronouncement. That's it. You believe Jack Ruby shot Oswald because Officialdom told you so; and they are the same people who told you that Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit, which are lies.   

Enough! Jack Ruby didn't do it. There isn't a stitch of evidence that he did. Yes, there are talking points, but they all fall apart under scrutiny. I'll say it again: Yes, there are talking points, but they all fall apart under scrutiny. 

Please share this article- but only with "2-and-1ers".  Forget about lone-nutters because they are locked-in to the official story; they're hardwired.  But, if you know any "2-and-1ers" who are smart, whom you respect, then send them this. And we'll see what happens. Thank you. 



No comments:

Post a Comment

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