Friday, July 21, 2017

Here I have assembled the indirect case that Jack Ruby was drugged on 11/24/63, and it was the means by which they got him to the garage. The drug scopolamine renders a person highly susceptible to suggestion, and this was well known in 1963. It is a drug that was widely used by the Nazis, and it was also used by the CIA in 1950s in the MK-ULTRA program. 

There is no direct evidence, and that's not surprising. Direct evidence would be Ruby or someone else saying that he was drugged, the finding of a drug stash at the Carousel Club or elsewhere, a doctor determining that Ruby was drugged, etc. That's just not going to happen. But, there is nothing wrong with indirect evidence, which you could also called deduced evidence. 

And before I start, I'll point out that the plot absolutely hinged on Ruby going to the garage, and they were NOT going to just hope that he did it. They had a surefire way to get him to a very close radius of it: the Western Union office to wire $25 to Karen Carlin. It was on the same block, and it was cinched. They just needed a way to get him from WU to the garage. And that depended on two things: the power of suggestion and the use of a drug that made him highly susceptible to suggestion, scopolamine. 

  1. Ruby had the look of a drugged person.

   
That was the first image of the real Jack Ruby that day. Supposedly, he had just put on a Herculean struggle in the garage, and this was just moments after. Notice that Ruby looks totally docile, subdued, passive, and overcome. He also looks withdrawn. Notice that, unlike the others, he is NOT tuned in to what is going on. 

Now, I want you to think about something very carefully. As Ruby was walking along there to the elevator, reporter Bill Lords actually thought he was Oswald. Why would he think he was Oswald? You can't say he looked like Oswald. Right? It's because Ruby was so downtrodden, tired, weary, listless, that he seemed injured. Scopolamine does that. It is known to cause weakness and unusual tiredness.

Do you see how tired he looks?


And if you are tempted to say he's tired from the struggle, don't. It was only 20 seconds long. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the shooter did anything to exert himself during the struggle. He never threw a punch. He never threw a kick. So, what did he have to be tired about? This is drug-induced tiredness. 

2. Ruby had the affect of a drugged person.


That is not a normal facial expression for the circumstance. If Ruby had just fatally shot a man, and in the process destroyed his entire life, where he had now lost everything he held near and dear: his beloved Carousel Club, his beloved dogs, his cherished luncheons with his beloved sister, Eva; spending quality time with his brother Earl, being able to indulge cops and others in gratuities at the Carousel Club- he enjoyed acting like Diamond Jim, his high hopes about moving into a new, swanky apartment in Dallas, his dancers, having them at his beck and call, all of that and more was now lost to him forever. His life, as he knew it, was over. He had just lost everything. But, that blank, glassy, distant stare that we see reflects none of it, and it is indeed the sign of a drugged state. 

I have never seen anyone on Scopolamine, but I have seen people on other psych drugs, such as benzodiazepem tranquilizers, Trazadone, and particularly Buspirone, which is used to treat anxiety, and this look on him reminds me of that.

 3. Jack Ruby's complete lack of talkativeness on 11/24/63. The cops said he was a regular chatterbox, and one with bravado, saying things like "I hope the son of a bitch dies." I submit to you that they were lying, and this picture says that they were lying. There is an affect, an attitude, that goes along with that kind of talk, and it is completely missing from this man's face:


Have you ever seen a more passive and submissive person than this? I made this collage using a courtroom image of Ruby from a later time.

On the right: glassy, distant, zombie-like. 

Think about how it was in the hallways on 11/22 and 11/23. They were crammed with reporters. What did they do? They yelled questions at Oswald, and he often responded. Don't you think they did the same thing with Ruby? Why don't we have footage of Ruby in the hallways responding to reporters? Try to find it on Youtube. You can't. It's no accident. Ruby was so out of it mentally, that they didn't want to show it. That's why we don't have footage. HE WAS DRUGGED.

There is no recording of Jack Ruby speaking on 11/24/63. He was talkative by nature. He talked at the Midnight Press Conference. He went right up to District Attorney Henry Wade and talked to him. This docile, silent, totally subdued Ruby was inconsistent with the trash-talking Ruby that police claimed (and remember that I have already caught Dallas Police in multiple lies, including Leavelle, Graves, and Combest, to name to three. So, that they lied about Ruby's trash-talking about Oswald I strongly believe. Ruby's whole manner on 11/24/64 was inconsistent with himself and inconsistent with the circumstance that he was in. It points to a drugged state. Not his usual amphetamines, but Scopolamine. 





Thursday, July 20, 2017

First of all, Sparta, it is my contention that that figure on the left was NOT Jack Ruby. Jack Ruby was not at the Dallas PD at 2:00 PM on Friday. There are phone records from the Carousel Club which prove that he was on the phone talking to his sister Eva at 2:00. Ruby never claimed to go to the Dallas PD that afternoon. He did admit going to the Midnight Press Conference that night, but not to the PD that afternoon. And there are issues with that figure which conflict with Ruby.

But, regardless of all that, what is wrong with you? It is obvious and plain as day that those are two different men. Can't you see that the man on the left had a longer, narrower head? Can't you see that the man on the right is pudgy in comparison? Can't you see that his hair was longer at the bottom? Can't you see that he had a wider, rounder head? Do shapes escape you? 

And what do you think is making the color of their necks so different? The lighting? 

I think very few people would claim that those two are the same man. Do you want to bet? Let's make it a straight up bet. We'll present it to, say, 100 people, with NO EXPLANATION. We wouldn't want to bias them now, would we? Just going by the picture, is it the same man or not? I bet that more will say not. That's the bet. Now, are you interested or not? 

You did yourself and your case no good putting that up, Sparta. 
This is a very telling collage. Who matches the Garage Shooter in the back of his neck, James Bookhout or Jack Ruby?


This is a very clear image of Ruby posing in his cabana outfit. It's cropped at the bottom so that we can't see his black socks. 

When did they finally get him into that cabana outfit? It wasn't right away, and it may have been late in the day. Here he is being taken to Fritz' office at 3:00, and he is wearing his own dress shirt.

Notice that the collar of the shirt is not pressed down as we see in the cabana photo.

So, this is definitely his own shirt.


And then, when they brought him to his first hearing before a judge, he was still in his own shirt.

So, the changing into the cabana clothes must have come late, and it may have been done mainly for the sake of taking pictures. The claim that Ruby was immediately stripped of his clothes on the 5th floor is proven to be a lie. 
This image was taken on Main Street as the motorcade was approaching Dealey Plaza. You can see how far behind Hargis that Martin was, and he was NOT that far behind him when the Moorman photo was taken. He was practically even with him. But, notice that you can see Martin's right hand gripping the handlebar. That hand could enter the camera field of a photographer facing straight ahead before his left hand does, but only by a little bit. It's not as though his whole forearm could enter the picture before any of his left appears. But, that is what presents in the Moorman photo, and it is fake.

  Look at the other again and try to imagine how so much of his right side could appear without any of the left, even though the left was between what we see and the lens. 

Now listen up, enemies. I don't give a shit about your opinions or explanations. If you want to defend the validity of this:

you do it with a camera. You duplicate it. Stifle your lip-flapping. Don't tell. Show. 
This is the Moorman field as per Jack White, but I would say that it's a little bit off. The rectangular platform needed to be closer to the center, which means that the camera needed to be swung a little more left.


So, you see the two red lines coming down from the rectangular form that is left of center. Well, it should be a little closer to the center. 



I think I got closer. 


So, what did I do that he didn't do? I turned leftward a little more; that's all. He turned some. He definitely turned some because if you don't turn at all, you get a completely different field. It doesn't look anything like the Moorman photo.



That's how the background looks when you face Elm Street squarely and shoot, which is what Mary said she did. You can catch the right arm of the near rider before the left, but that's about the limit. Notice that the let hand is peaking in. But, this isn't the Moorman photo camera field, so it has no bearing. You start by reproducing the same camera field. Without that, you have nothing. And you have to turn left to do that. Not only did Mary say that she didn't turn left, that she shot straight, but there is no image of her from any film in which she appears to be turned left. And before you cite that frame from the Nix film, I'll remind you that she's not holding her camera to her face in that frame. So, it doesn't count either. You need a frame in which she is turned left and shooting the camera. You don't have it.


I want you to look at these camera field views in succession to see that the right hand entering the camera field before the left is real, but it is extremely limited. 


This assumes that the photographer is facing the street squarely.

This is the one in which the right arm has penetrated the camera field while the left has not yet done so. But, notice how close the left is to doing so. 

And now they are both in. You can see both in the picture. It isn't that we can see the whole right forearm before seeing any of the left, as seen here:


That is physically, photographically, and optically impossible, not to mention the preposterous distance between the windshield and the torso of the rider, which is implied. And you just have to look at the guy riding the riding lawnmower in the distance to know that. It's just a phony, altered, blood-soaked image crafted by killers, and to this day promoted by killers. 



I made a tri-collage of Doorman, Oswald, and Lovelady, and anyone who denies that Doorman was Oswald, upon seeing this, is 
just a festering sack of evil. 


If you can't see that that's Oswald and not Lovelady, NOTHING will convince you because you refuse to be convinced. You just don't want Oswald to be Doorman, and it's because of your wicked, evil soul. And these people know who I'm talking to. 

It should be obvious to any intelligent person that this image of BJ Martin is bogus because his torso is too far away from the windshield. I realize we can't see his torso, but we can see his forearm, and we know that his torso was behind it. It wasn't in front of it; it was behind it. So, if we put it behind it in our mind's eye, we realize how far away he was from the windshield.


That is impossible. Look at Cheney in the distance, riding his lawnmower. You know he wasn't that far from his windshield. It's just more JFK assassination photographic fakery, of which there is a ton. The JFK assassination has more photographic fakery than any event in human history. 
How come there is so little footage of Jack Ruby being led around the PD on 11/24? You recall how much there was of Oswald. So, why not something comparable for Ruby? 

If you do a Youtube search for Oswald at the PD, you pull up a ton of videos. A lot of it is repetitious, but even so. Try doing it for Ruby. I don't get anything. Nothing at all.

I recalled that there was a little such footage in the 1993 retrospective by Fred Rheinstein, entitled The Killing of Lee Harvey Oswald.


I presume that is the real Jack Ruby. It looks like him. That's the 3rd floor of the PD, and I believe what they are doing there is taking Ruby to Fritz' office. The time was reportedly 3:00. But, I notice that he's still wearing his own shirt. That is definitely NOT the cabana shirt.



So, as of 3:00, Ruby was still in his own clothes. But, that conflicts with the testimonies and with the jail record, which says that he was changed out of his clothes immediately. 


So, if he's still in his own shirt, and he is, then he must still be in his own underwear too, don't you think? You don't think they changed his underwear without changing his shirt, do you?  But, this followed his processing at the 5th floor jail at which his property invoice was made, which included 1 set underwear: 


Look at that! It even says that they took his white dress shirt, yet, there he is still wearing it hours later. 


That is definitely his own shirt. It is NOT the cabana shirt. You can't tell me they gave out shirts like that to prisoners at the Dallas PD. Well, actually, they didn't give out any shirts to prisoners at the Dallas PD, and they still don't. I called and talked to the jailer.

So, there is Jack Ruby wearing his own shirt, and I can pretty well guarantee you that he was wearing his own underwear.  

So, they lied about changing his underwear. They had to because the socks of the Garage Shooter conflicted with Ruby's socks. So, they had to make it that after Ruby fatally shot Oswald, the Dallas Police said to him, "Take it off, Jack. Take it all off. We need everything. Give us your soiled drawers. Get naked, Jack." That, reportedly, is the story of what transpired. 

But, I digress. I didn't come here to talk about that this evening. I came to talk about his expression.


 It isn't normal- not for a man who has just fatally shot another man and thereby destroyed his own life as thoroughly and completely as anyone could. Right there and then, Jack Ruby had lost everything. Everything! His beloved Carousel Club. His beloved dogs. Lunches with his beloved sister Eva. The new swanky apartment he was dying to move into. All gone. Everything shot to hell. What he had left to live for and to look forward to now was NOTHING. And yet, look at the expression on his face. Is it appropriate? No, it is not. Look at his eyes, how spacey and unfocused they look. Notice how both cops, the one in uniform and the one in a suit, look focused. But, Ruby looks zombied; he looks out of it; he looks disconnected from reality- the situation he was in. HE WAS! And it was drug-induced. 

Now keep in mind that Ruby continued to be drugged. And what maddens me is that the State, which was prosecuting him for murder and threatening him with the death penalty, was running his medical care, choosing his doctor, etc. That Ruby's lawyers allowed that is an outrage. I just came upon a statement tonight that was issued by a leading polygraph examiner who said that it would be a waste of time to administer a polygraph test to Jack Ruby because of his mental impairment and because of the drugs he was taking. And that was months after this. 

But, here's another interesting thing. Look how gentle Jack Ruby looks in this image.


Does he look like someone who just shortly before was fighting against police in the garage? And putting on a Herculean battle at that, where it took 12 of them to subdue him? And then, according to them, the cops, he started talking trash, saying things like "I hope the son-of-a-bitch dies." Remember, there is an affect that goes along with such words. Are you seeing that affect on the face of Jack Ruby above? Do you think maybe the cops lied? I do. I don't see those words coming out of this guy's mouth. Do you?

The only other image I have of Jack Ruby at the Dallas PD on 11/24/63 is this one.


This is the one in which he should be in a jacket because, supposedly, they just brought him in from the garage where he was wearing a jacket, and there is NO CHANCE that they removed it. But, look how out of it Ruby is here. If he really shot Oswald, don't you think he would have been interested in looking down at Oswald's body like the cop next to him is doing? But, Jack Ruby just walks along like he's sleep-walking. I'm telling you: he was out of it. He He was spaced out. He was drugged. 

And that's it. I have no other images of Jack Ruby at the Dallas PD on 11/24. Why is that? He was marched around the halls, and they were packed with reporters and photographers. And recall what they did with Oswald: they shouted questions at him. Don't you think they did that with Ruby too? "Why'd you do it, Jack?" And what was Ruby's response. We don't know. Did he ever say anything publicly on 11/24/64? We just don't know.  

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

Here's a brand-new collage using an image you have never seen before. 


I did this collage mainly[ to show how well the ears match. And remember, the only alternative is this:


So, whose ears match to Doorman? Oswald's or Lovelady's? It is a staggering demonstration. After seeing this, one has to be pretty damn evil to continue claiming that Doorman was Lovelady. 
I've got it! I know how they got Jack Ruby to go to the garage! It was a drug! Scopolamine!

It's been around since the 1800s- and actually much longer than that because it is naturally-occurring. It's from the nightshade family. It's odorless and tasteless. They could have slipped in his drink. And it makes a person like a zombie. 

"The drug puts people into a zombie-like state in which they lose both their memory and free will and can be convinced to empty their bank accounts or hand over the keys to their apartments and cars."

"Scopolamine blocks neurotransmitters that carry information to the part of the brain that stores short-term memory, said Dr. Camilo Uribe, who heads the toxicology unit at San Jose University Hospital and is a leading expert on the drug. In other words, what happens to people under the effect of scopolamine is simply not recorded by the brain. At the same time, the drug makes people more open to suggestions."

The Nazis used it, and the CIA was also known to use it.  

"Nazi "angel of death" Josef Mengele used scopolamine in interrogations as a kind of truth serum. The CIA administered doses of the drug during its controversial behavioral-engineering experiments in the 1950s, according to John D. Marks' book, "The Search for the 'Manchurian Candidate.'"
"Victims have even been convinced to carry out crimes while under the effects of the drug. 'I can give you a gun and tell you to go kill someone and you will do it,” Uribe said.'"
I don't think for one second that they ordered Ruby to shoot. They weren't going to have this intoxicated person actually shooting a gun. In fact, someone may have made sure that his gun was empty- just in case.  I think they just ordered him to go to the garage.  They got scopolamine into him, and then they had someone at the WU office suggest that he go down to the ramp Then, they had someone at the ramp suggest that he walk down it. Remember: there was no reason for any spectators to be gathered at that ramp. There was nothing to see there; it was an incoming ramp. Oswald wasn't coming out there. They were just there for Ruby.   

Of course, this was 30 minutes to an hour BEFORE the televised spectacle. Jack Ruby was not in the garage during the televised spectacle. There are no images of him there. By then, Ruby was being held up on the 5th floor- and they were waiting to carefully insert him into the unfolding story. 
"You can guide them wherever you want,’ he explained. ‘It’s like they’re a child."
"The drug, he said, turns people into complete zombies and blocks memories from forming. So even after the drug wears off, victims have no recollection as to what happened."
Doesn't that describe Jack Ruby as he was led around the police station on 11/24/63? He was docile. He was passive. He was blank. Look at the size of his pupils. They're dilated! It's a side effect of scopolamine. 


"In modern times, the CIA used the drug as part of Cold War interrogations, with the hope of using it like a truth serum."
"Scopolamine also has a history as a mind control drug, dating back to Nazi Germany used as a truth serum and to American CIA use for mind control. It has been used during child birth, as a sleep aid, anti-depressant and more recently for motion sickness, such as for those taking a cruise. It is currently used by NASA for motion sickness. But the dosage use for legal uses is .33 milligrams. Used in high doses of 5-7 milligrams it can render a victim into a zombie state."
This makes perfect sense. They used Karen Carlin as a pretext to get Ruby to the Western Union office. They knew he was going to be there. George Senator, his roommate, knew it. Ruby was drugged with scopolamine. They had someone there to suggest that he go to the ramp, and then they had someone at the ramp to suggest that he walk down the ramp. Spectators should NOT have been there. They had no reason to be there. It was an incoming ramp. They were just there for Ruby, to coax him down the ramp. 
This is it! I kept wondering: how did they do it? How did they get Ruby to go to that garage?  I kept wondering why Jack Ruby walked down the ramp when he had no reason to and couldn't remember why he did it. Someone at the ramp must have "suggested" that he do it, and under the influence of scopolamine, he took the suggestion- like a zombie.     


I want you to look at these two images of Jack Ruby. The one on the left is reportedly when he was just brought into the jail office from the garage, where he was handcuffed and then led to the elevator to be taken up to the 5th floor. The one on the right is his mug shot taken a short while later. 

Obviously, there is a big difference in the hair. Obviously, they let him tidy up before his mug shot. But, I have to wonder because if he started with what we see on the left, and he just took a comb to it, I don't think he could get it to lie so flat like that. To me, on the right, his hair looks slicked down, at least with water, and maybe with some kind of hair cream. But, in such a situation, how could so much attention be given to his hair? It looks like an awful lot of primping to me. Why, at a time like that, would Jack Ruby be concerned about how his hair looked? 

I have already told you that Ruby was brought down from the 5th floor for this, which is where he was during the televised spectacle, and they mistakenly left his jacket up there. But, I'm thinking that they deliberately mussed his hair like that- just to make it look like he had been through a ruckus. And then likewise, the grooming of his hair which followed was their doing too. Ruby was out of it mentally the whole time. He never had anything to say. He was completely passive. Completely submissive. You can't tell me that he said to them, "Now listen, I have to do something about my hair. I can't have a mug shot taken in this condition." No, it was their doing. The whole thing was staged and choreographed. Don't you get it? It was all theater.   
Response to another researcher:

Thank you, ZZZ.  I will take a look at that. As far as my blog goes, I sometimes, well often, need to refer to something that I posted long ago, and the way I get to it is by doing a Google search for it, where I type in "Oswald in the doorway Ralph Cinque Jack Ruby handcuffed" or whatever, and I can usually find what I'm looking for that way.  

Another very strange thing is that you had all these movie cameras filming throughout the ruckus, which lasted, what about 20 seconds, and nobody caught even a glimpse of Oswald being carried into the jail office. Try to imagine how large an object two men carrying a third man would be. How is it that not even a small piece of that got filmed?

Now, as far as the "rehearsal," as you call it, meaning the one with Ruby, I presume it occurred anywhere from half an hour to one hour before the televised one. I place a lot of significance on Ruby having cited the time of his WU visit as 10:15. He was immediately corrected, of course, but even so.  And then, I discovered that Ruby's so-called "deathbed confession" was edited. Even though it was between him and his brother and his lawyer, it was edited, as in shortened. The audio version contains no reference to the time, but the printed transcript has him saying that it was 11:15. What if he said 10:15 again?

Ruby reported recognizing NO ONE in the garage when he was there. But, why should that have been the case? There were people there at the televised spectacle who knew him, which means that he knew them, including cops and reporters. But, the only name that Ruby could cite was Officer Sam Pierce who was stopped at the head of the ramp when Ruby was there. This suggests to me that they had different people populating the garage for the rehearsal. And then, Ruby said that when police pounced on him, he immediately began saying, "What are you doing? This is me, Jack Ruby. You know me." But, we know very well that the Garage Shooter at the televised spectacle didn't do that. He didn't say anything. He was mute. 

So, there is a lot I don't know, such as the exact time, but I have no doubt that Ruby got there early; he was pounced upon; taken away; and taken up to the 5th floor, which is where he was during the televised spectacle, until they mistakenly brought him down in just his shirt, leaving his jacket upstairs. Ralph 



Jack Ruby described what Officer Roy Vaughan and Lt. Sam Pierce were doing at the head of the ramp. He said that Vaughan (although Ruby didn't know his name) was leaning into the car and talking to Sam Pierce (whose name Ruby knew). 

Since there was a crowd there, and Vaughan's assignment was to keep people out, how long would he take his eyes off the ramp? But, the way it was put to us, and the way it was shown in the tv movie Ruby and Oswald, is that Vaughan was helping Pierce exit onto Main Street, that he moved forward to the street to uphold the traffic so that Pierce could get out. And you see that happen in the movie. But, Ruby didn't say anything about that. He just said that Pierce was stopped, as in parked, at the head of the ramp, and that Vaughan was talking to him. 

Again, at a time like that, when Vaughan had the crucial assignment of making sure no one entered, how long would he diddle with Pierce chewin' the cud? What did they have to talk about?

Pierce: You keepin' people out?

Vaughan: Yeah. Nobody's getting in here on my watch.

Pierce: Good. You doing alright? How's the family?

Vaughan: Ahh, mostly all right. My kid has got an ear infection, but, you know, it happens. 

Pierce: May that be the worst thing that ever happens to him. By the way, what are these people doing here? This is an incoming ramp. Is there someone they're expecting?

Vaughan: Beats me. I have no idea. People: they're the worst.

Pierce: Tell me about it. Well, I guess I better head out. Time's a'wasting.  You stay sharp. 

 Vaughan: As you say, Sir. 

Let's remember that Ruby saw and recognized Pierce. And Pierce knew Ruby. So, doesn't it seem likely that Pierce would also recognize Ruby? Was this really a situation in which both Pierce and Vaughan were tuned out, that is, tuned-in to each other, such that they missed seeing Ruby? Why would anyone not have doubts about that? This was a police operation, a high-intensity "secure the zone" operation. Aren't police supposed to be disciplined? Aren't they supposed to be thorough? Aren't they supposed to be highly observant? Again: this is something that an 80 year old Walmart greeter could have done. But, two cops couldn't? 

Joseph Backes says that the Dallas Police were complicit with Ruby, that Fritz positioned himself to give Ruby an opening to get to Oswald. Well, in that case, isn't it reasonable to assume that the Dallas Police let Ruby into the garage? Why would Fritz leave an opening for Ruby to get to Oswald without first leaving an opening for Ruby to get into the garage? So, even the Idiot Backes has every good reason to believe that Vaughan and Pierce allowed Ruby to enter.   







Jack Ruby brought his dog along. Do you realize the significance of that? It means he could not have had any plan to shoot Oswald. Because: if he planned to shoot Oswald, then he would have known that he wasn't going home. Ever. Therefore, not only would he have not brought one of his beloved dogs along, but he would have made arrangements for their care- permanently. He would have found another home for them. Did I mention that he loved his dogs? 

So, the fact that Ruby brought his beloved dog along is proof-positive that he had no plan to shoot Oswald, that the idea was absent from his mind. Therefore, Joseph Backes' idea that Ruby colluded with Dallas Police to kill Oswald, that Fritz moved out of the way to give Ruby an opening, is ridiculous. Ridiculous and stupid. 

Ruby did not collude with the Dallas Police. He didn't collude with anyone. He didn't even collude with himself. Did you know that that very afternoon, he planned to start moving into a swanky new apartment?  I think it was called 21 Trinity.

Every indication says that Jack Ruby had every expectation and intention of going on with his life, not utterly destroying it. You realize, don't you, that shooting Oswald was tantamount to committing suicide. Really, it was worse than suicide. Don't you think Ruby would have been better off if he had died on 11/24/64 rather than live three more miserable years? So, what he got for shooting Oswald was worse than death. The idea that he planned it is preposterous.

Officer Ray Vaughan was assigned to guard the Main Street ramp, to keep people out, which was something that an 80 year old Walmart greeter could do. And then Lt. Sam Pierce showed up in a police car, and they were both there when Ruby walked in. They didn't see him. Even though they were on high-alert to secure that garage and had been all morning, they just didn't see him. But, what about the others? If the security was that high, and reportedly it was, then how is it that a man walking down the Main Street ramp wasn't noticed by anybody in the garage? It was swarming with cops, right? And some of them were facing Main Street, such as Lowery, Combest, and that bunch. Think about how much a sole figure walking down that ramp would stick out. And remember nobody came in that way, prior to that. It's not as though any of the reporters or cameramen entered that way. So, it's not just that Vaughan and Pierce missed seeing Ruby, and it's not just that none of the spectators at the Main Street ramp alerted them even though they knew that no one was supposed to enter, it's also that no one in the garage saw Ruby coming down the ramp and joining the group so late. His movement didn't attract anyone's attention. And this was a garage that was loaded with police- police who were on high-alert.

Doesn't it seem like someone would have been assigned to keep scanning the area, to look for intruders, to try to spot someone sneaking in? How could Ruby be invisible to Vaughan and Pierce and then to everyone in the cubbyhole? The time that Ruby should have been spotted was when he was MOVING. Our visual mechanism is innately sensitive to MOVING objects. So, Ruby is coming down that ramp and joining the group, and nobody spotted him as he was MOVING? That's hard to believe. And remember, they were all on high-alert. There were over 100 phone calls to the PD threatening Oswald's life. That's what we were told. So, wouldn't they be especially honed? 

Beforehand, Detective Blackie Harrison was looking around, scanning the area. And there, he is turned towards the Main Street ramp. So, is the other cop in the fedora hat. 




But, no cop at the top of the ramp noticed Ruby, and there were 2, and no cop at the bottom of the ramp noticed Ruby, and there were 20. He went unseen by all of them, even though they were all, supposedly, on high-alert for someone exactly like him.

There was a collusion going on, but it did not involve Jack Ruby. He was NOT party to it. He was the object of it. And if you believe the official story of what happened there, then you are just being a naive chump.  

Yesterday, I watched an interview of an early Oswald defender, someone whom I greatly respect. And he made this comment: that the only part of the official story of what happened that weekend that is true is the part about Jack Ruby shooting Oswald. And then he added that it's something we all saw on television. NO! We all saw somebody go through the motions of shooting Oswald on television, but it wasn't Jack Ruby. NOT ONLY IS THERE A LACK OF VISUAL DATA POINTS TO JACK RUBY, BUT THE FEW DATA POINTS THERE ARE CONFLICT WITH JACK RUBY. For instance, the shooter's height, which is too short, and the condition of the back of his neck, where his neck is too short, and it is too cleanly razored. It is absolutely certain that he wasn't Jack Ruby. 

That Jack Ruby was not the Garage Shooter is as certain as that Oswald was standing in the doorway during the shooting. Both are iron-clad facts. 

 

Comments
Rose Riker His ears stick out way more than Oswald's and they're a different shape also.
LikeShow more reactions
ReplyMessage1 hr
Manage
Oswald Innocence Campaign Thank you, Rose.
LikeShow more reactions
ReplyJust now