On the upper left is sportscaster Howard Cosell. He wore a toupee', and he joked about it. And Muhammad Ali teased him about it, but with affection. They were great friends. And on the right is Congressman Mike Rogers of Alabama, who is chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. He wears a toupee' too. I don't think anyone kids him about it to his face, but they make fun of him behind his back because it is kinda goofy.

And below left is the Garage Shooter, and he wore a toupee' too. That is not real hair. You can't see a single strand coming
out of his head. And it looks matted, just like the other two.

To his right is Jack Ruby on that very day. And you can see that his hair in back is very different. He's got that scruffy hair growth below his hairline, which the Shooter didn't have. And Ruby's hair
in back is tapered as we expect to see on a man. It doesn't appear to be neat and thick and rug-like, as on the Shooter. Not only that, but Ruby's neck is obviously longer. The Shooter looks burly, like his head is sitting on his shoulders. They cannot possibly be the same man.

But, how is it that we live in a country in which many people refuse to admit that they are different men, even though it's plainly obvious? I say that it's the same reason that we live in a country that blew up a girls' school in Minab, Iran, killing over 160 girls, where there is no doubt that our Military did it, and yet, our leaders refuse to admit it; refuse take responsibility for it; and refuse to express any remorse and regret about it. Not a word of compassion has been rendered.

 

Ralph Fri 27 Mar 2026 01:50:40 PM

Trump saying the Fake News Media denies the talks makes no sense because it is Iran that has denied the talks. Trump's 15 points were passed on to Iran by Pakistan, and they were denied, with Iran announcing their own 5 demands. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Arrahchi correctly pointed out that that is not talks. Plus, that message exchange happened AFTER Trump detailed the talks, saying that Iran offered him a big expensive oil-related gift. Trump is the modern version of Jimmy Stewart's character Elwood. who had talks with his invisible 6-foot rabbit-friend, Harvey. But, the Fake News Media doesn't mind a bit that Trump attacked Iran during peace talks, which were real. And it doesn't mind that 160 scoolgirls were killed by the U.S. on the first day. No outrage or sorrow has ever been expressed about that. And the only objections to this war that any U.S. politician has ever expressed has been about tactics, costs, and duration, but no one has ever decried the criminality and inhumanity of the war. What it tells me is that America has completely lost its soul. We have descended into monstrousness, as a nation.

 Only in the foul, rotten world of JFK-ing would anyone claim legitamacy for these images of Jack Ruby. Did he really go from looking as he does on the left to how he looks on the right from sleeping overnight in a jail cell? Has the savagery and vulgarity of the process sunk to defending both of these? And the funny thing is that Ruby never again looked like either one of these images. They are both one of a kind.

 All right; let's bump it up a notch. Let's find out how freaky the freaks can get. So, this another collage of Bookhout and Ruby. On the left, it's Ruby's standing mug shot. We see instantly that Ruby's neck was much longer. He is like giraffe compared to Bookhout. We see that his face is longer too and also somewhat gaunt compared to bookhout. Ruby was somewhat sloped in his shoulders, which I don't see in Bookhout. And Ruby's eyes look normal, while Bookhout has no eyes. Instead, he has raccoon stripes, and his two stripes are very different. But, I want to see how many are going to say they are the same man.

 This is supposed to be Ruby surrounded by detectives a couple minutes after the Oswald shooting. But, how could that short, round-faced, Charlie Brown be Ruby? Come on! It's obvious that it's not him.

 Mark Falin tried to claim that Freako Man was Ruby. He wasn't Ruby, and he isn't even real. Look how far the sideburn is from the ear. It's not even anatomically correct. Ruby's sideburn was right next to his ear, where it belonged. We call that guy Freako Man for a good reason; because he is a freak. He wasn't Ruby, and he wasn't the Garage Shooter either. Oh, and by the way, Ruby had no sunglasses.

 Paul Doser noticed that Ruby appears to have a hook nose in the image from the Midnight Press Conference. He did NOT have a hook nose. So, why does it look like he does?

I believe they did it to make him look Jewish. Ruby didn't have a hook nose, and most Jews don't. I'm Italian, and I think there are more hook noses among Italians than Jews. It's just a hateful stereotype.

So, it was done for the same reason why Shapespeare's Jewish character Shylock, from The Merchant of Venice, is often given a hook nose, as you see here.

But, that is Ruby on the left, the real Ruby. That's how thin he was, He was not that pudgy Garage Shooter, who looks like the Pillsbury Doughboy.

 These are both supposed to be Ruby; 24 hours apart. Do you see what I mean now about the manipulation of his image? And there is only one entity that could have gotten it done: the intelligence agencies of the U.S. government, meaning the CIA and the FBI. And it means that THEY killed Kennedy. Not Oswald, not the Mafia, but the CIA and the FBI, and on behalf of LBJ.

 I have been trying to make screen-grabs of the Ruby figure being led along jacketless in the Jail Office, but the distortion is severe. I believe it's due to the fact that it's an unstable image that is the product of manipulation, and it doesn't hold up well. The whole clip was blurred and pixelated deliberately because they didn't want us to see anything clearly. But, the image of Ruby is especially bad because it is a bogus image. The art that they did to it falls apart rapidly.

 Vinci pointed out that the image of Ruby being led through the Jail Office after the shooting doesn't look like him. It looks more like a caricature of him. His hair looks different: thick, wooly, wild, and long. It's like he has steel wool between lakes of baldness. His hair is so long in back, it juts out. There is no other image of him in which his hair is like that. He also looks like he has a massive goiter in his neck. And he looks pot-bellied.

I have made a comparison to the image of him at the DPD on Friday evening at the Midnight Press Conference. The media has been falsely claiming that image was taken on Friday afternoon when he was "stalking" Oswald, but that isn't true. It's definitely from Friday evening. There's a man next to him with the Saturday morning newspaper. Ruby was not at the DPD on Friday afternoon. At the time, he was at the Carousel Club making calls.

But, the question is, how did they produce that weird image of him in the Jail Office? Did they have a Jack Ruby double? Or, is it the result of art applied to the image?

 On the left is Ruby a couple minutes after the shooting. On the right is Ruby about 3 PM when they took him down to the 3rd floor and paraded him around.

Let's first consider the first image. He looks roughed up and desheveled. His shirt is unbuttoned, and the implication is that the buttons got torn off. Right? Because if they weren't torn off, then it means somebody unbuttoned them, and I don't mean Ruby. And, if you're going to tell me that the Dallas Police unbuttoned his buttons, you might as well admit that they killed Oswald and framed Ruby.

So if his buttons were torn off, why does his shirt look neat and buttoned on the right? And why does he look neat and cleaned up and well groomed, and I mean GQ groomed.?

There are two detailed accounts of Ruby's time upstairs on 11/24. One is Bugliosi's Reclaiming History, and the other is by Ruby's lawyer Elmer Gertz' in Moment of Madness. Neither says anything about Ruby getting a makeover.

But, there's another problem: what happened to Ruby's jacket on the left? Three detectives, McMillarn, Archer, and Clardy, claimed that as soon as they got Ruby inside the Jail Office, they pushed him down to the ground and handcuffed him. They didn't explain why they didn't do that in the garage. It was McMillan's cuffs that went on Ruby. But, they did not say that they removed his jacket first. And of course, you know they didn't because who would do that in trying to gain control over a violent man? Nobody would do that. Furthermore, they specficially stated that they didn't remove his jacket until they got him upstairs. It's in the testimony. So, why is there this image of Ruby jacketless and buttonless in the Jail Office? What's the talking point for that?

 It's only in evil JFK-land that anyone would claim that these two are the same man. Ruby, with is longer neck, and Bookhout, with round face and very short neck, cannot possibly be the same person. They don't look remotely alike. If you're going to say that those two are the same person, then you could say that any two men are the same person. Your government killed Kennedy, Americans. And they killed Oswald too. Stop fighting it.

 Some people have claimed, even recently in response to me, that Joseph Campisi was the Mafia figure who gave Ruby the order to shoot Oswald. They point to the fact that Ruby frequented Campisi's restaurant, the Egyptian Lounge, and did so that weekend.

Actually, it wasn't that weekend that Ruby went there. It was the Thursday night, which was before the JFK assassination. And Campisi wasn't there that night,

But, don't take my word for it. Here is the Timeline of Jack Ruby. Just do a search for Campisi.

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

I asked Chat GPT if Campisi was in the Mafia, and this is what it said:

"There isn’t a single piece of definitive proof that Joseph Campisi was in the Mafia—but there is a mix of law-enforcement intelligence, associations, and circumstantial evidence that fuel the belief."

After the JFK assassination, Campisi was questioned by the FBI, and it was reported that the transcript of it was reviewed by the Warren Commission. But, the WC did not call Campisi in to testify. However, Campisi was questioned by the HSCA, and he turned down his right to have a lawyer.

Q. Is your appearance here today to take this deposition free and voluntary on your part?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You have been informed that if you desired to have counsel you could have one present?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And I take it at this time your election is to proceed voluntarily without the assistance of counsel; is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.

However, some of the Dallas detectives who were called by the Warren Commission did show up with lawyers. One was Detective Blackie Harrison. Another was Detective RW Miller. His name is isn't as familiar as Harrison's, but Mille was Bagman. I'm referring to the guy who covered Bookhout's head with something during the melee' after Bookhout's hat fell off. If you haven't seen it, you can watch it in slow-motion, as he drapes Bookhout's head with something.

https://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2026/03/this-is-detective-rw-miller-who-covered.html

Finally, here is Campisi's testimony to the HSCA in which he was asked about Ruby going to his restaurant the night before the JFK assassination, and Campisi said that that's what they tell me because "I wasn't there."

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/hscacamp.htm

So, can we agree that the claim that Joseph Campisi is the one who passed along the Mafia order to Ruby to kill Oswald is total horse shit?

Oswald didn't kill Kennedy, and Ruby didn't kill Oswald. The U.S. government killed both. The same government that has been killing women and children in Iran and is currently bombing civilian infrastructure there, and on the first day during peace talks killed 160 Iranian schoolgirls, that entity did all the killing in the JFK assassination. It wasn't Oswald. It wasn't Ruby. It wasn't the Mafia. It was the U.S. government. And if you are an American citizen, it was your government.

This is Joseph Campis, circa 1950. His family still operates restaurants in the Dallas area. I think they have 9.

This is Detective RW Miller who covered Bookhout's head during the melee'. Miller insisted on having his lawyer present when he was questioned by the Warren Commission.  

  I have been on PubMed reading about nerve agents being absorbed percutaneous: through the skin. It happens even with intact skin, and that's why decontamination involves such intense and prolonged scrubbing and irrigating. But what about when nerve agents are introduced by violent entry through the skin? Then, the effects are much more severe, and much more rapid. 

This is from an AI search engine. 

If a nerve agent is injected or driven directly into the skin (or deeper tissues)—rather than just sitting on the surface—the onset is typically much faster and more severe.

Why injection changes everything

Normal skin exposure requires the chemical to slowly diffuse through layers of skin before reaching the bloodstream. Injection bypasses that barrier and places the agent:

• Directly into subcutaneous tissue or muscle, or
• Potentially into blood vessels

This makes absorption far more rapid and efficient.

Expected speed of symptoms

The timing depends on depth and dose, but broadly:

• Direct bloodstream entry (intravenous-like):
  Symptoms can begin within seconds to under a minute, similar to fast inhalation exposure.
• Intramuscular or subcutaneous injection:
  Symptoms may appear very quickly (often within a minute).

 JFK was shot in the back, high on the hill, with an ice dart that contained a nerve agent. We are hampered in studying it because we don't know which nerve agent it was, and we also don't know what, if any, other toxins were included.  

It is something that only could have been done by the CIA and the DOD (that is, the DOW in the age of Trump). No criminal organization could have done it. It could only have been done by the government. And everything about it would have been top-secret. 

And it must have taken a long time; years. That's because it was totally unchartered territory that required extensive experimentation. I dread to think how they went about that; who the subjects were, and what the casualty rate was.  It was used on Kennedy in 1963, but, I strongly suspect and have to assume that it was started 10 years before. 

In Kennedy's case, they wanted his muscles to seize up to immobilize him physically, and they also wanted his mind incapacitated, including his ability to speak. Kennedy never said a word. Jackie said he didn't say a word. And he didn't try to say a word. And that was due to his mind. 

Just think: JFK was shot, and he took no action to respond to the situation. He just sat there and did nothing. He did respond to being shot in the throat, but that was an instinctual response, not a reflex. And after he cleared his airway obstruction by coughing, he went to being totally passive. He didn't engage in action, and there is no reason to think that he engaged in thought either. He was completely incapacitated mentally. That is why he didn't talk; he didn't respond to Jackie: and he didn't take any action to cope with the situation.  And I think it's fair to say that, prior to that, he was a very smart, perceptive, and quick thinking person. 

We owe a lot to Senator Church for bringing to light that the CIA did develop a gun with which to shoot nerve agents into people. People make fun of the idea, but they ignore the fact that CIA Director William Colby said that the gun worked, that it was a "serious weapon." 

For 51 years, people have been ignoring the fact that the Zapruder film shows JFK being totally deranged mentally, totally incapable of communicating in any way, and in a state of progressive muscular spasm. I say 51 years because it wasn't until 1975 that the Zapruder film was first shown to the public.  It was surely the result of poisoning, including a nerve agent. No other explanation is possible, and it will be recognized. 

 Now, I will lay out the latticework of evidence that, in combination, proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Ruby did not shoot Oswald.  Each point reinforces the other points and makes the whole case irrefutable.Ruby could not possibly have had any intention of shooting Oswald for the following reasons:

1 The timing. 10 AM was the only guidance that the Dallas Police ever gave for the jail transfer.  Ruby would have had to show up before that, not a long time after it.

2. The dog. Ruby bringing his dog Sheba proves not only that he had no intention of shooting Oswald but that he had plans for that day. And he said what they were. He said that after finishing at Western Union, he was going to drop Sheba off at the Carousel Club, which was right across the street, because there was someone there who doted on her. Then, he was going to go to this new apartment building he would soon be moving into. I forget the name of it, but it included the word “tower.”

3. The very juxtaposition of an ordinary, routine, and plebian action of wiring $25 to an employee with killing Oswald in a crowd of Police and thereby destroying his (Ruby’s) own life is inconceivable. You just can’t go from one to the other. They are incompatible to the extreme.

4. It means that all the stories that involve pre-meditation in collusion with the Mafia or the Dallas Police are completely untenable. The “mental break/sudden impulse” story is the only one that survives, but even it collapses when you scrutinize it.

5. Like the “Thorburn Position”, the mental break/sudden impulse theory has no patho-physiological foundation. Ruby’s celebrity lawyer Melvin Belli came up with the term “psychomotor epilepsy” to rationalize it, which referred to motor actions that could result from the chaotic discharges of an epileptic convulsion, but it was nonsense. The pointing of a gun and the pulling of a trigger cannot happen from a convulsion. Then, the sheer brevity of this supposed snap in consciousness (several seconds) makes it impossible. Furthermore, we have the films of the shooting, and when you look at the Shooter, you can see that he was surely conscious and acting with awareness, purpose, etc. You can’t possibly attribute what he was doing to a sudden mental break. This is obviously not a man who was in a trance or acting on sudden impulse.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHripG_tgR0

6. Then, there is the character of Jack Ruby. He was a VERY devout Jew. He attended synagogue and counseled with his rabbi. And he said that he NEVER had the thought to hurt Oswald. He said that the word “anger” wasn’t in his vocabulary. He said that sorrow over the loss of President Kennedy was what he was feeling that weekend- not anger or rage.  And the inherent goodness of Jack Ruby isn’t hard to demonstrate. Do you know how George Senator became his roommate? Senator was another resident in the building in which Ruby lived, and he was being evicted for not paying his rent. He had lost his job and had no money. Ruby saw his eviction going on, and he offered to let Senator move in with him, rather than be homeless. Could you do that? Invite a stranger, whom you didn’t know from Adam, to move in with you? I couldn’t do that. My generosity and compassion don’t go that far. And, I think the whole thing was a setup. I think Senator was Ruby’s handler, and it was all a big act. But, the fact that they tried it shows you that they knew about Ruby’s big and soft heart. What about the stories of Ruby beating people up and throwing people down the stairs, including women? THEY ARE ALL LIES.  

7. We know that Ruby did not get to the ramp when Officer Roy Vaughn was there because their accounts of what happened were so different. Vaughn said that Lt. Rio Sam Pierce didn’t stop when he came up the ramp. Ruby said that Pierce was parked at the top of the ramp. Vaughn said that he and Pierce exchanged no words. He said that he quickly checked and saw that traffic was clear, so he waved Pierce through without Pierce stopping. Ruby said that an officer on foot was talking to the stopped Pierce when he, Ruby, got there.  Note also that Ruby knew Roy Vaughn because Vaughn had been to the Carousel Club on police business, and he had once forgiven Ruby’s traffic violation because he was “a friend of the Department.” But, Ruby said that he didn’t recognize the officer who was talking to Pierce. It’s apparent that they didn’t place Vaughn at the ramp until AFTER Ruby was in custody up on the 5^th floor.

8. There are numerous discrepancies between Jack Ruby and the Garage Shooter. The Shooter was shorter than Ruby; he was pudgier; his hair was very different, looking like a mop in back, with all the indications that it was a wig, and there was the fact that the Shooter had a VERY short neck, much shorter than Ruby’s. And their clothing was different, with the Shooter wearing light-colored socks and dressy wingtips, and Ruby wearing jet black socks and high-top shoes. And that discrepancy is what led to the ridiculous claim of changing his underwear. One would have to be an awfully stupid doofus to believe it.

9  Ruby’s inability to remember any specifics about the shooting, in which he had no mental image of having shot Oswald, where it seemed to go from him getting there to the garage and then being jumped by the Police with nothing in-between reveals that he didn’t shoot Oswald.

10 Ruby’s willingness to accept that he shot Oswald was based entirely on the Dallas Police telling him that he did it, and it reveals a respect for authority that goes way beyond the norm. Anyone else in that situation would have spewed rage and fire upon being accused of something that was, not only outside their memory, but also outside their entire sense of self. But, Ruby was so weak, so totally submissive, so pathologically obedient, that it was truly a behavioral psycho-pathology. I’m sure it was decided well in advance that if they needed a patsy for when they killed Oswald, that Ruby would be their man.

Jack Ruby was innocent, and that is absolutely certain. These 10 points say so, and I could have added more.

We talk a lot about freedom in this country, but our freedom only goes so far, and there is no freedom that they couldn’t try to take away. Imagine if things get really bad here. Imagine if there is an economic collapse. Imagine if they impose martial law. How free are we going to be then?

But, there is one freedom you can count on, and that is: the freedom to think. They can’t take that away. And anyone with a free, intelligent, un-enslaved, and unencumbered mind is going to realize that Ruby did not shoot Oswald.   

 I am appalled by the Israeli/U.S. war on Iran, and I posted this comment on Yahoo. It may be removed. 

 I am going to respond to Jor Harman and Jeff Marzano. I said that if the Mafia ordered Ruby to shoot Osawld, then they had to do it after JFK was killed. They could not have ordered it before. They didn't even know it was needed before. Surely, the plotters hoped that Oswald would get killed in the theater.

 Why did Roy Truly brush off Oswald to Officer Marrion Baker? ("Nah, he works for me") and then, just 20 minutes later, go to the Police full of suspicion about Oswald? Just because he wasn't present for a roll call? No way! It was because they didn't want Oswald calmly arrested at the TSBD. They wanted to get him armed first, so that he might get in a shootout with the police. And they hoped that branding him as a cop-killer would increase the itch in somebody's itchy trigger finger. It didn't work out, but it might have.

 Now, keep in mind that I think the whole idea that the Mafia ordered Ruby to shoot Oswald is preposterous. Ruby was a VERY devout Jew. He was so moral, he couldn't even lie, let alone kill. You have to understand that all the stories you've heard about Ruby being a gangster are lies. He was a better person than most people. He was less inclined and more averse to violence than most people. His aversion to shooting anyone was over the top.

 And in this case, we're talking about, not just murder, but the complete ruination of his life. And he enjoyed his life. He enjoyed his business. He enjoyed being a big shot. He enjoyed his family, his friends, his dogs. You think he would have destroyed all that just because the Mafia ordered him to kill someone?

 Well, what about you? Would you kill someone if the Mafia ordered you to do it? And what did the Mafia threaten him with? I hear people saying that they threatened to kill his sister, but there's no evidence of that. It is just a totally made-up thing. It's a lie.

 But, hypothetically, if they ordered Ruby to shoot Oswald, they either had to meet with him that weekend or call him. Well, here is the record of every minute of Ruby's life from the Thursday to the Sunday.

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

 Go through it and tell me when the Mafia met with Ruby and ordered him to shoot Oswald. They probably wouldn't have phoned it in, right?

 There is no time. Ruby never met with anyone from the Mafia. In most cases, that would settle it, but this is JFK-land, a very evil place, where people won't let go of the preposterous. It's a place where evil stubborness goes on forever.

 And that brings me to what Jeff Marzano said, that millions saw Ruby shoot Oswald on television. Millions didn't recognize the Shooter as Ruby. There were reporters in the garage who knew Ruby who didn't recognize the Shooter as him. For instance, Hugh Aynesworth said that the Shooter zipped right in front of him (his exact words), and he didn't recognize him as Ruby, or have the slightest inkling that he was Ruby. So, how did he come to know he was Ruby? BECAUSE THE POLICE ANNOUNCED IT. Ike Pappas was another reporter who knew Ruby and had Ruby's business card in his pocket, and he didn't recognize the Shooter as Ruby. He was going around asking people if anyone recognized the Shooter.

 So, if these guys who knew Ruby didn't recognize the Shooter as him, how could the millions at home, who didn't know Ruby from Adam, recognize the Shooter as him?

 This should settle the matter, but it won't. People are going to continue saying that millions saw and recognized Ruby shooting Oswald. And again, it's because of this evil JFK world.

 Like Oswald, Jack Ruby was innocent. The same people who killed Kennedy killed Oswald. They had to kill him because they knew that the case they were making against him to John Q. Public and his wife Ditzey would never hold up in court. They not only couldn't try him, THEY COULDN'T EVEN LET HIM TALK TO A LAWYER. Not even once. They would have had to kill the lawyer.

 What I have been telling you is the truth: Ruby got there early. He was pounced upon and taken up on the 5th floor, where he was held during the Garage Spectacle, in which FBI Agent James W. Bookhout pretended to be him. The real Ruby was slipped into the story at 3 o'clock when they brought him down to the 3rd floor and paraded him in front of reporters. That was the switch in the bait and switch. For 62 years, we have all been treated like Pavlovian dogs. I dare say it is time to revolt.

 I know of four stories about how Ruby shot Oswald, which are all wrong. And there is a fifth story- that Ruby did not shoot Oswald but was framed for it- and that one is right. I can prove that the first four don't make sense. And that makes the fifth story, my story, the last man standing. There is no other plausible story.  

So, the first story is the one that got Ruby convicted and sentenced to death. It is that he shot Oswald pre-meditated, in cold blood, and all by himself. It makes no sense because 10 AM was the only time given by the Dallas Police. Who shows up for a 10 AM jail transfer at 11:20, especially when your intention is to shoot the guy being transferred? And who brings their dog along to a shooting when you know the Police are going to grab you, and you are never going back to your car and your life? Not only would Ruby not have brought his dog along, he would have made arrangements for her, and his other dogs, because he loved them. But, Ruby had done nothing to prepare for that.

And who juxtaposes the mundane task of wiring $25 to an employee right before killing someone and destroying one's own life? Once he decided to kill Oswald, don't you think he would have brushed off the mundane stuff? It's like he had an errand list: "take the clothes to the dry cleaner; wire $25 to Karen Carlin; kill Oswald..." It just doesn't connect. 

So, the idea that Ruby did it pre-meditated is totally loony, and the jury that convicted him and sentenced him to death had to be the dumbest jury of all time.  

OK, Story #2 is the one that failed at trial, but actually became the replacement for the prosecution story that won. It's that Ruby did it, but he was in an altered mental state, one that his defense team called "psychomotor epilepsy." He wasn't conscious of doing it; it's like he did it in his sleep. And they used that story in the tv movie Ruby and Oswald in 1978.  When Ruby died in 1967, he was autopsied, including his brain, and the autopsists said he didn't have epilepsy. The movements involved in a convulsion are erratic and chaotic, and one could never pull the trigger of an aimed gun in such a state. The claim is that Ruby suddenly went into that state and then quickly came out of it. He responded lucidly when the cops jumped him. He said, "Hey, what are you doing? You know me. I'm Jack Ruby. I'm not some criminal. I'm not wanted." The idea that he suddenly fell into that state for several seconds and then instantly came out of it is preposterous. What prevails here is that there is no medical evidence whatsoever that Ruby had such a condition. There is nothing whatsoever to support it. 

Story #3 is the one that seems to be the most popular in the evil online JFK world. It is that Ruby did it intentionally with complete awareness, but it was only because the Mafia ordered him to do it. As popular as it is with the shills, it is impossible, first because the Mafia had no reason to kill Oswald. Oswald knew nothing about them. There was nothing he could tell the Police about them. And they were glad that Kennedy was dead, right? So, they had absolutely no reason to kill Oswald.  But, the second thing that makes it impossible is that there was never a time that they could have ordered Ruby to do it. We know everything that Ruby did from the Thursday to the Sunday, 24/7, and he never had a meeting with the Mafia or a phone call with them. There is no possibility that they got an order to him to shoot Oswald. And keep in mind that the shills who keep saying it never cite any interaction between Ruby and the Mafia. And they don't cite any names either. It is a completely empty claim that is devoid of evidence; devoid of substance; and devoid of details. Yet, in the stupid world of JFKing, the shills keep saying it over and over again.  

Story #4 is that the Dallas Police put Ruby up to shooting Oswald. So, the idea is that they were all working together. And in this story, they usually make it that Ruby didn't reach the basement by going down the ramp. They claim instead that a cop opened a door somewhere to let him in. This whole story makes no sense at all. In the Mafia story, they claim that the Mafia threatened to kill Ruby's sister if he didn't kill Oswald. Of course, there is no evidence for that whatsoever; they just made it up; but that's what they glibly say. But, how did the Dallas Police get Ruby to shoot Oswald? Did they also threaten to kill his sister? That seems a bit farfetched for Police, don't you think?  And you know, the whole idea that you're going to kill somebody because someone threatened to kill your sister if you don't do it doesn't add up. I have a sister, whom I love.  But, if someone threatened to kill her unless I killed someone on their behalf, I am certainly not going to kill the person. And neither would you. So, why does anyone think that Ruby would? 

But, the other problem with a collusion between Ruby and the Dallas Police is; how could they trust him afterwards? Even if he said that he would do it, and he would gladly go to the electric chair for them and fry for it (which is hard to imagine) what if he changed his mind? What if he woke up one morning and said, "I can't take it any more. I am going to tell my lawyers everything." 

Don't you see that if Ruby had colluded with the Dallas Police, the Dallas Police would have had to kill him. And I mean right away. 

But, the other ridiculous thing about this theory is that it involved Jack Ruby firing a gun in a small space crowded with Police. How could they trust that nincompoop, that dolt, that brainless moron Jack Ruby to fire a gun in their direction? Didn't they know what can easily happen to the best laid plans of mice and men? Do you really think Jim Leavelle would have gone along with Jack Ruby shooting at Oswald in his, Levealle's direction? That's what makes this the most stupid theory of all, and they're all stupid. 

So, every one of these stories is imbecilic. The only story that makes sense that is that they didn't need Ruby to kill Oswald. They could do that themselves. All they needed him for was to take the blame for it. So, they tricked him into believing that he shot Oswald. The way it happened is that Ruby got to the garage early, about an hour early, where they pounced on him and took him up to the 5th floor. There, they told him that he shot Oswald. I don't know if Oswald was there for it. Maybe he was; maybe he wasn't. But, I know for sure that Officer Roy Vaughn wasn't there for it because he would have heard the commotion. Vaughn was placed to guard the ramp AFTER Ruby was apprehended. 

The essential element in this operation was Ruby's mental degradation. I have no doubt that he was MK-ULTRA'd, and that, surely, involved drugs. However, a special degree of intoxication was needed to guarantee the success of this mission. Ruby needed to be submissive and obsequious to the extreme.  So, besides his usual amphetamines, they gave him a drug called scopolamine, which Allen Dulles learned about from the Nazis that he chummed with for 4 years in Switzerland during WW2. Scopolamine, the zombie drug, takes away your free will. And notice that Ruby looked like zombie. He was stoned. And notice that his eyes were dilated. Scopolamine does that too. 

 RL Schirtz tried to claim that since Lovelady's hairline in the FBI photo resembles Doorman's, they must be the same person. But, the FBI fabricated that. The FBI was bad. J. Edgar Hoover was bad. He was one of the baddest men to ever wield power in this country, and he wielded a lot of power. 

When the photo-altering team saw that Oswald was in the doorway, they made the decision to turn him into Lovelady. But, they weren't going to just tell the world that Oswald was Lovelady. They were arrogant, but they weren't that arrogant. They knew they had to do something Lovelady-ify Oswald. And what they did was more over the top of Lovelady's head, what I call his crown. They had an image of Lovelady from 1957, but they didn't know the date of it. For all they knew, it was recent. And they didn't know that Lovelady was a rapidly balding young man. Nobody told them. 

So, it started with Lovelady's hairline from 1957, which they moved to Oswald. You can see how identical it is. Did I mention that Lovelady was a rapidly balding young man? He was one of those guys who, every time he took a shower, he clogged the drain with hair. So, after they did that, they doctored Lovelady's hair in the FBI photo that they took of him on February 29, 1964. There are several versions of it, but I'm using this one with the most hair, in which they really gave him a mop. At around the same time, and possibly on the same day, Mark Lane captured his pirated image of Lovelady, which shows how bald Lovelady really was at the tender age of 26.  That FBI photo of Lovelady is NOT reliable. It is a propaganda image used to sell the lie that Lovelady was Doorman. And why did the FBI do that? They did it because the FBI was the government, and the government killed Kennedy. I keep telling you that; that the U.S. government killed Kennedy, and it is the truth. It wasn't Oswald, and it wasn't the Mafia. It was the U.S. government, including its intelligence agencies, the CIA and the FBI. 

 

 What I have been telling you, that Ruby got to the garage early; was pounced upon; then taken up to the 5^th floor and held there through the Garage Spectacle; then slipped into the story later when they took him to the 3^rd floor and paraded him in front of reporters, is the truth, and no other story works.

If Ruby had planned to kill Oswald, he would have gotten there on time. 10 o’clock was the only guidance ever given. If Ruby had done it on his own, how could he have known that the Jail Transfer was going to happen at 11:20? You think he was clairvoyant?

And if he planned to shoot Oswald in a crowd of Police, he would have known that he was going to be arrested and never return to his life, so he would not have brought his dog along. And he would have found a new home for his dogs and settled all his affairs, knowing that he would not be returning to his life. But, he didn’t do that.

All that’s true even if you think the Mafia ordered him to shoot Oswald. But, the Mafia story is impossible because we know every contact that Ruby had, by phone or in person, between 11/22 and 11/24, and he was NEVER contacted by the Mafia.  They didn’t meet with him, and they didn’t phone him.  

Here is the timeline of Jack Ruby from Thursday to Sunday, hour by hour, minute by minute, and there are no gaps in it. He was NOT contacted by the Mafia, period.

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

Some people think that that Ruby and the Dallas Police were working together, that they opened a door for him and cued him about when to come. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, that is stupid!  Don’t you understand what a dingbat Ruby was? That no one in their right mind would want him shooting a gun in their direction? He was loony! And what about afterwards? How could they trust him to keep his mouth shut and put on an act to his lawyers? Could they count on him to keep the act going until it was time to flip the switch on the electric chair?  Of course not! They would have had to kill him, and they would have killed him.

Sometimes, life is like chess, where you have to make a certain move to avoid checkmate.   And this is one of those times. Ruby did not shoot Oswald, and he wasn’t even there. He was tricked into believing that he shot Oswald, and the whole world was tricked. But, it wasn’t even executed well. They didn’t even get the clothing right.  Bookhout wore light socks and wingtip shoes, while Ruby wore black socks and high-top shoes, which made them have to claim that they changed every stitch of clothing on Ruby’s body for his overnight stay, including his shoes, socks, and underwear. And you believe that sh_t?

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph.

 As we continue to probe the monstrous crimes of the U.S. government the weekend of November 22-24, 1963, (and it was the U.S. government that did all the killing: not Oswald, not the Mafia, and not Jack Ruby) I feel compelled to address the current colossal crime of the U.S. government: the war on Iran. I feel I have to do it because not doing it is like ignoring the elephant in the room. 

And I'll start with some practical advice. If you think this war is going to go on for a while, then eventually end, and then everything is going to go back to normal, you are sadly mistaken. Normal is gone. The world is NEVER going back to what it was. The whole global order has been disrupted. The crushing effect on the global economy means that high inflation, high unemployment are guaranteed, but, it's going to be worse for Americans because of the decline of the U.S. dollar. So, you better be ready for it.

But, let's be real: this war isn't close to ending; it's escalating. The worst may lie ahead. The big question is whether Israel and/or the U.S. will resort to nuclear weapons if all else fails. What a wretched irony that would be considering that Iran using nukes was the justification for the war. My opinion is: yes, Israel would nuke Iran, if necessary. If it came down to either losing the war or using a nuke, they will use a nuke. I rate the chance of the U.S. doing it a little less, but not much. After all, the U.S. is the only country in the world that has already used a nuke. And since the decision would be Trump's, then yes, I think he is fully capable of making that monstrous decision and rationalizing it. He is rash, by nature. Don't you realize that? 

The tragedy of this catastrophe is that it was so unnecessary. Iran is not and never has been a terrorist state. The accusation is based mostly on the fact that Iran has given money to Hamas and Hezbollah. But, so has Saudi Arabia and the other Arab states. It was given to help Palestinians and Lebanese. 

One of the most frequent citings of a terrorist act by Iran is the attacks on Jews in Argentina in 1992 and 1994. Get out a world map or better yet a globe, and look at the distance from Iran to Argentina. Jews live unpersecuted in Iran. They have their temples, their Kosher markets and restaurants, etc. They even have rabbical schools to train rabbis, and it all goes on unfettered. And they have a special representative in the Iranian Parliament. Iran's treatment of its Jews is nothing at all like Hitler's. So, why would Iran go to Argentina to kill Jews? What's in it for them, then or now? Nothing. It would be awfully stupid for them to do it, and Iranians aren't stupid. They invented hypersonic missiles, which we haven't done.  I don't think there is a snowball's chance in Hell that the Iranian government sought to kill Jews in Argentina.   

What I think it really comes down to is hate: racist hate. For decades, the culture in the United States has been sliding towards hating Iran and Iranians. We've been feeding that hatred. Just the other day, Trump said that "the Iranian people are quite nasty." Wow. What a thing to say. 

Just imagine if Putin had bombed Ukraine the way Trump has bombed Iran, where schools, hospitals, and residences have been hit. Putin has hit some civilian structures and killed some civilians in Ukraine, but not in the magnitude or in the concentration that Trump and Israel have been killing civilians in Iran. And you know that the "decapitation strikes" have not been precise and limited. Without the least hesitation, Israel has been willing to kill whole familes to take out one scientist, and the U.S. has followed them down that road. The same thing happened in WW2. When the U.S. joined the war, we sent our airmen to England, and they joined the British bombers in saturation bombing of civilian centers in Germany. Most all the Allied bombing against Germany in WW2 were attacks on civilians. Strategic bombing was largely abandoned for terror bombing. If you haven't read about the bombing of Dresden, you should do it before you die. 

It's very appropriate that I bring this up because at the time, neither the UK, the US, nor USSR were signatories to the Geneva Conventions which banned the targeting of civilians in war. But, the U.S. did sign it in 1949, though alas, the number of civilians we killed in the Korean War, and then in the Vietnam War, were in the millions. The total civilian death toll in George W. Bush's "War on Terror" is also in the millions.

But, the fact is that it's getting worse because in this war, the attacks on civilians started right away: on the very first day. It's widely admitted now that the killing of 175 people at the girls' school on the first day (most of the victims being young girls) was done by the U.S. Trump abjectly denied it for as long as he could. And Hegsted kept saying, like a mantra, that the only one who targets civilians are the Iranians. 

But, let's be crystal about something: the excuse that you had bad intelligence, or that the school was close to a military facility, and the notion that saying that exonerates you is false. it does not. You have a responsibility to spare civilians. You have blood on your hands, and you are guilty. In Afghanistan, we bombed 9 wedding parties, knowingly and methodically killing everybody: the bride, the groom, children, families- all in the hope of killing a few Taliban fighters. There is a 4-letter word for that: EVIL.

I hate to say it, but moral degeneracy has taken over in America. Even Trump's political opponents, the Democrats, are criticizing his war over stretegy, cost, and legality, but not the inhumanity of killing Iranians. I pointed that out to Chat GPT, and this is what it said:

 You’re right—most of the public political statements from U.S. politicians focus on legality, constitutionality, or strategic prudence, not on the moral dimension of killing civilians. Very few high-profile American politicians openly frame such attacks as immoral or equivalent to atrocity, which can make the system look morally complacent, especially from an external perspective.

This distinction is important:

• Legal/constitutional objections: “This isn’t authorized by Congress,” or “It’s not an imminent threat.”

• Strategic objections: “This could escalate into a quagmire,” or “It undermines diplomacy.”

• Regime change criticism: “We shouldn’t try to overthrow their government.”

But explicit moral condemnation of civilian deaths is almost absent from mainstream discourse. Even anti-war voices often couch their argument in law or strategy rather than human rights or ethics.

It’s a sobering reflection on how political frameworks can normalize violence when morality is subordinated to legality, nationalism, or realpolitik.

*          *          *          *         *         *          *            *             *

I believe in Karma, and I believe that the repercussions of this monstrous war, which we started, and during peace negotiations no less, are going to be horrendous for us.  And I think that the deranged people who did it: Trump, Hegsted, and their top military leaders, have committed gross crimes against humanity. But, I also think that it involves trends and attitudes and "group think" that go back many years, and involve many more people and institutions. 

This is what Trump just posted on Truth Social: “Watch what happens to these deranged scumbags today." Heaven help us. 

 

 I feel compelled to express my thoughts about the atrocious U.S./Israeli war on Iran because, otherwise, it would be like ignoring the elephant in the room. What they've done is utterly grotesque, abominable, and monstrous. And really, it is catastrophic. I could also say that it is insane, considering that Trump raged about not getting the Nobel Peace Prize. But, in his derangement, he probably thinks he still deserves it. 

Consider the claim that Iran has been a "state sponsor of terror." Is it true? The claim is based mainly on Iran having given money to Hamas and Hezbollah. But, Saudi Arabia has also done that, as have other Arab states. And many countries accuse Israel of terrorism and genocide in Gaza and elsewhere. And the U.S. was accused of terrorism by the ICC for bombing wedding parties and pistachio pickers in Afghanistan.  

And when you look at specifics, it gets even worse. Often cited are the attacks against Jewish targets in Argentina in 1992 and 1994. Get a map out, or better yet, get a globe out, and look at the distance between Iran and Argentina. What possible benefit was it to Iran to kill some Jews in Argentina? The Iranians aren't stupid. Look at their missile technology. And the fact is that Jews live unpersecuted in Iran. They have their temples. They have their Kosher restaurants. They have a representative in the Iranian Parliament. So, why, Why, Why would Iran go halfway around the world to kill some Jews? They are not that stupid. 

And speaking of stupid, it doesn't get more stupid than Donald Trump. Twice, he has interrupted negotiations with Iran to savagely attack them. And, this time, like last time, Trump is already clamoring for a ceasefire. It's very clear that he wants the war to be over. But, this time, Iran is saying no, and Donald Trump is bewildered.  I find it amazing that he even expects them to consider a ceasefire, considering what he did after the last one, and I consider it a sign of his severe mental deficit. 

In the decapitation strikes with which Israel and the U.S. began their savage war, they knowingly killed a lot of innocents. They would bomb an apartment building to kill one scientist. Everyone else was "collateral damage", including the guy's wife, his kids, his grandkids, and his neighbors.  And sad to say, it wasn't the first time. During the Iraq War, George W. Bush bombed a restaurant in Baghdad, a cheap place where you could get a chicken dinner for $2. They dropped a megaton bomb on it and wiped out the whole city block. They killed Iraqi families sleeping in their beds, including many Iraqi children, all in the hope of killing Saddam Hussein, which they didn't do.

And I brought that war crime up in my film, MY STRETCH OF TEXAS GROUND, which was my first. It is the only anti-war feature film of the 21st century. You can watch it for free on Youtube. 

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSGWzsmxWPg&t=1s   

Chat GPT is very pro-Amerian and pro-Israeli, but I have found that you can argue with it. At first, they didn't want to admit that the U.S. bombed the girls' school. But then, they came around to this:

The available evidence currently points toward a U.S. strike

Multiple reports citing officials briefed on the investigation say that U.S. investigators believe it is likely U.S. forces were responsible for the strike on the girls’ school in Minab.

Preliminary findings reportedly indicate:

• A U.S. Tomahawk missile likely struck the area.

• The intended target was a nearby Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps facility.

• Outdated intelligence may have caused the school to be mistakenly listed as a military target.

Because of this, many outlets describe the incident as a likely U.S. strike that hit the school by mistake.

 I am sickened by the fact that most of the criticism of Trump's war from Congress has focused on legality, authorization, and strategy rather than explicitly condemning the war as immoral, inhumane, and wicked. And I see it as evidence of the advanced moral degeneracy in our government. They all seem to have the conviction that America has the right to kill anyone.  

Finally, I will leave you with this: If you think this war is going to go on a while and then end, and then things are going to go back to normal; that by Opening Day of Major League Baseball, this war is going to seem like a blip from the past, you are sadly mistaken. THIS WAR HAS CHANGED EVERYTHING. IT HAS SHIFTED THE AXIS OF THE WHOLE WORLD ORDER. And what's coming next is not going to be pretty or easy or comfortable because the ramifications of this war are going to hit us all very hard and for a very long time. Brace yourself. 

 A Michelle Bube responded to my post about Lovelady and the shirt he wore on 11/22, which he wore again on 2/29 to pose as Doorman for the FBI, and she was arrogant and dismissive. She said we know it's not Oswald, and "we have witnesses that verify that." My post was about the shirt Lovelady wore on 11/22, and she didn't address any of the points I made or the images I presented. This was my response to her:

Michelle Bube: You don't know how to think, Michelle, and you don't know how to debate either. Specific points were made here, and you wrongly think that you can glibly dismiss them, as if you're holding a trump card that you can play at will. You're not. You don't know that it's not Oswald, and you are not the Queen of Siam. You don't get to make proclamations.

And although the WC got a few people to say that Doorman was Lovelady, there were 75 people who worked in that building. Since everyone who testified was screened in advance, it was a simple matter of finding ones who would say it. So, if they screened someone, and that person said that Doorman was Oswald, then he or she would not be allowed to testify. Carolyn Arnold said that she saw Oswald at the doorway, peering through the glass shortly before the shooting. She wasn't allowed to testify.

Furthermore, the photographic evidence trumps the lip-flapping. Lip-flapping is what got dozens of innocent men and women, who were sent to Death Row, exonerated by DNA evidence, thanks to the Innocence Project. The Innocence Project has also exonerated over 20 people who were executed by the State. Every single one of those wrongful convictions was the result of spurious lip-flapping, done either maliciously or mistakenly.

It was definitely Oswald in the doorway, and not because I say so, but because the evidence says so; the images say so. This is an image of Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady less than a minute after the assassination. If you look closely, you can see that Lovelady was wearing a short-sleeved shirt. The shirt had red and white stripes, but the red was more like pink because the shirt was old and faded. Lovelady wore that shirt on 11/22, as we can see; then he told the FBI that he wore that shirt, which they put in writing twice; and then he posed in that shirt for the FBI when they took photos of him.

This is a brand-new collage I just made to refute you, and I'm starting to think that it is one of the most powerful collages I have ever made. I am going to post it widely now, here on Facebook and on my blog, and I am going to mention you. So, I'm going to make you famous.