I am holding my Smith and Wesson .38 with my middle finger engaging the trigger, and you see where my index finger winds up. I guess one could try to crimp it. But, are we going to assign that to Ruby too? The official story has it that Ruby shot Oswald suddenly, impulsively, in a moment of madness. His lawyer, Elmer Getz, even wrote a book "Moment of Madness." And that's exactly how it was depicted in the tv movie "Ruby and Oswald" which you can watch here in its entirety. 

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

But, the other official story, which they are entirely OK with you believing, and even encourage you to believe, is that Ruby did it with pre-meditation, that the Mafia ordered him to shoot Oswald, and they threatened to kill his sister if he didn't. There is no evidence for it. None. But, that doesn't stop people from believing shit. 

So, he went to the Garage to do it and brought his dog along, not liking to drive alone, and because his dog liked to get out. But, didn't he know that once he shot Oswald, that the police were going to grab him and take him away? So, why did he bring his dog along? 

If Ruby did it impulsively, as an act of "psychomotor epilepsy" as his lawyer called it, then obviously he wouldn't think about making a fashion statement in the way he pulled the trigger. Realize that there is a STRONG impulse to use your index finger because the gun is designed for it; your hand is designed for it; and the fact is that you wield a lot more strength, power, and control when you use your index finger. 

Did I mention that these little snub-nose revolvers have a hell of a lot of recoil?  I feel it strongly when I shoot it with two hands. Imagine how much more shooting it with one. And remember what the cause of the recoil is: Newton's 3rd law of Motion: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.  

Just from pulling the trigger with my middle finger with the gun unloaded, I can tell that I can't control it as well as I can when using my index finger. It isn't even close. 

But, the idea that Ruby would have thought about making a fashion statement by doing it with his middle finger is preposterous. Of course, he would have used the gun in the way that it conformed to his hand, using his index finger,  And if he had done otherwise, we'd have seen the result of it. There would have been no hiding it. 

So, everyone needs to stop fighting this. Everyone needs to admit that the Jackson photo is NOT legit. It is a staged photo that was taken beforehand; not during the Garage Spectacle. The whole arrangement of the people is different than what we see in the films of the Garage Spectacle. And that is not Jack Ruby, not in the staged Jackson photo and not in the films. It is James Bookhout. Ruby was already tucked away on the 5th floor, being held in his underwear, waiting to be inserted into the flow of the story. It was an incredible bait and switch. 

Jack Ruby was innocent. Completely, totally, categorically, and irrefutably innocent. He no more shot Oswald than you did. And the people who keep insisting that he did, even after being shown this, are not genuine. If you genuinely believe in Oswald's innocence, you will genuinely believe in Ruby's innocence. They were both framed and innocent. The same people who killed Kennedy killed Oswald, that is, they got the Dallas Police to do it. It is VERY likely that LBJ personally put the Dallas Police up to killing Oswald. Remember: he personally knew Boyd and Sims. He hired them to be his security whenever he visited Dallas. And his closest aide Cliff Carter called Fritz repeatedly, telling him to shut down the investigation because he had his man. He was telling him that on Friday afternoon!   

Jack Ruby brought his dog along because he fully expected that it was going to be an ordinary day for him. You realize that the Carousel Club was just down the street from Western Union, on the other side of the street. He was taking the dog to the Carousel Club because there was someone there who would look after her.  And from there, he was going to go to the new apartment he was soon going to be move into. He was very excited about that. He had absolutely no thought that he was going to shoot Oswald and then be incarcerated for the rest of his life until he was put to death. If that was his thought, his actions that morning would have been very different. 

So, listen to me: If you are truly an Oswald defender, and realize that there are a lot of phony Oswald defenders out there because they are still working the cover-up hard with Ops galore, then you need to be a Ruby defender. You are NOT defending Oswald if you say that Ruby shot him. You are aiding and abetting Oswald's killers if you say that Ruby shot him. 

  

When James Bookhout pretended to be Jack Ruby in the garage and posed for this staged picture shooting Oswald, he used his middle finger as his trigger finger, extending his index finger right over the gas escape space of the barrel, which no one would do if he was really firing the gun unless he wanted to blow his finger off. So, why did he do it? It's because it was known that Ruby's index finger was partially amputated. Except: it was his LEFT index finger that was partially amputated, not his right. Therefore, it made no sense for either Ruby or Bookhout to fire with his middle finger. But obviously, misinformation went down the pike, and it resulted in this ridiculous picture.

The people who want you to believe that Jack Ruby had this other life, hobnobbing with gangsters and politicians, etc. are out of their minds. This is a good example. Russ Baker actually put this in his book, this picture, with the claim that it's Ruby. 

Mother of God! That is not Jack Ruby! That was 1946. Of course, it's Prescott Bush on the right, and Richard Nixon on the left. Nixon had just been elected to Congress for the first time with help from Bush. I don't know who that guy is behind them, but he definitely wasn't Jack Ruby. Here is Jack Ruby in 1945.

Can't you see that that guy in the picture is older? That he has a very aqualine nose, compared to Ruby's bulbous nose? That Ruby's face was fatter? Ruby later lost weight because he got hooked on amphetamines, but earlier in his life, he was quite puffy in the face. 

There isn't a snowball's chance in Hell that that is Jack Ruby. Yet, people keep saying that it is. I regret to say that even John Armstrong fell for it and says it. Why? It's because of this compulsion people have to embrace the juicy story that Ruby had this other life as a gangster and political operative. It's a complete, total fiction, and it was created by the other side; by the people who actually killed Oswald. They say it just to keep researchers and buffs occupied; to keep them busy chasing ghosts; and to keep them far, far away from the truth that Jack Ruby was completely and totally innocent. 

In the movie Jason Bourne, which I'm a fan of; it was the 4th installment with Matt Damon, the dirty, corrupt CIA is out to kill this social media CEO who refuses to do their bidding to spy on Americans, and you hear this one agent tell the rotten CIA Chief that they can easily do it, take the guy out, and blame it on some "lone wolf" for whom they would create an identity, giving him a past with all kinds of documentation going back decades and all completely made up. Well, that is what they really did to Jack Ruby. And it was the plan all along because they knew that if they misled people by giving Jack Ruby this colorful but totally fictitious dark, criminal past, that it would reinforce the belief that he killed Oswald. You see: they don't care WHY you think Ruby shot Oswald. Pick any reason you want. They couldn't care less about that. They only care THAT you think Ruby shot Oswald. They only care that you go nowhere near the truth, that Ruby was framed and innocent.

And because of this Machiavellian plan to reinvent Jack Ruby, which they arranged in advance, to give him a life and a past that he didn't have, it completely bamboozled otherwise intelligent researchers like John Armstrong into accepting and believing their crap.

Jack Ruby was born and raised in Chicago. He served in the Air Force during World War II as an airplane mechanic (which is what my father did). Then, after the war, he returned to Chicago, and got involved with his brother Earl in various huckster businesses, (and I don't mean anything criminal, but just slick and fast talking selling) and then he was drawn to Dallas because his sister Eva was there, and she and needed help running her night club. And he became enamored with the night club business and stayed in it. And that was basically his whole, entire life story. The rest is all bull shit. He was not a Mafioso. He did not know or work for Nixon or LBJ. That famous clip of him telling reporters that LBJ was responsible for the assassination was based entirely on a book he read, "A Texan Looks At Lyndon" by Evetts Haley, which I have also read. 

The big thing missing from the story is when and how it was decided that Jack Ruby could be used the way he was ultimately used.  I admit that that chapter of his life is missing. We have much more on Sirhan Sirhan and how he got recruited. Sirhan got recruited from his dabbling with Rosicrucianism. That's where they picked him up, you might say. And they lured him by enticing him with the dream of becoming a horse racing jockey. And then, it was weekends at the remote horse ranch, where they started getting drugs into him and doing mind control. It's all very well laid out, but we don't have anything comparable to that for Ruby. For instance, why don't we know who Ruby's doctor was?  We know he was getting amphetamines from his doctor, presumably for weight control.  But, it certainly wasn't medically appropriate, and why don't we know who his doctor was? It would be a hell of a starting point. So, that's the part of Ruby's life that I want to find out about. 

That guy in the picture with Richard Nixon and Prescott Bush is most certainly not Jack Ruby,  And the idea for it came from the plotters, the killers. It's distraction. It's noise. And it reinforces the idea that Ruby killed Oswald. Their worst nightmare is for you to realize that Ruby was completely and totally innocent, and completely and totally victimized. He really was. 

There is drama unfolding in the world of 9/11 truth. The Architects and Engineers submitted a request to NIST to retract their claim that Building 7 collapsed due to fires, specifically, the burning of office furnishings. AE911truth specifically cited the work by Dr. Leroy Hulsey at the University of Alaska Fairbanks which scientifically proved that the tower fell not due to fires, but due to the simultaneous failure of all its columns.  

So, they submitted this request, which included 100 pages of scientific argument and 5 exhibits, and NIST, by law, had 120 days to respond to it. It meant the deadline was August 13. But, they did not respond by August 13, except to say that they're still working on it.

So, what is going to happen next? AE911truth has said they will take legal action if they don't get a response, or if drags on too long. If they do get a response, and I presume they will at some point, then AE911truth will have the right to contest it if they don't find it satisfactory. And that would take the dispute to a different entity within the Department of Commerce, of which NIST is part. So, it would involve different scientists, not NIST's scientists, looking at the issue, rather like a scientific Court of Appeals.

So, what is NIST likely to say in their response? I'll make a prediction. I predict that they are going to retract their claim that the burning of furniture and computers caused the building to collapse, as ridiculous as it is.  But then, they are going to say that it's just a mystery; that they don't know why the building collapsed; that they don't have an official explanation. But, they will deny that there was any human influence to help the building collapse. So, they will say that it was a spontaneous collapse of unknown cause. 

And being unsatisfied with that, AE911truth will file their appeal with the Department of Commerce. And I won't predict what they are going to say. 

But, in the words of the vernacular, the shit is about to hit the fan here. Of course, the Mainstream Media won't report on it, but the people's media (the Internet) will.  It's going to get spicy. 

https://www.ae911truth.org/news/703-nist-late-on-response-to-wtc-7-request-for-correction

This is another song that Paul and I recorded when he was here recently. It is Lonestar by Nora Jones. She also did a very nifty duet of it with Willie Nelson. This song has special meaning to Texans because we are: The Lonestar State.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHh_cvjSoUU&feature=youtu.be

 

We should take a moment to marvel at the extraordinary political result that occurred in Minnesota this month: the reelection of Ilhan Omar.

It is impossible to conceive of a candidate more loathed, vilified, and attacked than she was. This was the Democratic primary, and she had the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, the entire Mainstream Media, and many powerful political organizations and PACs teaming up against her. And the money they spent trying to beat her- it was like a tsunami.  But, it didn't matter. It didn't work. They could not take her out, not even with their biggest guns. 

This was like David vs. Goliath, and she beat them. 

The biggest claim against her is that she is an anti-Semite. And she certainly has made harsh charges against the Israeli government for their actions and policies towards Palestinians.  But, what has been her motivation? Is it really hatred for Jews? Or is it concern and compassion for Palestinians?

But, despite all the rhetoric against her, there can be no doubt that she is an extremely courageous woman, and one prominent politician with whom she has found alliance is the Jewish-American politician, Senator Bernie Sanders.  They issued a joint resolution together condemning the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. And she went so far as to say that criminal charges should be filed against George W. Bush and members of his administration who lied us into war.

So, here is an article from Newsweek that discusses the collaboration of Senator Bernie Sanders and Congresswoman Ilhan Omar. 

Progressive politicians Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Ilhan Omar have critically highlighted the anniversary of the Iraq War, which was launched on March 20, 2003, or 16 years ago on Wednesday.

Sanders, who is running for the Democratic Party's nomination to take on President Donald Trump in 2020, posted to Twitter to remind his followers that he never supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

"In the 16 years since the Iraq war began, we've lost many thousands of American and Iraqi lives and spent trillions of dollars," Sanders pointed out on Twitter. "I opposed the war and it gives me no pleasure to say that much of what I feared came true. Our foreign policy must focus on diplomacy, not endless war."

Sanders co-sponsored a resolution that passed in the Senate last week rebuking U.S. support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen. 

RC: One of the first things Trump did as President in 2017 was authorize a Seal raid in Yemen, the Raid on Yakla, which killed 8 women and 7 children. We talk about it in My Stretch of Texas Ground. The movie opens with it. 

Omar reminded her Twitter followers about the death and devastation caused by the Iraq War: "16 years ago, the U.S. illegally invaded Iraq, leaving a trail of destruction and lives lost," Omar wrote. She then shared several statistics about the war's toll, pointing out that "4,496 U.S. troops lost their lives" and "100,000+ Iraqi civilians were killed."

RC: That is a very conservative estimate  of the number of Iraqi civilians killed in the war. And when you consider all the deaths from the secondary factors, like malnutrition, water contamination, loss of infrastructure, etc., the death toll in Iraq is many hundreds of thousands of people, at least. 

Omar also argued that the country should hold former President George W.

Bush and certain members of his administration to account, because they 

"repeatedly lied in the run up to the war."

"In October 2002, President Bush said that Saddam Hussein had a 'massive

stockpile' of biological weapons. It was a lie," the representative pointed out. 

"Former Vice President] Dick Cheney repeatedly cited a nonexistent meeting

between a 9/11 conspirator and Iraqi intelligence. It was a lie," Omar said. 

"In August 2002, Cheney said, 'Simply stated, there's no doubt that Saddam 

Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.' That too was a lie," she said.

"All of these statements were not only false, they were known by intelligence

agencies to be lies at the time. To this day they have not been held 

accountable," 

"The best estimates available suggest that more than 250,000 people have 

died as a result of the decision to invade Iraq. The Bush administration's 

fabrications and outright lies to justify the invasion have also been well 

chronicled and documented. No weapons of mass destruction were ever 

found in Iraq, despite their alleged existence being the primary 

reason the administration used to justify the war."

RC: Now, my question is: the people who tried so hard to unseat her, 

why don't they care about this? Why don't they care about the killing of 

hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children? Why 

don't they care that Brown University researchers determined that since the

"War on Terror"  was launched following 9/11 that over 800,000 people have

been killed in just 3 countries: Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. And those are

just the direct deaths, and does not include the indirect deaths from the

wars which bring the total death toll into the millions. Why don't they credit

her for talking about it? She speaks truth to power about this. And to those 

who trash her without mentioning the fact that she laments the destruction of

human lives by the U.S.government in its terror wars, that it makes you 

something;  It makes you bloodied. 

So, there is no evidence whatsoever that anybody threatened Ruby. The idea that he shot Oswald to save his sister's life is utter nonsense. There isn't even a speculation for it. It's just a tall tale that took off and developed a following. And it really is stupid because if it were true, then they would have had to kill Ruby right away. How could they trust him to keep his mouth shut? And why would they trust him?

The fact is that Ruby didn't know anything. The famous statement he made to reporters was based entirely on a book he read, A Texan Looks At Lyndon. Somebody brought it to him at the County Jail. Ruby didn't know LBJ. The book said that LBJ put Oswald up to doing it. And that's silly too.

The absolute proof that Ruby knew nothing is that he was given a lawyer right away. He didn't even ask for one. Now, think about it for a moment. Think, think, think, think, think. Compare it to Oswald.  Oswald pleaded for a lawyer repeatedly and implored the whole world to provide him with legal assistance, and he was never given one. Ruby never asked for one, yet, he was given one? Now, if there is anything more polar opposite than that, I don't know what it is. They were willing to give Ruby a lawyer because they knew that he didn't know anything, that he had nothing on them, that he could reveal nothing to that lawyer. And they also knew that the lawyer would get the sense that he was a mental case. And remember that he was declared to be psychotic. But, Oswald was lucid. Oswald could communicate rationally with an attorney. And he could answer any question an attorney threw at him. And after talking to Oswald for 30 minutes, that attorney would know, beyond any doubt, that he was framed and innocent. 

So, stop thinking that Ruby was in with the mob, that he delivered guns, that he met with Oswald and Frank Sturgis, etc. All that stuff is complete, utter bull shit. I dare say there may be more false Ruby sightings than there are false Oswald sightings, and there are plenty of them. 

What they did to Jack Ruby is the most deplorable and disgusting thing I know of. He was so helpless; so totally weak and incapacitated; and so fundamentally decent, honest, and good. He didn't have a bad bone in his body. The Dallas Police sacrificed him to cover up their crime of killing Oswald, and they were supported by the FBI. Most of those DPD detectives, if not all of them, knew exactly what was going on and what was being done to Ruby.  They were doing it to Ruby.  They killed Oswald because their Commander in Chief told them that they had to in order to save the country from chaos. But, what they did to Ruby was worse than outright killing him.  And how did they justify such a monstrous act? They were led to believe that Oswald was a cop-killer, but Jack Ruby was their friend and supporter. He was like a groupie to them. So, how could they crush him like they did?

Well, there is strength in numbers. A terrible thing that a person could never do by himself, he may be able to do as a member of a group.  The group legitimizes the evil act, as happens all the time in war. 

Join the campaign to exonerate Jack Ruby. The moral divide here is very clear. If we let them get away with this, then we are no better than they are. Take back Jack!