I am going to tell you now who I think shot Oswald. It wasn't Jack Ruby, and it wasn't James Bookhout either, because only a blank was fired in the garage. Oswald was shot in the Jail Office afterwards. They were not going to shoot him in that garage. It was too dangerous, and it might have gone wrong. Oswald needed to be shot under controlled conditions. Accuracy was extremely important. The bullet had to be placed to cause the most bleeding possible, so that he would surely bleed-out before doctors got to him. 

I've pointed out that the ambulance turned left on Commerce and went all the way down to the Pearl Expressway, and then came back to Harwood on Main, when they could have just turned right on Harwood, and it would have been a straight shot to Parkland Hospital.  

Only one person could fire the bullet into Oswald, but who? Just about anyone they picked would have been an arbitrary choice. But, there was  one and only one exception: Officer RC Nelson, who was JD Tippit's partner. 

If they had Nelson do it, it would seem more like a righteous execution, rather than cold-blooded murder. I preume they really believed that Oswald shot Tippit. Of course, he didn't. 

Nelson was the one and only guy who could shoot Oswald and leave them all with a clear conscience. 

The first question is: was Nelson there?  And the answer is: yes, he was. But, why should he have been there? He wasn't one of Fritz' men. And he didn't work at the police station; he worked on the street. He was a patrol officer. So, the very fact that he was there raises suspicion. Remember: it was supposed to be just a 45 foot walk to a car before Oswald was driven away. 

And how is it that Nelson was never filmed or photographed? We have the films, we don't see Nelson in any of them. The only uniformed officer I see in the scuffle is Sergeant Patrick Dean. Take a look at Nelson again. He was young; just 26 years old. He would have stood out just for being so young. 

And Nelson's presence there was hushed. There was no talk of it at the time. He wasn't questioned by the Warren Commission. He refused all interviews, including paid ones. He didn't attend any forums, retrospectives, or mock trials. He just vanished into thin air. 

So, how did we find out he was there? He surfaced 50 years later. In 2013, the 50th anniversary, that's when he finally emerged. He talked about the daily pain he had for 50 years mourning Tippit. And he tallked about his certainty that Oswald did it: killed his partner and and the President. He said he couldn't stomach conspiracy theories. And he said that Oswald killed Tippit "because he wanted to get caught. Oswald had not had his glory." 

And he talked about the day Oswald died. He said he was there in the garage when Ruby shot him. He said he was involved in the skuffle to subdue Ruby. And he said he was the one who put the handcuffs on Ruby. How could the Warren Commission not interview the guy who put the handcuffs on Ruby?

I just checked again, and you don't see him. He was definitely not one of the Penguins. 

And as far as him handcuffing the Shooter, that's not what the record shows. According to the testimonies, it was Detective Thomas McMillon who handcuffed Ruby. It's in the testimony of Detective Don Ray Archer.

Mr. HUBERT. What happened next in that jail office area?
Mr. ARCHER. When we had the subject on the floor, I was reaching for my handcuffs. I reached back in this manner [indicating] to unhook my handcuffs off my belt, and Detective McMillon was astraddle and over him, over Ruby, and I believe I said, "Mac, do you need my cuffs?" He said: "No; I have got it now." And then he placed his cuffs on Ruby.

Nobody mentioned Officer RC Nelson in any context. 

So, what should we make of this? Who installed the handcuffs?

First, you have to realize that there were two scuffles and two "Rubys." The first scuffle involved the real Ruby, and he got there an hour before. He was handcuffed and taken up to the 5th floor jail and stipped to his underwear. The second scuffle was the televised one with Bookhout filling in for Ruby. And I doubt that he was handcuffed. He may have been just for show, but perhaps not. I know they turned him over to three detectives: Elmer Boyd, Richard Sims, and Warren Hall. They were previously Oswald's handlers. Or, you could say they were his escorts because they took him everywhere.  

We have a photo of the three detectives with Bookhout. It was taken on the 3rd floor about 2 minutes after the Oswald shooting. The four of them were hovering in the dark next to the elevator. An NBC photographer with a flash camera took their picture. 

That round-faced guy with the short neck was not Jack Ruby. It should be obvious to all. Here they are side by side. 

Ruby had a longer face, a longer forehead, and a longer neck. They are clearly different men. But, let's go back to the foursome:

Notice the Boyd's eyes, on the left, look sharp and photographic, and so do Hall's on the right, even though he is in shadow. But, "Ruby" has raccoon stripes instead of eyes. It doesn't make sense because if the photographic conditions enabled the clear capture of Boyd's and Hall's eyes, it should have been the same for the Shooter. That discrepancy is inexplicable. So, they got rid of his eyes, and they did a lot more than that. I'm sure they doctored his hair, his ear, and his eyebrows. But regardless, you can still tell that he is not Jack Ruby. And if he is handcuffed, it has to be in front. But, that's not what they claimed. In fact, we have an image:

That is supposed to be Ruby being taken upstairs for the first time. But, what happened to his jacket? They didn't remove it in the Jail Office. That wasn't his hair either. On the right is Ruby early on Saturday morning, and you can see how bald he was. And he didn't have a goiter neck either. 

But, this other guy, who was either cuffed in front or had his hands clasped in front. was not Ruby.

 He was FBI Agent James Bookhout, and RC Nelson had nothing to do with him. But, I think it's likely that Nelson was the one who handcuffed the real Ruby at the earlier scuffle. Why would Nelson make it up? And, he said that when he turned Ruby over, after handcuffing him, that he got flippant, saying "Hey guys, it's me; Jack Ruby." Others made similar claims, that Ruby got cocky, saying: "I did you all a favor. I hope the son of a bitch dies." But, Ruby denied getting that way, and he was upset that they said he cursed, which wasn't his nature. He admitted that during the scuffle he said, "What are you doing? You know me. I'm Jack Ruby." But, he didn't say it flippantly. He said it with exasperation and despair because he didn't know why they were attacking him. 

In fact, Ruby couldn't have said those things because he said that he didn't find out that he shot Oswald until they got him upstairs and told him. He had no memory of shooting Oswald and no thought to do it. So, why would he be bragging about it before he even found out about it? So, those cops lied. They lied through their teeth about everything, including what Ruby said. I tell you: they killed Oswald, and they framed Ruby for it.  

I'll leave you with one more disturbing fact: Detective Elmer Boyd denied being there. He said he wasn't working on Sunday. He said it was his day off. He said he spent the morning going to church with his wife and her parents. Then, they went to his in-laws' house, and they all enjoyed a nice brunch. And it was while they were eating, that he saw Ruby shoot Oswald on television. But, the image of him above proves that that was a lie; that he was there. 

So, based on all this, I think Officer RC Nelson pulled the trigger on Oswald. He was the logical choice, and he was there. And I have no alternate. I have no reason to point to anyone else. Getting Nelson to do it was the best and only way to ease their conscience about committing cold-blooded murder with malice.  

   

 

 What is wrong with people that they think Jack Ruby would be willing to destroy his entire life by shooting Oswald in a crowd of police? They  should realize that he enjoyed his life every bit as much as they enjoy their lives. He enjoyed running his nightclubs and being a big-shot all over town. He loved his family: his siblings, his nieces, and his nephews. He valued his friends. He loved his dogs. He enjoyed going to the synagogue. He enjoyed reading the newspaper. He enjoyed the city of Dallas and its events, and he was looking forward to moving into a swanky new apartment building. 

And no, the Mafia did not order him to shoot Oswald. We know every move Ruby made and every person he talked to in the last four days of his life. It's all laid out right here:

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

The Mafia never came to see him, and they never called him. They did not order him to shoot Oswald, and they had no reason to do so. Oswald knew nothing about them. There was nothing that Oswald could tell the police about the Mafia. So, they had no reason, whatsoever, to want him dead. The whole story is nothing but fantasy. 

And the same goes for the Dallas Police. They did not order Ruby to kill Oswald.  Rather, they tricked Ruby into thinking that he shot Oswald. 

You should realize that there were no precedents for the Dallas Police to approach Ruby about shooting Oswald. The gap between their usual engagement with him, as a local businessman, to that of a co-conspirator in murder was too great to be plausible. And how could they force him to do it? What could they threaten to do to him if he didn't? Cancel his liquor license? Plus, they had no respect for Ruby. They humored him, but they weren't going to trust him to fire a gun in a crowd of their people. They considered him a clown, a dunce, a blithering idiot. They weren't going to collude with him to commit murder. And if they did, they would have had to kill him right away because how could they trust him to stay silent about it? And why should he have stayed silent about it? They were prosecuting him; testifying against him; lying about him; trying to get him sentenced to death; and they succeeded. On any given day, he could have spilled his guts to his lawyers. There was nothing stopping him. What if he decided that he wasn't going to die for them? Were they going to take that chance? The very fact that he lived for over 3 years tells you that he wasn't involved and was clueless about it. 

The Dallas Police did use Ruby to kill Oswald, but not by having him actually do it. Rather, they talked him into believing that he did it.  

And it wasn't their idea to kill Oswald. LBJ must have put them up to it. Do you know how many times LBJ's henchman Cliff Carter talked to Will Fritz on Friday afternoon? It was something like 11 times. Read LBJ: Mastermind by Phil Nelson. And that was before there were cell phones. 

Two of Fritz' men knew LBJ very well: Elmer Boyd and Richard Sims. LBJ hired them to be his bodyguards whenever he came to Dallas. The last time was in April 1963. Fritz and his men were WW2 vets. They fought in the war. Now, Johnson was the Commander in Chief, and he was telling them it was a matter of national urgency to kill Oswald and end the national nightmare.   

As for Ruby being the witless patsy, he was groomed for it in advance by the CIA. The CIA mind control program MK-ULTRA was started in 1953. It was the same time that the CIA was on a tear giving people LSD. And as they were honing their mind control methods, they were assembling a coterie of people to use them on, for whatever purposes arose. And somehow, Jack Ruby got on that list. Perhaps his military records showed that he was malleable, impressionable, very respectful of authority, and submissive, which he was. Jack Ruby was MK-ULTRA'd. We don't know who Jack Ruby's doctor was in Dallas, but he had him on amphetamines for weight loss. Does he look like he needed it? Amphetamines were MK-ULTRA drugs. 

And by the way, Ruby didn't have ropy hair. He was practically bald on top. But, James Bookhout wore a thick, moppy wig at the Garage Spectacle, which made it necessary to enhance Ruby's hair in every photo of him for the rest of his life. But, it was never done the same way twice. This is the only one that looks ropy. Every artist "retouched" his hair their own way. 

 This image is hollering at us. Look how sharp and focused the cop was as he studied Ruby- his mind was working. But, Ruby was in a daze. His eyes are glassy; his pupils are dilated; he looks like a zombie. He was drugged!

JFK's killers needed Oswald dead. He had a stranglehold on the FBI. He never mail-ordered a rifle from Chicago- they made it up. And they never presented any of their phony evidence to him. Why bother? They knew he would deny it. It would have just tipped him off. He probably didn't have a P.O. Box either; so it's no surprise they didn't ask him about it. 

If you haven't read John Armstrong's paper on why Oswald could not have ordered a rifle from Chicago, you should.

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

 You know that Dorothy Kilgallen was murdered. But why? You think it was because she was uncovering stuff about Mafia involvement in the assassination? The Mafia claim was Government Story#2. It's what the HSCA settled on. "If you don't like our Lone Nut Story, try our Mafia story." They weren't going to kill her over that. They killed her because she, alone, got to speak privately to Ruby; not once, but twice. It wasn't just what he told her; it was what he showed her about his state of mind; how juvenile he was; how scatterbrained he was; and also, how totally devoid of malice he was. He had a childlike innocence about him and a very apparent decency. Watch this video of him, and remember: he was no actor and no liar. Ruby was pathologically honest because he lacked the cunning and shrewdness to lie. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxBrlzi744Y

Do you know how George Senator became Ruby's roommate? They were both living in the same apartment building, but they didn't know each other. Senator was being evicted because he lost his job and couldn't pay his rent. Ruby heard about it, and he offered to let Senator move in with him- so that he wouldn't be homeless. Would you do that? I could never do that. I might do it for someone I knew. but not for a stranger. So, Ruby was more compassionate than I am, And I think it was a set-up. I think George Senator was placed there to become a spy and controller of Ruby. 

You know that Dorothy Kilgallen talked privately to Ruby twice. And remember who she was: a journalist, a scoop getter. So, what did she ask him about? His Mafia connections? He would have told her that he wasn't in the Mafia. That's what he told everyone else. You think he would have said something different to her? Of course not. She must have asked him about the Oswald shooting and whether he planned it, and he must have told her that he not only didn't plan it, but he had no memory of doing it; that all he could remember was reaching the basement and being jumped by police; taken up to the 5th floor, where he was told that he shot Oswald. How surprised was she when she found out that his entire basis for believing that he shot Oswald was the Dallas Police telling him that he did it? 

Dorothy Kilgallen was smart. She was 10x smarter than Ruby's lawyers. Surely, she picked up that Ruby came across as a gentle, respectful, and harmless person. Aggressiveness in action starts with aggressiveness in personality, and there was nothing aggressive about him. She was more aggressive than he was, and I'm sure she knew that. 

She may have come away with the thought that Ruby just snapped. And after that, she probably wanted to see the snapping. So, did she study the Beers and Jackson photos that were so widely circulated? Did she go study the films, which as a journalist, she could have accessed? She sat next to Ruby as they talked and looked eye to eye. She saw him up close and personal, so she got a very good look at him. So, between her interviews of him, did she notice the discrepancies between him and the Garage Shooter? 

And why did Dorothy want to talk to Ruby a second time? Again: it wasn't Mafia-related. There was nothing to follow-up with about that. She wanted to follow-up with him about exactly what happened on Sunday. I bet she asked him to detail everything that happened from the moment he got up. I'm sure he went into great detail, that he brought his dog along because he was going to leave her at the Carousel Club before going on with his day; that that he never expected to see Oswald at all, let alone shoot him; and that no matter how hard he tried, he just couldn't conjure up any mental image of himself shooting Oswald, that it was a complete blank, a hole in the memory.  All he could remember was going to the garage and being pounced upon by police. That is what he told his lawyers, and surely, it was what he told her. But again, Dorothy was smart; much smarter than Ruby's lawyers. It may have dawned on her that what Ruby was saying was exactly what happened; that he got there early and had his own private scuffle with the police; and it was the police who were lying.  

And remember that he told the Warren Commissioners that he sent the money wire at 10:17. Did he tell her the same? No one overheard their conversation, and the only thing Dorothy said about it was that she was going to blow the case wide open. But, the perpetrators knew the truth, that Ruby was framed and innocent, and they were worried that she figured it out. Ruby could not have told her anything about the JFK assassination; nor could he have told her anything about Oswald. The only thing he could have told her was what happened on November 24; what he did, and what happened to him. 

It's risky to kill someone, and it looks bad. Look at all the people who think that Jeffrey Epstein was murdered- and I'm one of them. Just as many think that Dorothy Kilgallen was murdered. That's the price you pay, but they were willing to pay it. And again, it wasn't because of Mafia disclosures. Ruby had nothing about the Mafia to disclose. Do you really think he would have withheld that from his lawyers but revealed it to Dorothy Kilgallen? She was planning to write a book. What would be the point of lying to his lawyers but telling the truth to an author? 

If she had just talked with him once, they might have brushed it off. But, she went back a second time, which meant that something troubled her; that she needed confirmation and clarification about something he said the first time.  

I've said many times that they couldn't let Oswald speak to a lawyer, not even once, because if they did, they’d have had to kill the lawyer. Well, letting Ruby talk to an investigative reporter, Dorothy Kilgallen, was equally as bad, and when she went back and talked to him a second time, that was it. That's when they decided, "that bitch must have figured it out, or she’s about to; so she has to die."  

 I have made a video entitled THE INNOCENCE OF JACK RUBY, and in it, I don't just talk; I demonstrate. I take out a gun and show why it is impossible for Jack Ruby to have shot Oswald.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Fh-sE7KUDk

 I made a 10 minute video of myself talking about my film DOVEY’S PROMISE, why it is important, and it also has the link where you can watch it for free. Killing Mary Pinchot Meyer was a monstrous crime, especially since she was a woman. And Mary had been a CIA woman, the wife of Cord Meyer. Was he complicit in her murder? I don’t know, but it seems awfully convenient that he was out of town when it happened.

It wasn’t until late that evening that Mary’s brother-in-law Ben Bradlee identified her body at the morgue. But, when the newspapers identified her, they never included that she was the former wife of a top CIA official. And of course, they didn’t identify her as a friend of JFK.

When Dovey Roundtree succeeded in getting Raymond Crump acquitted, it was shocking. The lead-up to the trial had gone on for months, and every day there were articles in the paper damning Crump.  Imagine if Jeffrey Epstein had been acquitted. That’s what it was like.

At first, there wasn’t much editorial response to Crump’s stunning acquittal.  But slowly, and over time, the story emerged that Crump was guilty but got acquitted over the lack of forensic evidence.  But, there is no chance that that’s true.  The killer attacked Mary by hand, even though he was armed with a gun. Wouldn’t a robber use his gun to get the victim to cooperate and hand over her money? Then, he took out his gun and shot her in the head.

Miraculously, she was still able to run away, and she ran 24 feet before collapsing. Then, the killer dragged her back 24 feet before shooting her a second time and killing her instantly. But, why would Raymond Crump do that? There is no discernible reason why he wouldn’t shoot her where she fell and then run away. Why waste time dragging her back?

And if robbery wasn’t the motive, what about rape? Raymond Crump was shorter than Mary, and they weighed about the same. So, how could he have been strong enough to rape her? Plus, this was a popular walking trail. And it wasn’t a remote spot. It was right in the middle of Georgetown, just 128 feet from busy Canal Road.

And surely Crump didn’t go there in search of a woman to rape, so what was he doing there? Ironically, Crump told Dovey that he went there to have consensual sex with a woman named Vivien. And Dovey tracked down Vivien, and she confirmed what Raymond said. But, she refused to testify, fearing that her husband would kill her. But, she did submit a signed affidavit. It never got introduced at the trial because Dovey had no a witness to question about it.

But, she did file it; so the Prosecution had to know about it. So, why didn’t the Prosecutor go and talk to Vivien himself and test her credibility?  And if he was impressed that she was telling the truth, shouldn’t he have dropped the charges against Crump? But, he never tried to talk to Vivien.

The CIA killed Mary Pinchot Meyer, and it was damage control after they killed JFK. She was going around saying that the CIA killed him and that she was going to expose them. And as ghastly and abominable as it was what they did to her and to Crump, they had no more feeling about it than a Komodo dragon swallowing its prey whole. The coverup had to be done. The truth had to be smothered because what was at stake was the legitimacy and moral authority of the whole U.S. government. 

It was the U.S. government that killed Kennedy- not the entire government, but a latticework within the government that included the intelligence agencies (CIA and FBI) the Vice President, prominent Pentagon officials, and more; enough varied people to comprise the power elite within the U.S. government. So, with the stature and legitimacy of the U.S. government at stake, they would kill whomever they had to kill to keep the truth at bay.  And is it any different today? The revelation that the U.S. government killed Kennedy would be just as devastating today. So, would they kill again over it? I don’t doubt it, and I worry about it every day of my life.

I hope you’ll watch my video. Here is the link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iC-fNM-QOIE

 The throat shot entered Kennedy in the midline, but it damaged only the coils on the left side of his trachea. The right side of his trachea was undamaged. That tells us that it was an angular shot that came from the north side of Elm Street. It had an angular trajectory from JFK's right to his left. That's the only way it could enter center and do damage on the left.  

Those who think it came from Commerce Street are wrong because the only way that could have damaged the left side of his trachea was if it entered the left side of his throat. But, it didn't enter the left side. It entered at the midline but then moved leftward on him, meaning left from his perspective. And it wasn't taken from in front of him, say from the bridge, because that shot would have hit him squarely and gone straight into him. But, that didn't happen either. 

So, the shot went from his right to his left, after entering center, which means that it had to come from the north side of Elm. 

If you look at yourself in the mirror, with your head in a neutral position, neither raised nor lowered, you'll see that your chin covers the upper part of your throat. It's only the lower part of the throat that is accessible, from the Adam's apple down. It's a distance of about 2 inches. But, he was hit at the lower part of the lower part of his throat, that is, at the bottom of his throat. And we shouldn't assume that that was accidental. That was the target. And such a small target could only have been hit from very close-up. 

So, the throat shot had to come from North Elm and from close to the limo. It's widely agreed that the Willis frame was taken right before the throat shot, just a second before.. Of course, it's usually claimed that it was right before the Single Bullet that went through his back and throat, but that is a lie. JFK was shot in the back high on the hill when the limo was still adjacent to the TSBD. And he rode down the hill reacting only to the back shot. But notice that JFK is turned to his right. So, he was in the perfect position to take the shot from Umbrella Man that would enter center and travel left, damaging the left side of his trachea. 

Now, I realize that in the photo, Umbrella Man is standing calmly beneath his umbrella, not doing anything. But, I'm telling you that that imagery is fake. Notice that it does not look photographic. It is so crude and blurry, it could easily be art, and I mean crappy art. Witnesses said that Umbrella Man pointed his umbrella at Kennedy. The word "pumped": was used. They said he pumped it at Kennedy. It took months for the FBI to return this photo to Congressman Willis.  The Betzner photo was taken at practically the same time, and that's the one with a big obstructive figure of a man occupying the left side of the photo. Betzner said afterwards that there was no one in front of him blocking his view. I believe they put that guy in there to hide Umbrella Man who was shooting at Kennedy at the time. But, in this Willis frame, they painstakingly redid it with paint. 

But, my point is that the trajectory of the throat wound- from center to left- tells us that it came from Kennedy's right. It came from the north side of Elm. It came from Umbrella Man.  

 You do realize that they planned all along to claim that all the shots came from the rear- from the 6th floor window. So, how did they expect to get away with shooting him in the throat from the front? There is only one possibility: that they planned, all along and in advance, to claim that the throat wound was an exit wound. 

Now, let that sink in because there really are no other possibilities. It has to be that. But, it does have implications. If they were going to call the throat wound an exit wound, then it had to have an entrance wound, and that was the back shot. But, think about what that implies. Since the story was going to be that the bullet traversed him, it meant that there could be no bullet found in his back or in his throat. 

And that means that all the stories you've heard about a bullet falling out, that it got stuck in the seat-back or fell to the floor of the limo, are nonsense. They are lies. 

And you can't claim that they were dug out at the pre-autopsy either because you know what came before the pre-autopsy? It was JFK's trip to Parkland Hospital. And those doctors were not part of the conspiracy. Dr. Perry did look for a missile in JFK's throat but didn't find one, and we can't assume the plotters got lucky that he missed it. And although the Parkland doctors did miss finding the back shot, the plotters couldn't count on that. They had to make sure that JFK reached the hospital with a hole in his back and a hole in his throat and no bullet found in either. And they did make sure of that by using dissolvable missiles for both those shots. I don't say that they were identical. The back shot was an ice bullet. The throat shot was dissolvable too, but I don't know what material it was. It definitely wasn't ice because Umbrella Man didn't have any ice. 

So, the Single Bullet Theory existed before the assassination. However, it didn't include Connally. He wasn't supposed to be shot at all. That was a mistake. You know how the best-laid plans of mice and men often go asunder? Well, this went asunder. 

So, there was no bullet stuck in the seat-back for Paul Landis to find. There was no bullet that fell to the floor for Will Greer to find. There was no bullet in JFK's throat to be dug out at the pre-autopsy. And it all comes down to the fact that perpetrators weren't the brightest lot, but they were bright enough to know that a shot from the front would never mesh with the lone nut from the rear story. 

 I've said for a long time that it made no sense for people to be at the Main Street ramp because it was an incoming ramp, and there was no one they were expecting to arrive. But likewise, it made no sense for the much larger crowd to be at the Commerce Street ramp because they weren't going to see Oswald. Supposedly, he was going to be taken to the County Jail in the armored truck, but it just meant that they were going to see the truck pull away. 

They weren't going to see Oswald because he would have boarded the truck through the back door, which was out of view. There were no windows through which they could see him. So, the truck, itself, was all they were going to see- not him. 

So, why would anyone get up on a Sunday morning to do that? And they had to be there since before 10:00 since that was the announced time of the transfer. Can you imagine standing around from 9:45 until 11:20, just waiting to see a truck pull away? There is nothing sane about that. 

Those people weren't spectators; they were extras. I'm not saying they knew what was going to happen, but whoever assembled them did.  The entire event was staged and choreographed. It was the televising of the killing of Oswald. 

But, who killed him? The only thing real about the whole thing was that Oswald did die, but who killed him? Well, the same people who organized and produced the spectacle killed him. It was the Dallas Police who organized and produced it, so they killed him. But, what role did Jack Ruby play?

Well, he certainly didn't kill Oswald for them. A collusion between Dallas Police and Jack Ruby is NOT possible. They could not have been working together. No one would have entered such an alliance. It is preposterous. Imagine you were Jack Ruby, and Dallas Police came to you and said: 

"Jack, we want you to kill Oswald for us. And after you kill him, we will arrest you, charge you, try you. convict you. sentence you, and then execute you. It will take a while, so you'll have to lie to everyone, including your family, friends, and your lawyers. You'll be like an actor who stays in character 24/7. And of course, you are going to lose everything, but since that includes your life, what does it matter?  So, that's what we need from you, and you have to do it. If you don't, we'll hurt you." 

That is insane, both from the perspective of the Dallas Police and from Ruby's. It's not that Dallas Police conspired with Ruby; it's that they tricked him into believing that he shot Oswald. They didn't need him to shoot Oswald, and they never would have trusted him with a loaded gun. Ruby was a moron. And we are talking about him firing a loaded gun in their direction. THEY NEVER WOULD HAVE ALLOWED THAT. They just needed him to take the blame for it. And they wanted him to really believe that he did it. That was the only way they could let him live for over three years. They couldn't let him live if any day in those 3+ years he could wake up and decide to tell his lawyers the truth. The reason they could let him live those 3+ years is because he didn't know anything. He accepted that he shot Oswald. They successfully tricked him. They bamboozled him. 

So, what I have been telling you is the truth, that Ruby got to the garage early, an hour before, and he was grabbed then. And he was being held on the 5th floor, in his underwear, during the Garage Spectacle. And they slipped him into the story at 3:00 that afternoon when they brought him down to the 3rd floor to be questioned by Fritz amid a sea of reporters and cameramen. 

So, Ruby got bamboozled, but so did we all. For 62 years, we have all been conditioned like Pavlovian dogs to believe that Ruby shot Oswald. 

So, are you going to snap out of it, or are you going to die the death of a Pavlovian dog and never realize what was done to you? 

 Something happened on Elm Street that caused JFK to completely disconnect from reality; to lose his mind; and it is the biggest revelation of the Zapruder film. Consider that JFK never spoke; he never tried to speak; he never gestured; he never tried to communicate in any way; he never responded to his wife's ministrations; he never showed any cognizance or understanding of the situation; and he never took any action in response to it. There is no way anyone could have been more divorced from reality than he was.  There isn't one thing that anyone can point to as a sign of awareness on JFK's part.  He suffered a total mental collapse. 

Yet, the wound in his back was no more than deep scratch. The extent to which he was physically impaired from it was zero. It was truly nothing. 

So, what about the throat wound? It damaged his trachea but only on the left side. That shot, whatever it was, briefly caused a respiratory obstruction. But, he cleared it promptly by coughing, and after that, his breathing was fine. That shot hit him so low in the neck that any lower, it would have hit his chest. There is no way it could have done any damage to his brain.  

But, James Fetzer claims that Dr. Bob Livingston said that the throat shot somehow caused brain damage, But that's not what Livingston said. Here he is talking about the throat wound. And did you know that he called Dr. James Humes on the night of the assassination, before the autopsy began, to inform him about the throat wound?  And he reached him. Livingston and was able to talk to him. He told Humes that the Parkland doctors had discovered an entrance wound in JFK's neck, and that he needed to explore its track and try to find any bullet or fragments of bullet that remained. Livingston emphasized that it had to be a frontal wound because there was no tearing of the tissues. He said that Humes listened to him respectfully and was cordial, but he ended the conversation abruptly. Here is Livingston:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ma8aqkr-0Tg

Surely at that time, Livingston had no thought that the throat shot affected JFK's brain. There was no reason for him to think that, and there is no reason for anyone to think that today. 

So, what could have caused JFK's complete mental collapse? Poisoning. There is nothing else. He was hit with an ice dart that burst upon entering, and it delivered a nerve agent and perhaps other drugs. Stop thinking that this is farfetched. It is the only possibility.   

 You should never EVER put your finger in front of the cylinder of a revolver because burning hot gases emit from the cylinder gap, as you can see on the right. On the left is Ruby's Colt Cobra 38 Special, the smallest snub-nosed 38 there is. If he used his middle finger, there would have been no place except along the cylinder for him to put his index finger.

But, Ruby didn't do that, and he wasn't even there. He was already tucked away on the 5th floor, and they had SS Agent Forest Sorrels minding him. But, FBI Agent James Bookhout, who masqueraded as Ruby, didn't do it either. I'm sure he used his index finger in the televised spectacle. But, he posed, for the world, using his middle finger, in the iconic photos that were taken at a photo-shoot an hour before the spectacle. We have testimony that they cleared the garage. to do it.

 The use of the middle finger in the Beers and Jackson photos completely exonerates Jack Ruby because there is no way he would have done that. He had an intact right index finger, and he would have used it. He would have had no reason not to.

The reason usually given for why he used his middle finger- that it was the sign of a Mafia hit- doesn’t make sense. First, it isn’t true. There was no protocol in the Mafia to shoot people with your middle finger. Someone just made it up. And AI agrees, for I got this: "No, shooting a gun with your middle finger is not a recognized sign or ritual of a Mafia hit."

Remember: there are no photographers at Mafia hits. And the victim isn’t going to notice which finger his killer is using. It doesn’t matter anyway because he is about to die. So, who would the Mafia shooter be demonstrating to? Who is going to notice which finger he is using? It doesn't even make sense for the Mafia, let alone for Jack Ruby.

And the whole Mafia story is nonsense. There was no time between November 22 and November 24 that Ruby met with anyone from the Mafia. And they didn’t phone the order in either because we know every call that Ruby made and received. Enough with the Mafia already! They didn’t even have a reason to kill Oswald. He didn’t know anything about them. There was nothing he could tell the police about them. So, why should the Mafia care if he lives or dies? They had nothing to silence him about.

Ruby’s lawyer Melvin Belli suggested that it was the "psychomotor epilepsy" that caused him to use his middle finger, but that is ridiculous. Epilepsy can't do that to a person. Plus, Ruby didn’t have epilepsy. Belli made it up.

I’ve also heard it claimed that there is better control using the middle finger, but that is nonsense. It’s just the opposite. The gun was designed to fit the hand using the index finger. And I mean fit it like a glove. Plus, the whole brain-body connection is stronger to the index finger. Do an experiment. Make your hand into a fist but extend your index finger. Now, it’s like a gun, so pull the trigger a few times. Notice how you, that is your brain, is in your index finger. Notice how strong the connection is. You have fine, sharp motor control, more so than with your middle finger.

Ruby had no reason to use his middle finger, and the idea of using it never would have entered his mind.

What about the Dallas Police? Did they tell Ruby to use his middle finger? The whole idea that Ruby conspired with the Dallas Police to kill Oswald is insane. Were it true, they would have had to kill Ruby pronto. They couldn't trust him afterwards. They were going to arrest him, prosecute him, testify against him, and try to get him sentenced to the death. How is that conducive to trust and loyalty? How big a masochist do you think Ruby was? You think he was going to die for the Dallas Police?

The Dallas Police didn't conspire with Ruby; they conspired against him. They tricked him into believing that he shot Oswald. It was a sting operation on Ruby, like in the movie The Sting. Ruby was their mark.

The middle finger fiasco resulted from a production error, where they mistakenly thought Ruby had lost his right index finger. But, it was his left index finger that got severed. They blew it bigtime at that staged photo-shoot.

On the left is Ruby early Saturday morning, and on the right is the Garage Shooter. They are obviously not the same man. They don’t even look alike.

That Ruby shot Oswald is the most Machiavellian lie. People have been manipulated into believing it for 62 years, but that stops right now. Please share this post.

Here is an image of Jack Ruby's amputated left index finger. So, what are you going to do now that you know that there was an issue concerning Jack Ruby's index fingers? It would be a strange coincidence for Ruby to have both an amputated left index finger and a penchant to fire his pistol with his right middle finger, unnecessarily. Are you just going to brush that off? I am reminded of my film DOVEY'S PROMISE in which I had a trial witness say "Stranger things have happened." But, you can't say that here because there is nothing stranger than a man with an amputated left index finger refraining from using his right index finger to fire a gun unnecessarily. That's as strange as strange gets.

Now i have absolute proof that the Jackson photo was staged. It involves the way the Shooter was using his middle finger to pull the trigger, and it wasn't the right way. I have a gun, a snub-nosed 38 that is similar to the Colt Cobra. YOU WRAP YOUR TRIGGER FINGER AROUND THE TRIGGER. You don't stick it through so that it's poking out. The contact is at the first joint of finger, you wrap it. It even says so in the guidance. Read the small print at the bottom. It says "Trigger on your trigger finger's first joint". 

 

The Jackson photo was supposedly taken a third of a second after the shot went off. And the story went that "Ruby" sought to shoot again, and the only reason he didn't is because LC Graves grabbed the gun. Jim Leavelle, on camara, thanked Graves for saving his life, although that's nonsense because if you watch the films, you see that the Shooter came in from the side, and after firing the shot, he jumped from being to the side of Oswald to being in front of him, as we see in the Jackson photo. But, that put Leavelle out of the line of fire. So, even if the Shooter had gotten off a second shot, Leavelle would not have been hit. 

But why. in the Jackson photo, is the Shooter's middle finger sticking out, where it's probably the second joint that is on the trigger? It's because they were trying to make sure that the middle finger was noticed. Remember: it was just a tiny little piece of a large photo. If he had wrapped his middle finger around the trigger in the usual way, it's likely that no one would have noticed. People aren't that observant. 

So, this was their way of making sure that everyone noticed the middle finger. But, it couldn't have been during the actual shooting. Even though I don't think Oswald was shot in the garage, I know a shot went off. The trigger got pulled, and the gun discharged.  So, what we are seeing in the Jackson photo can't be real. It had to be staged and posed. And the same goes for the Beers photo. 

 The "iconic" Beers and Jackson photos are the only images that show the middle finger. The films don't show it. The two main films, which are NBC and KRLD, don't even show the hand, let alone the finger. The camera, in both cases, was behind the shooter.

It seems like the still photos were taken to deliberately show the middle finger, while the films were taken to deliberately not show it. Why would that be? It's because they weren't really going to have the shooter use his middle finger. But, for the still photos, there was no shot. They were staged. They were posed. And the means to do it. Conside the testimony of Dr. Fred Bieberdorf.

Dr. Bieberdorf said that the press started gathering in the basement very early. Remember that they were expecting a 10:00 Jail Transfer. He said that at 9:45, everyone was ordered out- including him, and he worked there. Reporters were told that they could wait in the press room on the 3rd floor. They weren't allowed back into the garage until shortly before it went down. The KRLD film starts about 12 minutes before, and you can see reporters and cameramen entering and taking positions.

So, why did they clear out the garage? There were two reasons. The first was to collect Ruby. He told the Warren Commissioners that he sent his money wire to Karen Carlin at 10:17. It was presumed to be a mistake on his part, but it was not a mistake. He remembered it correctly. I know there was paperwork showing 11:17, but that was phony. The first thing they did when they got Ruby upstairs was strip him to his underwear. They did that for two reasons: to give his suit to Bookhout to wear and to get his paperwork so that they could replace it. He could have left the paperwork in his car, so they also got his car keys, and they asked him where it was parked, and he told them. To their dismay, he brought his dog along. Who brings a dog to a killing?

Ruby said that all he could remember was going to the basement and being jumped by the cops. He said that he never had any thought to shoot Oswald and no memory of doing it. He said that he was so baffled as to why the police jumped him that he started saying, "What are you doing? You know me. I'm Jack Ruby, not some criminal." Note that the reporters said that the Shooter did NOT speak. But Jack Ruby did- at his melee.

But, the other thing they did during the evacuation of the garage was take the iconic photos. Which happened first? Collecting Ruby came first. But, it led to complications. Detectives McMillan and Harrison were both involved in hustling Ruby up to the 5th floor and getting him settled, stripping him to his underwear, etc. But, time was running out, and while they were doing that, the photo-shoot was proceeding in the basement.

They must have taken the Jackson photo first, and in the Jackson photo, you don't see McMillan or Harrison. McMillan they just left out. Who would notice? But, they had a surrogate for Blackie Harrison, and I believe it was FBI Agent James Hosty. I am referring to the guy smoking the cigar on the far right of the photo who looks like Leonid Brezhnev. They also didn't have the reporter Ike Pappas. But, McMillan did get back there in time for the Beers photo. However, for some reason, they had him stand sideways and look down. I can't explain that. And in the Beers photo, there is a Harrison figure, but you don't see his face. So, was that him or someone else? I don't know. They may have excluded Harrison's face just because he looked so different than the "Leonid Brezhnev" Harrison of the Jackson photo.

]But, the reason it took so much longer to process the Jackson photo was because they had a lot more alterations to make to it. It was supposed to be AFTER the shot, but there was no shot. And even during the televised spectacle, although there was a shot, there was no trauma. But, for the Jackson photo, they had to get the area of impact covered up so that the absence of trauma to Oswald and his clothing would be explained. So, that's how they came up with Oswald slapping his arm to his chest and Leavelle having his arm in tight. It was all to cover up the area of impact of the non-existent shot.

So, Dino's boys had a lot of work to do to the Jackson photo, and it may have taken them a while to come up with a solution. And that's why the Jackson photo wasn't published until many hours after the Beers photo. Remember the story: that the Beers photo was taken a fraction of a second before the shot, and the Jackson photo was taken a fraction of a second after the shot. Since the story of the Beers photo was that there was no trauma yet, all they had to add was a squiggle for Leavelle's arm.

But, I will leave you with the thought that they were probably whistling Dixie about the middle finger. They were thrilled that they had something that was distinctly Ruby that would identify the shooter as Ruby. But, it turned into a disaster for them when they found out that they got it wrong; that Ruby had lost his left index finger; not his right. So, it turned out that Ruby had no reason to use his middle finger. Oh shit. You hate it when that happens.

 This is awful. It is a video by John Armstrong in which he claims that the Dallas Police and Jack Ruby conspired together to kill Oswald, that members of the Dallas Police, such as Sergeant Patrick Dean, were involved in opening doors in the annex that enabled Ruby to reach the garage without going down the Main Street ramp. 

It's a long video; over 2 hours. And it, John claimed that Ruby was "ordered" to kill Oswald. But, by whom? Before, it was that the Mafia ordered Ruby to do it, but John didn't once mention the Mafia in this video. I assume that John meant that the Dallas Police ordered Ruby to do it. And John even said that Ruby didn't want to do it and tried to get out of it, that he made a call to the Police that he hoped would zilch the operation. 

But, exactly how could the Dallas Police "order" Ruby to shoot Oswald? What did they threaten to do to him if he refused? I'm not even going to propose something because there is no evidence of anything. 

So, why would Jack Ruby shoot Oswald just because the Dallas Police wanted him to? 

But, where this God-awful theory goes horribly wrong is over the fact that after the Dallas Police and Ruby supposedly conspired to kill Oswald that the Dallas Police proceeded not only to arrest Ruby but to testify against him at a trial in which he was being prosecuted for murder with the death penalty being sought. 

Now, let me make a very simple point: if the Dallas had forced Ruby to shoot Oswald on their order, then they would had to kill Ruby forthwith. Because: after doing that, how could they trust Ruby to keep his mouth shut? How could they be sure that his lawyers would not have pried the truth out of him? And even he tried to be stalwart, at first putting on an act and lying through his teeth, what if he lost wind? What if he just tired out? What if after 6 months of that, he just woke up one morning and said: "That's it. I've had it. I am going to take those guys down with me." Do you think those Dallas cops went to bed every night hoping and praying that Ruby kept his mouth shut?

If they had conspired with Ruby they would have had to kill him, and they would have killed him. The fact that Ruby lived until 1967 should tell you that he didn't know anything. 

And why WHY WHY would Dallas Police trust Jack Ruby to discharge a firearm in a cubbyhole packed with Dallas Police? Jack Ruby was a nincompoop. He was a dunce. Nobody respected him. He was an idiot. And as far as we know, Ruby had never fired that pistol once, not even to practice. If you were Jim Leavelle, would you want Jack Ruby shooting a bullet in your direction, with the only thing between you and the bullet being the skinny body of Oswald? 

Ruby said that he entered by way of the Main Street ramp. And he described what he saw when he got there. He said he saw Lt. Sam Rio Pierce parked at the top of the ramp with an officer on foot talking to him whom Ruby did not recognize. Do you realize that we have no evidence that Ruby ever lied? And it was Ruby who begged for a lie detector test or to be given truth serum. Why would he request those things? It's because he knew he had no intention of lying. And he passed the lie detector test. However, it was decided by the Warren Commission that because Ruby was declared to be psychotic, that the results would not be counted. But, I looked at his lie detector test, and he did say that he entered the garage thru the Main Street ramp without help. 

Some years ago, John Armstrong and I talked on the phone several times. And at that time, his conviction was that the Mafia ordered Ruby to kill Oswald. And he was unshakable about it. But now, he's switched it to the Dallas Police "ordering" Ruby to do it, although again, I'm clueless as to how they could have coerced him. 

I still wholeheartedly support John Armstrong's thesis that there were two Lee Harvey Oswalds, whose identities were merged when they were young boys. One was born in New Orleans as Lee Harvey Oswald, and the other (the Oswald of fame whom John refers to as "Harvey") was a Russian-speaking, post-WW2 orphan refugee, probably from Eastern Europe, who was extremely gifted with languages. And that's when the CIA's "Oswald Project" began when they merged the identities of the two boys, and it happened in New York City. 

However, I utterly denounce John's thesis about Jack Ruby and the Oswald shooting. John refuses to accept that Ruby was a completely witless patsy. And not just witless, but drugged and witless. There was a conspiracy, but it didn't involve Ruby. He had nothing to do with it. But, do you know who was in on it? Oswald. Oswald went along with the theater in the garage. 

Do you understand that it is impossible for Graves and Oswald not to be aware of "Ruby"? 

I put Ruby in quotes since he wasn't Ruby. But, peripheral vision- as well as other sensory input- would definitely have made them aware of the shooter. Yes, there was a conspiracy which involved the Dallas Police, the FBI, the Secret Service (who took custody of Marina before Oswald was shot, knowing that he would be shot). And I am very sure it started with Lyndon Baines Johnson. Fritz and his Stetson-wearing men weren't saints, but they weren't killers. They NEVER would have thought of doing it themselves. They were ordered to do it by Johnson. He was the Commander in Chief, and all but one of them were soldiers or seamen who fought in the war. I'm sure LBJ gave them his usual line, that there would be anarchy, that there might be war with the Soviet Union in which 100 million die, that there could be civil war; that there could be an economic collapse; that for the sake of the country and the Kennedy family, that everything had to be resolved that weekend.  

LBJ's henchman Cliff Carter was on the phone with Fritz 11 times on Friday alone, and that was before there were cell phones. 

Jack Ruby was not involved in the conspiracy to kill Oswald at all. He was completely bamboozled; tricked into believing that he had done it. And if you are going to quote Jack Ruby, quote that he told the Warren Commission that he sent the money-wire at 10:17, an hour before.  Because: that is what happened. They nabbed him an hour before. 

 Here is the link to John Armstrong's video, in which he is completely deluded. It's called "Oswald's pre-arranged murder" and yes, it was pre-arranged, but not by Jack Ruby. Poor Jack Ruby was just a witless moron who was played like an instrument. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFEb5G0zbqI