I know it’s daunting to hear that the Dallas Police killed Oswald. Your gut reaction wants to reject it for being too extreme.  But, say no to that. And think about what you know they did. They turned transferring Oswald to the County Jail into a media circus. They did that even knowing that there were threats against him. They said 100 people called threatening to kill Oswald, but that doesn’t make sense. When have criminals ever called the police to give them a heads-up about a crime they were about to commit? Never. That’s not how criminals behave.

Then, they said that Ruby snuck past Officer Roy Vaughn at the ramp, but Vaughn sued them over that. And they settled with him out of court. They paid him money.

They said the jail transfer would be at 10, but it was an hour and twenty minutes later, at 11:20. And they never gave a reason for the delay.

Ruby said he sent his money wire at 10:17. He told that to the Warren Commissioners, and it’s in the record. So, that would have put him in the basement at 10:20. He said that all he could remember was the police jumping him, and he didn’t know why. And he spoke: “What are you doing? You know me. I’m Jack Ruby.” And the detectives admitted that he said that. But, if you watch the films, you’ll see that the Shooter never spoke. He shot Oswald (or pretended to); then he jumped in front of him, to put his back to the camera. And then, he dove into the arms of the cops. He went to them. He dove into them. He literally dove. When has any other criminal done that?  But, he never said anything. And the reporters said afterwards that the Shooter never spoke, which is in the KRLD footage. So, the Shooter that we know never said a word, but Ruby spoke.

Vaughn and Ruby had different accounts of what happened at the top of the ramp: Vaughn said Pierce never stopped and they never talked; Ruby said that Pierce was “parked” at the top of the ramp, and an officer on foot was leaning into his window talking to him. These are not things that either of them would have lied about. It suggests that the Vaughn and Ruby were there at different times, and neither encountered the other. And you have good reason to believe that because Vaughn was a strapping 29 year old officer who went on to become a police chief, and the idea that Jack Ruby slipped past him at an 8 foot wide ramp is preposterous. Why believe the Dallas Police?  I believe Vaughn, and I believe Ruby.

And why didn’t the Dallas Police handcuff the Shooter in the garage? Why did they dance him into the Jail Office without doing that? And how did the officers involved know what to do? Nobody gave any direction. No one was in command. Doesn’t it seem that some of them would have had the thought to whip out their cuffs and handcuff the Shooter in the garage? And how did they all know to take him in through the corner door? Why not use the wide double doors? Wouldn’t that have been easier? How could they all do what they did without any direction? Did they have ESP? Could they read each other’s minds? We are talking about a coordinated action that presumably was not planned in advance, yet, it must have been planned in advance. Coordinated actions don’t happen without planning.

There is a very strange response by Jim Leavelle in this video at 2:53. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxKEzFH_OHY&t=175s He said that after trying to jerk Oswald behind him (which he did try to do) he reached up and tried to take hold of Jack Ruby’s left shoulder with his right hand. This is Leavelle demonstrating.

Leavelle bold-faced lied. And then at 4:04, Leavelle said that “I immediately picked Oswald up with another officer I don’t remember who that was.”

You notice the lack of punctuation there, and it’s no accident because that’s exactly how Leavelle said it:  without pausing. But think about it.  If he was recalling it, wouldn’t he try to remember who it was? Frankly, I don’t think it's possible that he didn't rememer. But, my point is that he already had the thought in his mind that he couldn’t remember. He had already decided that he was going to say that, that he couldn’t remember. And the reason he said it is because no other officer helped him. He never picked Oswald up. Oswald wasn’t shot in the garage, and he went into the Jail office on his own power, behind the wall of people they sent running out in front of the camera to obscure the view. It was a human curtain. Think how big an object two men carrying another man would be. But, it was never captured, presumably because of the wave of men who suddenly appeared, totally blocking the view. And when it finally cleared, it was all over.

I don’t say that the Dallas Police decided on their own to kill Oswald.  I tell you that LBJ put them up to it. LBJ’s top henchman Cliff Carter was on the phone with Fritz 11x on Friday afternoon. and that was before cell phones. That is documented in Phil Nelson’s LBJ: MASTERMIND OF THE JFK ASSASSINATION. And LBJ was very cozy with the Dallas Police. He hired Detectives Elmer Boyd and Richard Sims to be his personal bodyguards whenever he came to Dallas. The last time had been in April 1963. Fritz' men were all WW2 vets, including Fritz himself, and LBJ was their Commander in Chief. I’m sure he gave them the spiel about civil war, economic collapse, war with the Soviet Union, and a 100 million dead. They never would have done it on their own accord. But, when your Commander in Chief gives you a mission to do, you do it. And their belief that Oswald had killed their police brother JD Tippit greased the wheels. Of course, Oswald did not kill Tippit, and he was never at 8^th and Patton.

After the garage cleared and everything settled down, two minutes passed before we heard or saw anything. The WFAA footage within the Jail Office began 2 minutes after the shooting. What happened in those 2 minutes? That’s when they got a bullet into Oswald.  And it’s in that footage that we see Ruby being taken to the elevator in only his unbuttoned shirt and no jacket, even though the detectives testified that they handcuffed him in his jacket and didn’t remove his jacket until they got him upstairs.

Ruby was hapless and hopeless. He was totally docile and non-violent. Every last thing you’ve heard about Ruby being in the Mafia is a lie.  I admit that my capacity for violence is much higher than Ruby’s.  I would never initiate violence against anyone, but if someone got violent with me, or got violent with someone else in my presence, I would act quickly, and I wouldn’t hold back. Jack Ruby had no such impulses. He was NOT a violent man.

I have been telling you the truth that Ruby got to the garage an hour early, where he was jumped and taken up to the 5^th floor. There he was told that he shot Oswald.  And Ruby, being totally docile and submissive, and pathologically respectful of the Dallas Police, accepted it just because they said it. He said he NEVER had any thought to hurt Oswald that whole weekend. The ONLY reason he accepted that he did it was because the Dallas Police said so, and he had no ability to defy them; to stand up to them, to dispute it. He just couldn’t do it. He was just so very obsequious and submissive.

Both Oswald and Ruby were innocent. Oswald was standing in the doorway during the shots.  Ruby was in custody up on the 5^th floor during the Garage Spectacle. The plotters needed Oswald dead because they knew he didn’t kill JFK and the case against him would never hold up in court. Not even the rifle could have held up in court because Oswald never mail-ordered one from Chicago. Read John Armstrong.

https://harveyandlee.net/Guns/Guns.html

In 2 days, it’s the 62^nd anniversary. Join me in saying: Stop the Lies! Oswald outside! And Ruby was innocent.

 Billy Lovelady never claimed that he was Doorman. It was other people claiming it and speaking for him. It's very troubling that they didn't put him in front of cameras and microphones at the beginning because they were claiming that he looked so much like Oswald that his step-children, and even his own wife, mistook Oswald for him. Of course, it wasn't true. Lovelady was 5'8" 170 pounds according to the FBI, while according to the Dallas Police, Oswald was 5'9, 131 pounds. Might as well say that Laurel and Hardy looked like twins.

 Lovelady testified to the Warren Commission, and that's what he was questioned about. At any time, he could have said that he was Doorman, but he didn't. And it's freaky how it went because, with other witnesses, Attorney Joseph Ball pointed to Doorman and asked, "Who is that?" But, he didn't do that with Lovelady. But they were looking at the photograph, and at any time, Lovelady could have pointed to Doorman and said, "That's me." But, he didn't. It was more like a chess game in which Ball asked Lovelady to draw an arrow to himself, and he gave him a photograph that already had an arrow on it, one that Frazier had drawn, with the arrow pointed at Doorman. I guess that was supposed to be a hint. I'm sure Lovelady got the message, but he just wasn't going to go along.

Instead, he drew an arrow to headless man who was visoring his eyes. Think about the irony of that. There was so much light streaming into his eyes that it was blinding him, yet, his entire head was in a black hole as he visored. Only in the JFK assassination do things like that happened. But, Lovelady did draw a little arrow, not pointing to Doorman, but to Black Hole Man, to indicate himself. So, that was Lovelady telling us and the world that he wasn't Doorman. I will attach the image.

  In 1967, CBS was doing a 4 hour Special on the JFK assassination, and they planned a whole segment on the Doorman controversy. They brought Lovelady down from Colorado, where he had moved after coming into wealth after the assassination. CBS photographed him, and they interviewed him. It was the first and only time that Lovelady submitted to a press interview. And after interviewing him, they took the action of destroying the interview and canceling the Doorman segment. They didn't mention him or Doorman in the 4 hour program at all. What did he tell him? We don't know, but it obviously wasn't what they wanted to hear.

 Then, 10 years later, the HSCA was tackling the Doorman controversy again. They brought in anthropologists to study the photos and take "anthropomorphic" measurements of Oswald and Lovelady, using photos. So, they were taking precise measurements even though a photo is a 2-dimensional rendering of 3-dimensional object. But, in the end, they said that Doorman was too blurry to take any measurements. But, what was the point of measuring at all if it didn't include him?

 But, Oswald was dead. Only Lovelady was alive. So, wouldn't it have made sense to interview Lovelady after swearing him under oath? But, after HSCA Attorney Ken Brooten went to visit Lovelady in Colorado, he told the HSCA, "you don't want to interview this guy." And they didn't. They never gave a reason. They just didn't interview him.

But, when they released their Final Report in January 1979, that is right when Lovelady suddenly died of a heart attack at the age of 41. It's unusual to get a heart attack that young, and it's even more rare for it to be fatal. But, in his case, it was. Of course, you know about the heart attack gun. Did you watch the Church Committee tapes about it? They could shoot you with a tiny frozen dart that contained a poison that would induce a heart attack or mimic one. That's why they called it the heart attack gun. But, they could also load it with a nerve agent, and that's what they did when they shot JFK in the back with it on Elm Street. The shot came from the open 2nd floor window in the Dal-Tex building when he was high on the hill; barely out of the intersection. But, in Lovelady's case, they induced a heart attack and that's what silenced him forever.

 Don't listen to the shills. Listen to me. I am telling you the truth that Oswald was the Altgens Doorman, and they have been lying to us about it for 62 years. You can readily see the matching features between Oswald and Doorman, but they are also wearing the same clothes: Oswald's unusual Russian shirt brought back with him from Russia, with most of the buttons missing, and also a stretched, tattered t-shirt. Both are wearing that exact outfit. It is insane to deny that they are the same person.

 Stop the lies! Oswald outside! Don’t listen to the Ops. Listen to me. I am telling you the truth. It is as certain that Oswald was the one standing in the Doorway as it is that Christ was nailed to the Cross on Calvary.  

In 4 days it is going to be 62^nd anniversary. Be brave; be strong; be fearless, and declare Oswald in the doorway because that is where he was during the shooting of JFK.

 On the  left is Ruby in the Jail Office, shortly after the shooting, when he was being taken upstairs. But, we have testimony from three detectives: Clardy, Archer, and McMillan, who said that when they got inside, the first thing they did was push Ruby to the floor and handcuff him. They didn’t say they removed his jacket first. In fact, they said that they didn’t remove his jacket until they got upstairs. So, how can this image of Ruby, handcuffed in the Jail Office without his jacket, be real? And the very idea that they would remove his jacket before handcuffing him is absurd. 

But, there are other problems with that image. Ruby’s hair doesn’t look right. It is the only image in which he appears to have thick, woolly patches of hair between a lake of baldness. His hair wasn’t like that, and there are no other images of him like that. But, it is just one of many weird and unique images of Ruby’s hair.  The center image is him the next morning, and in it, he has long ropy hair. That isn’t real either.  In those days, “retouching” was done with paint and brush, and every artist did it their own way.

They  had to give Ruby hair because he was mostly bald, while the Shooter had thick, dense, matted hair that I believe was a wig.

But, there is more. Why is Ruby’s shirt unbuttoned on the left? I think the idea is that his buttons were ripped off during the scuffle.  You better hope it’s that because otherwise it means they unbuttoned his shirt to stage this.  So, were his buttons ripped off?  Absolutely not because on the right, it’s him later that afternoon with his shirt looking neat and buttoned.  And you can’t tell me they sewed his buttons back on.  So, his buttons weren’t ripped off, which means that what we are seeing on the left is staging. And how could they have been ripped off when he was wearing a jacket during the scuffle? 

But, let’s keep going because there is more. Why does he look so portly on the left? He doesn’t look that way in the center or right. He’s got a protruding abdomen, a baggy neck, like he’s got a goiter, and his back is hunched. He looks very different physically than he does in the other images.

Finally, look at him on the left and on the right, which was a few hours later.  Isn’t that quite a makeover?  Doesn’t he look all disheveled and sloppy on the left? So, how did he get to looking so GQ on the right? Did they actually give him a makeover? It’s not in the record. There are two books that detail what happened to Ruby after his arrest. One is Vincent Bugoliosi’s RECLAIMING HISTORY and the other is Elmer Getz’ MOMEN OF MADNESS, and neither one says anything about a makeover. So, how did Ruby get all clean and groomed? A comb wasn’t listed among his possessions.

Almost everything you’ve been told about Ruby is a lie. He was not a Mafioso. He did not stalk Oswald. He never ran guns to Cuba. He did not shoot Oswald. He was not in the garage at the time. The guy masquerading as him was FBI Agent James Bookhout. Ruby got to the basement an hour before, and he told the Warren Commissioners that he sent the money wire at 10:17. He was being held up on the 5^th floor in his underwear at the time of the Garage Spectacle.

So, the Dallas Police killed Oswald, and LBJ put them up to it. The plotters knew beforehand that they had to kill Oswald.  They knew they could never try him.  He didn’t even own a rifle. The whole story about him having mail-ordered one from Chicago is a lie. You only have to read John Armstrong to know that.

  https://harveyandlee.net/Guns/Guns.html

Not only could they not try him, they couldn’t even let him see a lawyer. If they did, they would have had to kill the lawyer. They had to get him killed before he talked to a lawyer.

But, Oswald did so much damage at the Midnight Press Conference that they couldn’t kill him until they faked his meeting with Attorney H Louis Nichols, where Oswald supposedly turned down his offer for a lawyer. That never happened. Nichols met with an Oswald double. And Nichols was oblivious to it. He was totally bamboozled.

The Dallas Police shot Oswald after the theatrics in the Garage. Again, it wasn’t their idea;  LBJ put them up to it. And I can just imagine what he told them: that there will be chaos; the economy will collapse; there will be civil war; there will be war with the Soviet Union, and 100 million will die. He often spouted that to get people to do what he wanted. That included Earl Warren.  

It's true what I have been telling you that Jack Ruby was innocent. You only have to compare images of Ruby to the Garage Shooter to see that they were different men.

Our Government and Media have been lying to us about this for 62 years. The 62^nd commemoration is just a week away. Let’s draw a line in the sand. Oswald and Ruby were both innocent, and a cabal within the national security establishment killed both JFK and Oswald, and that included Vice President Lyndon Johnson.  If we have any self-respect at all, we will demand that the lies stop now.

 If Ruby was ordered by the Mafia to shoot Oswald, why did he bring his dog along? Doesn't the fact that he brought his dog along prove that he had no intention of shooting Oswald?

And let's continue comparing Ruby to the Shooter because that's what matters; not the lipflapping. And here we can see that Ruby and the Shooter were very different and nothing alike. Ruby, on the right, had a much longer neck; his hair in back was very different; he wasn't round and pudgy like the Garage Shooter; and the shape of his head was entirely different. These are, most certainly, two different men. You'd have to be out of your mind to claim that they are the same man. And it proves that Ruby was not the Shooter.

I am not suggesting it. I am saying that it's certain that Ruby was not the Shooter because the images say he wasn't. And nothing else matters.

Jack Ruby got to the garage an hour before the televised spectacle, and I can prove it.  First, there is the fact that Ruby told the Warren Commissioners that he sent the money wire at 10:17.  Right away, a Secret Service agent from San Francisco, who was not in Texas at the time, softly and gently corrected him. Ruby didn’t argue with him, but he didn’t relent either. He just didn’t respond. But, there is no chance that Ruby lied. He surely believed he sent the money wire at 10:17.

Second is the timeline. Ruby said he got up early Sunday morning. He didn’t give a time, but let’s say 8 because anything after 8 isn’t early. He said he fixed some breakfast and watched his favorite rabbi on tv, and also browsed the newspaper as he ate.  A call came in from Karen Carlin but they didn’t talk long because they had already talked the night before about her financial situation and need for an advance.  

So, how much time had elapsed since he got up early? It couldn’t have been more than an hour. So, if he got up at 8, it was 9. Do you know how far the drive was to Western Union? It was 5 minutes at the most. I put it in MapQuest. And remember that traffic was much lighter in 1963 than today. And it was a Sunday morning, which is one of the lightest traffic times of the week.

So, what time would he have gotten there? It seems like he could have gotten there by 9:30, but, let’s add a buffer of 30 minutes. That would make it 10:00.  And that works out perfectly for him to have sent the money wire at 10:17.

But, you can’t slap another hour into that timeline, not when he said he got up early, and only had to get dressed, eat breakfast, and talk to Karen Carlin briefly before leaving.

In her WC testimony, Karen was pressured to say that she called at 10 or later, but she was very reluctant to commit to that.

Mr. Hubert. Would you be able to say with any degree of accuracy that it could not have been earlier than 10?
Mrs. CARLIN. It could have been. I am not going to say for sure.

After that, Karen was put into the Witness Protection Program and relocated to Michigan with a new identity. And a rumor was started that she was dead. Penn Jones published that she was dead. But, someone tracked her down in Michigan many years later. I think it was the 1990s. She gave him an interview but was evasive.

I also read the testimony of George Senator, Ruby’s “roommate.” And I put that in quotes because it’s bizarre how they came to be roommates. Senator had his own apartment in Ruby’s building, and he was being evicted for not paying his rent for having lost his job. Ruby saw it happening, and he offered to let Senator move in with him- to keep him from being homeless. I don’t doubt Ruby’s sincerity, but I do doubt Senator’s. I think he was a plant.

But, when you read his testimony, it’s bizarre because, as with Karen Carlin, they wanted him to commit to a late departure by Ruby. But, Senator wouldn’t commit to it either. He kept saying that he was only guessing. Then, his questioner and him battled him over his use of the word “guess” for a whole page of transcript. But, Senator stuck to his guns, that he couldn’t be sure about the time he was being asked to confirm.  

But, forget about that. I keep my focus on Ruby, who said he got up early and just did a few predictable, easy to time things and then left. And 10:17 fits much better in that timeline than 11:17.

In his narrative, Ruby said he took twice his usual dose of amphetamines that morning plus some other tablets. And that’s all he said. But, who writes like that? And Ruby especially tended to be verbose, providing excess details. So, why did he take more drugs, and what were the other drugs? He didn’t say. Or did he? A Hollywood screenwriter William Read Woodfield was brought in to “help” Ruby write his narrative. I don’t know how that came about. But, what I suspect is that Woodfield was assigned to make sure the narrative included nothing that deviated from the official story.

Here's a flagrant example. Ruby said he got up early, and Woodfield wrote a subtitle for it: Approximately 9:30 AM. Ruby never said that, and 9:30 is not early. 9:30 is late. 

His “diet pills” referred to the amphetamine Preludin. But, what were the other tablets? And why would he say that without explaining? But, there is no doubt that Ruby was high as a kite that Sunday morning.

Compare the cop’s eye to Ruby’s. Ruby looks like a drugged-out freak; he was one.  And if you look closely, you can see that his pupil was very dilated, and it was due to drugs. 

The next thing is the discrepancy between what Ruby said and what Officer Roy Vaughn said about what happened at the Main Street ramp.

It was a one-way, incoming ramp. So, why was there a crowd gathered there? Who were they expecting to arrive? Elvis? There was no reason for them to be there. So why were they there? They were there to attract Ruby.  

So, Vaughn said that when Pierce was coming up the ramp that he responded by stepping to the curb to check on traffic. And seeing that it was clear, he waved Pierce through. He said that Pierce didn’t stop or slow down, and they didn’t exchange words; that Pierce just turned on Main and was gone.

But, Ruby gave a very different account. He said that when he got to the ramp that Pierce was stopped. The word he used was “parked”; that Pierce was parked at the top of the ramp. And he said there was a uniformed officer there who was leaning into Pierce’s window, and the two of them were talking. He didn’t recognize the officer. But, Ruby knew Roy Vaughn. Vaughn had pulled Ruby over once for a traffic violation, but he didn’t ticket him because “he was a friend of the Department.” There were also a couple times that Vaughn went to the Carousel Club, but always on police business; not for entertainment. The point is that Ruby knew Vaughn and would have recognized him. Ruby recognized Pierce, and he would have recognized Vaughn too, had he been there.  But, there must have been some other officer there whom Ruby didn’t know.

So, those are two very different accounts, and there is no reason to think that either of them was lying. So, how do we make sense of it? They were talking about different times and different events. Pierce went up that ramp twice: first at 10:15 and then again an hour later.  And the way it went for Vaughn was that he was working in the field somewhere in Dallas that morning, directing traffic. Then, he got a call on his radio to report to the Dispatch office. He went there and was told that one of Sergeant Dean’s men would come for him, and that he should wait. So, Vaughn waited and for a long time. He said he just drank coffee and chatted with the other men. Then, someone came for him and took him to the basement, where he was told to guard the Main Street ramp.

So, I looked at that timeline too. If he was in the field at 9, then it could easily have been 10:30 before he was placed at the ramp, which was after Ruby was apprehended at 10:20.

Vaughn was intended to be the third victim that day, the scapegoat who would be blamed for letting Ruby in, supposedly out of incompetence, not collusion. But, Vaughn was no pushover. After he got a reprimand for letting Ruby in, he hired a lawyer, and they filed suit against the DPD.  It was settled out of court, and the DPD paid him cold hard cash, an undisclosed amount of money to drop the lawsuit, and the reprimand was rescinded too.  

And 29 year old Roy Vaughn went on to have a very illustrious career, becoming the Police Chief in Midlothian, Texas, and after retiring from that becoming a Municipal Judge for 13 years before dying of old age. And to his last breath, he said that Ruby never got past him, and he didn’t. Ruby got there before Vaughn was placed there. It was a staggered situation; first Ruby; then Vaughn.

But, why Vaughn? Why’d they choose him? You should read John Hankey, who is the top expert on George HW Bush’s doings on 11/22. Bush was the “Houston oil man” who briefly got arrested after rushing out of the DalTex building in a suspicious manner.  The officer who arrested him was Roy Vaughn. Is that why they selected him to be the ramp patsy?  

And before I quit, let me say that all talk about Ruby lying; that he got to the basement another way with help from the DPD opening doors for him is nonsense. There was no collusion between the Dallas Police and Ruby. How could there be when they arrested him and were prosecuting him and trying to put him to death? If Ruby was in possession of a secret like that, don’t you think he would have told his lawyers? After all, he didn’t want to die in the electric chair. The Dallas Police could never have trusted Ruby with a secret like that. They would have had to kill him. It never happened. Ruby got in exactly as he said; by using the Main Street ramp. There wasn’t one thing that Ruby ever lied about. He was pathologically honest.

Jack Ruby was innocent. He was in custody on the  5^th floor in his underwear when the Garage Spectacle went down. FBI Agent James W. Bookhout masqueraded as him for the cameras. Ruby, with his clothes restored, was brought down to the 3^rd floor at 3 pm to make his catwalk in front of reporters, and that was his first emergence into the story.  It was a classic bait and switch.

Dallas Police covering up the head of the Shooter after his hat fell off. The Shooter was FBI Agent James W. Bookhout. Jack Ruby was already in custody up on the 5th floor, and he was slipped into the story later; a classic bait and switch. 

On the left is a man named Ed Tronolone, and it is me on the right next to him. Can you see that he and I look much more alike than Jack Ruby and the Garage Shooter? You'd have to be out of your mind to claim that Ed and I are the same man, but it is 10x worse to claim the Jack Ruby, on the left just 16 hours before, and the Garage Shooter are the same man.

On the left, you can see that Ruby had a relatively long face whereas the Shooter had a small round head. You can see that the Shooter had a Pillsbury Doughboy pudginess to him that Ruby did not have. You can see that the Shooter had a very short neck, while Ruby had a longer neck. The truth is that they don't look anything alike. Ed and I look more alike than they do. It is insane to say that Ed and I are the same man, and it is even more insane to claim that Ruby and the Shooter were the same man.

And there is nothing else that matters. There is no blah-blah-blah that negates this. This is the alpha and the omega. It proves that Jack Ruby was not the Garage Shooter of Oswald.

 If you think anyone put Jack Ruby up to shooting Oswald, how did he go on to live for over 3 years? If he was hiding the truth that someone ordered him to do it, then he could have woken up any morning and felt that he had had enough and tell his lawyers everything. So, how could the Mafia (who had no reason to want Oswald dead, since he had nothing on them to tell police) trust Ruby to keep his mouth shut? How could they take the chance? Why would they take the chance?

The fact that Ruby lived for 3+ years, and the fact that he, unlike Oswald, was allowed to speak to a lawyer right away, before he even talked to Fritz, should tell you that he didn't know anything.
He hadn't talked to anyone.

Ruby said he never had any thought to harm Oswald. He told reporters that he was feeling remorse that whole weekend but
not anger. He said the word anger wasn't even in his vocabulary.

And why would Ruby shoot Oswald just because the Mafia told him to do it? Would you? And what did they threaten him with if
he didn't do it? Of course, you don't know, and nobody else knows either because there is no evidence that it ever happened. It's just something that spewers spew. There isn't even a speck of evidence that it happened. There isn't even a nano-gram of evidence for it. And yet, people spew it all the time. But, spewing is what spewers do.

And why would the Mafia choose Ruby to do it when there was no evidence he ever fired a gun in his life, even at an inanimate target?

Jack Ruby was innocent. Your government killed Kennedy, and then they killed Oswald. They certainly didn't need Ruby to
kill Oswald for them; they just needed him to take the blame for it.

If you don't know that Jack Ruby was innocent, you don't know anything about the JFK assassination. The innocence of
Jack Ruby goes to the very heart of it. That was the one thing they tried to build a kryptonite wall around ,so that no one could get to it no matter what.

If you want to dispute Oswald's guilt, they don't care. That's been around since Day 1, and it's like the 39th Parallel. But, awareness of the innocence of Jack Ruby is a threat to the whole ugly and demonic story.

Well, I say: let's topple it. Let's take down the whole evil structure of JFK assassination orthodoxy. Jack Ruby was innocent. Say it boldly.

 Do you think the Mafia was involved in the JFK assassination? Based on what? There is the claim that one or more of the shooters were Mafia, but we don't know that for sure. It makes no sense for the CIA to use Mafia shooters. Why would they need to do that? They had Special Ops of their own, plus they had access to the U.S. Military. Do you really think the CIA couldn't come up with shooters without going to the Mafia?

And think about the risk that it entailed. If you get Mafia shooters, it means that the Mafia knows that you did it. It means that you are trusting the Mafia to guard your secret. Why would the CIA do that?

We know that the JFK assassination was a CIA operation, done in conjunction with LBJ and the FBI. There were others involved too, but those were the three prime movers. So, why would they want to involve the Mafia?

LBJ had his own hitman, Malcolm Wallace, and many believe that he was on the 6th floor. I'm not sure of it, but I'm open to it.

It could not have been a Mafia operation. The Mafia couldn't control the press. They couldn't determine the motorcade route. The coverup was done by Johnson and Hoover, and they wouldn't have done it for the Mafia. They did it for themselves.

Yet, the HSCA said that the JFK assassination was a Mafia operation, through and through, and that the Mafia got Oswald to do it. That is ridiculous. Why would Mafia put Oswald on it when he spent 3 years soldering radios together in Minsk, and the only shooting he did was to occasionally go rabbit-hunting with a shotgun. And then when he returned here, he did no shooting at all. He was never in combat in the Marines. He practically flunked his last shooting test in the Marines. WHY WOULD THE MAFIA CHOOSE OSWALD?

I tell you that it was decided in advance that the lone-nut story needed a backup; hence the Mafia story. It's likely that the CIA started the rumor about Mafia shooters just for that purpose.

And yes, I know about James Files, and I don't consider him credible. Even if you do, there is no proof that anything he says is true. There is no definitive proof that the Mafia was involved in the JFK assassination in any way.

And what about the claim that the Mafia ordered Ruby to kill Oswald? It is bull shit.. Oswald didn't work for the Mafia or know anything about the Mafia. Oswald didn't even know that JFK's motorcade was going to come down Elm. He went to James Jarman and asked him why people were gathering on the sidewalk. There is absolutely nothing that Oswald could have told authorities about the Mafia. So, why would they have wanted him killed? It is ridiculous and stupid on the face of it.

Jack Ruby was not in the Mafia, and his nightclubs were not Mafia nightclubs. And the whole idea that he would kill Oswald because the Mafia ordered him to is preposterous. It's a Hollywood thing. What if the Mafia ordered you to kill someone? Would you do it? I should think not.

And remember that most murders are done with the hope and expectation of getting away with it. But, in this case, it meant shooting Oswald in a crowd of police, which meant destroying your entire life and losing everything. You wouldn't do that for the Mafia. So, why do you think Ruby would?

I can prove that Ruby was not ordered by the Mafia to kill Oswald. The proof is that he lived for 3 years. Would the Mafia have trusted him to keep his mouth shut? All he had to do was wake up one morning with a fed-up attitude, and he could have named names. Don't you think they would have killed him?

And as I have said, there is no time over that weekend that he could have met with someone from the Mafia or talked to them on the phone. All of his actions and doings are fully documented, and no such thing happened. He never met with anyone from the Mafia, and he never got a call from anyone from the Mafia.

The bottom line is that Mafia shooters is the only claim of Mafia involvement in the JFK assassination, but a claim is all it is. There is no proof that it is true. And it is not credible that the CIA would want or need to have Mafia shooters. However, they welcomed rumors of Mafia shooters because "the Mafia did it" was the backup story for the lone-nut story, in case it didn't survive.

After the HSCA issued its Final Report in January 1979, claiming that the Mafia killed JFK, did law enforcement, at any level, start probing it? No, absolutely not. It was completely ignored.

Your government killed JFK, and then they killed Oswald. Oswald and Ruby were both completely innocent. And that is the truth.

You think the Mafia ordered Ruby to kill Oswald? When and how? If they did, it had to have been that weekend. They certainly didn't order him to kill Oswald before JFK was killed. So, when during that weekend did they meet with Ruby and tell him to kill Oswald?

Here is a timeline of everything Jack Ruby did that weekend. It includes everyone he talked to; every phone call he made or received; every place he went to; and every person with whom he interacted.

https://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Jack_Ruby/Timeline_of_Ruby.html

And everything on that list is sourced. So, where does it say that he met with some Mafia kingpin who ordered him to kill Oswald?

It never happened. So, why do people keep saying it? It's because it's an urban legend that the perpetrators fueled. They realized beforehand that many people were not going to accept the lone-nut story, and they wanted to give them an alternate story that would work just as well for them. And the alternate story was that the Mafia did it.

Many people claim that there were Mafia shooters. I don't claim to know. It's not an area that I have probed. But, if it’s true, they certainly didn't need to do that. They certainly could have come up with JFK-shooters without going to the Mafia. So, if they did that, it was just to involve the Mafia, so that they could blame the whole thing on them.

And you know that that’s what the HSCA settled on, that the Mafia did it. And it's ridiculous because they kept Oswald as shooter. Why would the Mafia want LHO as shooter when he almost flunked his last marksman exam in the Marines in 1959, and then he did no shooting in Russia for 3 years except to occasionally go rabbit-hunting with a shotgun. And then after returning to the US in June 1962, he did no shooting at all, except, supposedly taking a pot-shot at General Walker, which he didn't do. Why would the Mafia think that a guy who spent 3 years soldering transistor radios together in Minsk would be the best assassin for JFK? I can just hear it now: one Mafia don telling another: "I heard tings about dis Oswald guy."

But, let's get back to Ruby, supposedly, shooting Oswald. If you wanted to confirm it, where would you start? What would you look at first? The answer is: YOU WOULD COMPARE IMAGES OF THE SHOOTER TO IMAGES OF RUBY AND MAKE SURE THEY MATCH.

We are talking a human being with his own unique DNA. There can't be any discrepancies between Ruby and the Shooter if they were the same man. And if there are discrepancies, it means Ruby didn't do it- regardless of anything else. There is no counter to it. There is nothing that trumps it. If the comparison shows different men, then that’s it; it's over. They were different men, and Ruby was innocent.

So, on the left is Ruby at the Midnight Press Conference and on the right is the Garage Shooter from the Jackson photo. THEY DON'T EVEN LOOK ALIKE, LET ALONE LOOK IDENTICAL. Ruby on the left had a long face that was angular and jutting, while the Shooter had a very round face. Ruby had a long neck, while the Shooter had the shortest neck I have ever seen. It was almost like his head was sitting on his shoulders, with practically no neck at all. And his neck was very burly. It didn't taper. It was thick.

And the Shooter was pudgy like the PillsburyDoughboy while Ruby was quite lean. And their hair was nothing alike either. The Shooter had long hair in back that curled up at the bottom. And I tell you that it was a wig. You don't see a single hair growing out of his head. It looks matted like a wig.

THEY’RE NOT THE SAME MAN, and there is no blah-blah-blah for it. You just have to admit that they are not the same man or else you don't have an honest bone in your body.

And this is a brand-new collage. I just made it today. I have never put these two images together before. So, don't tell me I am reposting something because I'm not.

Ruby was innocent, and every mature and honest person who looks at this will admit it.

 Several people tried to claim that Ruby's right index finger was severed. False. It was his left index finger, as you can see here.

Then, they tried to claim that it was the Mafia way of shooting, but again: false. That is just an urban legend that was invented for this story. And if you were to shoot a little revolver like that Colt Cobra with your middle finger, you might very well blow your index finger off because of the burning hot gases that emit from the cylinder gap.

I tell you with 1000% certainty that Ruby was innocent. They had the guy masquerading as him (James Bookhout) use his middle finger in the staged photo they took because they mistakenly thought that Ruby would have had to.

They didn't mind if people questioned Oswald's guilt, but they didn't want anybody questioning Ruby's. So, they invented this whole narrative, this alternate story, that Ruby wasn't just bad; he was super-bad; that he was a Mafioso, a hit-man, a pimp, and that he not only killed Oswald, but he was also involved in killing Kennedy, that he delivered guns to Dealey Plaza, etc.

And they had it all worked out in advance. I'm telling you: it was the greatest psy-op of all time. It bamboozled everybody for 50 years. It wasn't until 2013 that the Russian Maxim Irkutsk first declared that Jack Ruby was innocent.

But, we've got them by the marachas now. They treated us like Pavlovian dogs for half a century. But, we've exposed their lies. Oswald and Ruby were both innocent, and LBJ and the intelligence agencies (CIA and FBI) killed JFK.

 

The Jackson photo was supposed to have been taken .3 seconds after the shot. The story goes that there was .6 seconds between Beers and Jackson, with the shot in-between. So, that means Beers, then .3 second later the shot, and then .3 second later Jackson.

In that case, why isn’t the Shooter’s trigger finger wrapped around the trigger? Why is it instead just poking through? I’ll tell you why. It’s because it is a staged photo, and they wanted to make sure the use of the middle finger was noticed. If it was wrapped around, it might not be so obvious.

They thought they had struck gold with this, thinking that Ruby had lost his right index finger and would have had to use his middle finger. However, he lost his left index finger. So, it was misinformation. There was no reason why Jack Ruby would have used his middle finger.

It is certain what I have been telling you, that Ruby was Innocent, and that the Dallas Police, with the help of the FBI and the Secret Service, killed Oswald and framed Ruby. It was FBI Agent James W. Bookhout who masqueraded as Ruby, and that is who we see in the Jackson and Beers photos, and also the films.

The State killed Oswald, and it’s because the State killed Kennedy, and they knew they couldn’t actually try Oswald. That would have blown up on them. They had to get Oswald killed before he even talked to a lawyer.  They hoped it would happen in the theater, but it didn’t. They hoped that they could pull it off at the Midnight Press Conference (which was the purpose of the MPC) but they couldn’t. But, they finally got it done on Sunday morning.

Here are two examples of a CGI figure that was inserted into a real video.  You may have to hit the Play button twice. 

Now that you've seen that, look again at the video of the roof-jumper. Which is better? I think the two above are much better than the roof-jumper. Really, they did a crappy job with him. And the whole purpose of the black outfit was to make it easy. If they had to juggle colors, it would have been more work. And notice how uniform his coloring his. His clothes, his hat, even the skin of face, it's all the same charcoal color, the lazy bastards. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdDtlNf7neI

Look how spindly the jumper's legs are before he descends.

After that, he fills out. Isn't that special? 

In this one below, he is supposedly putting down his rifle. 

Then, as he's falling, his legs become impossibly long. 

The part in which he is running gets really bad. Look how crude that is. 

Also, there is a person walking on the path who walks  behind a tree and then disappears. 

 Please consider this. When an artery gets severed, the body imposes an arteriospasm to curtail the blood loss. Below is from Google AI. Now, what we see happening to Charlie in the graphic video, shows the complete absence of any arteriospasm. The blood is pouring and gushing out of him like a fountain. It's like a river of blood flowing out of him. So, why didn't his body cramp that artery?

People have pointed out that it looks fake, and that the blood doesn't even seem to be sticking to his skin or his clothes. Is it fake?

I suspect that it's fake, but, I'm not saying he wasn't shot. I'm saying that he was shot in the neck with a less powerful weapon and ammo, and that they decided to make it look like a tsunami of blood because "people will expect a 30-06 to cause a lot of damage, so let's give them a lot of damage."

You can watch it here. https://www.bitchute.com/video/G3O4AE8Hpi8f and it's graphic, so be warned. I have never heard of blood pouring out of the body like a shower, as we see there. Have you? With all the wars that have been fought, have there been any reports of struck soldiers bleeding like that? Ever?

AI Summary

Arteriospasm is a temporary constriction of an artery that occurs when it is severed. This response is part of the body's immediate reaction to prevent excessive blood loss. Here are some key points about arteriospasm:

Mechanism of Action

When an artery is damaged, the smooth muscle in the arterial wall contracts, leading to vasoconstriction.
This contraction helps to reduce blood flow and minimize bleeding at the injury site.
Duration

Arteriospasm is typically a short-term response.
It may last from a few minutes to several hours, depending on the severity of the injury and the body's healing processes.
Clinical Significance

While arteriospasm can be beneficial in controlling bleeding, prolonged spasm can lead to ischemia (insufficient blood supply) in the tissues supplied by the affected artery.
Management

In cases of severe arterial injury, medical intervention may be necessary to restore blood flow and prevent complications.

 Oswald complained about not having a lawyer 13x on tape, and then he devoted his entire MPC address to it. And he never once said anything about wanting John Abt. He just asked for legal assistance.

So, do you really think he would have turned down an offer from Attorney H Louis Nichols to provide him a lawyer? Do you agree that he would have had to be out of his mind to turn down such an offer? Even if he did want John Abt, and we never heard it from him, Abt could have joined the team later. Wasn't having a Texas lawyer better than having no lawyer at all?

So, I tell you that Oswald never met with H. Louis Nichols. They waited until Oswald was taken down to the 3rd floor for his Saturday evening interrogation. Then, they put an Oswald double in his cell, and that is who met with Nichols, who turned down his offer.

Note that we have no evidence from Oswald that it ever happened. No reporter ever asked him why he refused the offer. And if you listen to him at the Midnight Press Conference, you get the distinct impression that he wanted a lawyer; any lawyer. He wanted help.

Nichols didn't even decide to go to City Hall until 5 pm. And when he got there, he spotted Chief Curry on the 3rd floor, who invited him into his office. There, they chewed the cud for quite a while. He said that two FBI agents were also present. Then, Curry told him that it was time for him to go up and meet Oswald. So, what time do you think that was? I'm thinking about 6:30. Well watch this video. It shows Oswald on the 3rd floor being taken to the Homicide Bureau, and the clock says 6:24. So, they waited until Oswald was removed; then thyy brought Nichols up to meet with the Oswald double. The Oswald of fame never refused an offer of a lawyer. For him to have done that after what he implored on Friday night would have been crazy, and he wasn't crazy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04aL80prg7U

Charlie Kirk was wearing a bullet-proof vest, and you can see it through his t-shirt here.

 And don't tell me that that roof-jumper was real because his image is way too freaky and cartoonish. Look at his legs on the left below. 

The 3 outfits of Tyler Robinson

I refer to the last as his Columbine outfit. Why do his legs look so freakily thin on the left? Why does he appear to be in shorts when he wasn't? There is so much irregularity and distortion in the roof jumper clip that I suspect it was CGI'd. Everything was real in it except the roof jumper, who wasn't there. He was digitally inserted.