Why do people have so much difficulty accepting Jack Ruby's innocence? And innocence of everything, of him not having killed Oswald, and not having anything to do with killing JFK. Those who think that Ruby was involved in the killing of Kennedy must think that he was one hell of an actor because, repeatedly, he broke down, emotionally, in talking about President Kennedy, about how much he admired him and really loved him. And I don't say that he used the word "love," but he implied that he felt like he lost someone he loved. That came through. So, how could he emote like that if he was actually involved in killing the man? If Ruby was involved in killing him, then he deserves an Academy Award for Best Actor.
But, I am going to provide an explanation as to why people have so much difficulty, and it really comes down to distance: the distance from what they have always believed to what I am asking them to believe. It's just too great a distance for them to go.
There is an analogy I can make to piano playing. A lot of piano players, and I mean amateur hacks like me, are comfortable playing in the middle of the keyboard, but if they have to hit a note or a chord that's way high up in the octaves, or way down low in the octaves, that they're not comfortable doing it. It's too far to go, and they lose their bearing.
Well, there is so much distance in going from Ruby having done it, and supposedly with photographic and film evidence, and also supposedly with his admission, that the idea of his innocence is just too far to go. They shut down. They just close their minds. They just apply the lunacy banner to it, and then they become like the monkeys who speak no evil, see no evil, and hear no evil.
But, let's look at those assumptions upon which the rejection is based. Are there films and photos of Ruby shooting Oswald? There are films and photos of a short, stocky guy, whose face we can hardly see, and whose hat is also obscuring his face, shooting Oswald, but the amount of visual data on him is limited. We never see his face straight on in the garage. It's always obscured to us. And when you take that limited data of his distinguishing features, and you compare them to Jack Ruby, you realize that they are NOT a match.
For now, let's just use one example. We can see the Shooter's hair in back below his hat. It's one of the most distinguishing things we see about him. So, we can take that visual information and compare it to the visual information we have on Jack Ruby on the same day.
So, that is the Shooter on the left, with his long hair in back that is curling up at the bottom, the very straight horizontal hairline, and below it a clean neck. But, in Ruby's mug shot on the right, we see that his hair in back was shorter, but he had a lot of scruffy hair growth that went all the way down to his collar. So, they certainly had different hair in back. And you know something? That alone settles it. Different hair means different men. So, without going any further, without comparing anything else, we have already established that Ruby was not the shooter. But note that there is more. The Shooter was too short to be Ruby. He was too fat to be Ruby. And more.
And what about the idea that Ruby admitted shooting Oswald? That's false too. Ruby ACCEPTED that he shot Oswald because he was told that he did. But, he had no memory of doing it, no intention of doing it, and there is nothing about his actions beforehand that support the idea that he had any such intention. Who brings his dog along to a killing?
The bottom line is that the idea of Jack Ruby innocence seems, at first, to be extreme. But, it is not extreme; it is well supported; well grounded. But, if you are going to close your mind to it and shut down examining it before you even start, because you think it's so preposterous, then you'll never budge. You'll remain mired in delusion- forever. And that is a pity.