Rachel White Funny. How that's Rubys chin..

1

Manage

LikeShow more reactions

 · Reply · 3h

Ralph Cinque You don't know how it works, Rachel. It's not what you think matches, it's what you know doesn't match. And it just takes one, what I call a deal breaker. His nose alone is a deal breaker: very narrow and aquiline on the right and more spread and bulbous on the left.  And that settles it, Rachel. You are ridiculing yourself if you say another word. He's not Ruby.

Richard Hooke is all excited about the likeness of the collars between the one on the far left and the one next to it, but how unlikely is it for a shirt to behave that way? And since James Bookhout on the left was masquerading as Jack Ruby, why wouldn't he wear a similar shirt? While you're looking at this collage, note that Ruby in November 63 seems to have a lot more hair than he did a few months later in March 64. Did he really lost that much hair? No. They doctored the earlier image to hide how bald he was, probably because of the image on the far left, and even the other images because in the Jackson photo, the shooter seems to have very thick hair in back- too thick to be as bald as Ruby actually was. And that began a permanent campaign of falsifying Ruby's hair which goes on to this day.

Juliette de la Bretoniere In my view, this is a suspicious image all together; the shooters’ face is blurred which is too much of a coincidence, so the photo could have been messed with. Then, the people look to have been ‘caught in the act’. Like in: ‘We’re posing out of politeness, but actually... we dón’t like to be photographed right now!

That is very well put, Juliette. Look at Detective Hall on the right, who seems much more concerned with the camera than he is with "Ruby" behind him. Remember that struggle in the garage? When it took a dozen large policemen to contain the mighty "Jack Ruby"? No worries any more. It's all friendly between them now. You might even think that they're working together. There isn't that much accord in my family photos. And yes, the image of the shooter is weirdly blurry, while the images of Boyd and Hall are not. And just to discount the shooter's blurriness, they went ahead and blurred up Sims, in back, even more. He looks like a ghost. I thought that blur was the characteristic of the photo overall. Since when can you have blurry parts and crisp parts in the same photo? I know it's possible when you have a moving object and a still object in the same photo, but here, it's just the opposite because, if anything, Hall looks like he's on the move, while "Ruby" looks as still as a lump on a log.  They look caught all right. They look guilty as sin. And what they are guilty of is hiding with James Bookhout who was masquerading as Jack Ruby.  Don't you get it that this was the forbidden image? The one that was never supposed to be seen? And that is exactly why it was only shown once, in the Fred Rheinstein retrospective. And he wasn't trying to do the truth movement a favor. On the contrary, he was trying to do just the opposite- keep the lie going. But, somehow this image got put in there, probably because some witless, brainless editor chose to put it in. It wasn't necessarily Fred himself. Who knows who it was, but he's the guy who, unwittingly, did the JFK truth movement a huge favor. 

That guy isn't Ruby. Look how bulbous Ruby's nose was, in comparison. Look how long his forehead was, in comparison. Compare their hair. These are different men.

This, the Garage Shooter of Lee Harvey Oswald, is not the face of Jack Ruby. It is a rounder face; a shorter face, a narrower nose, etc. But, putting that aside, try to answer this: Why isn't this image the mostly commonly seen image of him? It is the ONLY image of the shooter's face, so why don't we see it more often? Why do images of the back of the shooter's head get more air time than this? Why isn't this, the only image of his face, the most common image we see? The answer is that this was only shown by accident. It appeared in the Fred Rhinestein documentary "The Killing of Lee Harvey Oswald" which was made in 1993, 30 years later. But, that is the only place, and the only time it has ever been seen. And that's how I got it. But why wouldn't the image of the man's face not be the most prolific image of him? Since this image only occurred in Rhinestein's retrospective and nowhere else and no time else, you might as well say that, statistically speaking, it hasn't been seen at all. But, it makes no sense. This should be the go-to image of the shooter of Lee Harvey Oswald instead of all those obscure hat-covered images. So, why isn't it? It's because it's not the face of Jack Ruby. That is definitely not Ruby. They don't even look like they could be related. That is FBI Agent James Bookhout, and the match to Bookhout's earlier images is spot-on- if you extrapolate for the passage of time and the aging process. 

So, the plain truth is that this image slipped through the cracks. It was never supposed to be shown. It is a smoking gun. The truth is that the entire story of that horrible weekend is a lie- including the part about Ruby shooting Oswald. 

Hello,

I noticed something in the Three Shots That Changed America footage featuring ‘Lovelady’.

If you look closely when the cops enter the room you can see the fronts of all of the lockers on the back wall. No one is sitting there.

Note the lowest vent you can see on the lockers.

‘Lovelady’ only appears after linebacker moves out of frame, and he obscures the lockers well above the lowest vent seen in the first frames.

Linebacker was used as a splice-point because he conveniently blocked the entire frame. It’s a transitional technique used in film all the time to seamlessly and artfully change scenes.

I didn’t see this noted in the presentation.

Hope this helps

Best,

J

A person who is physically violent usually has a violent personality. He tends to be aggressive, combative, explosive, and abusive, just as matter of course. But, we got to witness Jack Ruby for three years, and I, personally, have never seen a more docile person. When someone corrected him, he never argued; he would just accept it. He never lost his temper. Violent people tend to lose their temper. One time in front of a judge, WHEN HIS LAWYER WAS TRYING TO CONVINCE THE JUDGE NOT TO LET HIM SPEAK BECAUSE HE WAS OUT OF HIS MIND, Ruby got a little irate with his lawyer. But, just imagine how you would react if YOUR lawyer did that. Ruby was gentle about it compared to how I would be. The first words out of my mouth to that lawyer would be, "You're fired!" But, Ruby didn't even say it in a nice way. Ruby was soft. He wasn't putting on an act for three years. It was his nature. The idea that he was killing people and throwing people down the stairs, male and female, is ridiculous. He was not aggressive. I'm aggressive. I know what it's like to be aggressive. So, you can take it from an aggressive guy that he was not aggressive. He was innocent. He didn't kill Oswald, and he didn't have it in him to kill Oswald. Jack Ruby was so non-aggressive, that he didn't even get aggressive when police told him he shot Oswald even though he had no memory and no awareness and no intention of doing it. The average person would have said, "What??? You are out of your mind! I did NOT shoot him. You are a fucking liar. You all are. I don't know what the hell this is about. I don't know why you are accusing me. But, if you think you are going to get me to admit it, you are insane. I know what I did and didn't do, and I did not shoot him."

But, Jack Ruby was so non-aggressive, he couldn't even defend himself when he was accused of a heinous act that he didn't do. He was SO SUBMISSIVE that he believed it just because his beloved Dallas Police told him so. Jack Ruby was spineless. He had no back bone. The idea that he could shoot anybody is preposterous. He'd be the last man on Earth who could.

Jack Ruby showed up early at the basement. There was no shot. They just jumped him and dragged him upstairs. Then they told him he shot Oswald, and he didn't have personal, constitutional foundation to fight them. I wish I could have given him some of mine.

Richard Hooke * Ruby was the center of it all on the ground for CIA/DIA intel - he was literally one of the major players that day - managing the patsy, dropping off a shooter on the knoll, passing out SS flip badges to Roselli, settin up Oswald and also Tippit to be killed for his JFK like corpse - Jack Ruby was also MOSSAD/Mafia connected and he's busted for all-time.

Manage

LikeShow more reactions

 · Reply · 3h · Edited

Ralph Cinque If it was true that Ruby was the center of it all, a major player, managing this, that, and the other thing, they would have had to kill him immediately. They couldn't have taken the chance of letting him live. What Hooke is saying is really stupid. Ruby would have either had a heart attack, hung himself in his jail cell, or something. No way would they have let him live. Look how quickly they went about killing Oswald. And when they couldn't get him killed in the theater, they came up with the ridiculous plan of killing him in a crowd of police during a televised, spectacularized jail transfer. That shows you how determined they were to kill him. And it would have been the same for Ruby if Hooke's claims were true. But, they were not true. Jack Ruby didn't do anything, and he didn't know anything. And that's why he got to live for three years. And he did not kill Oswald. Ruby was impaired mentally and strung out on drugs, and they knew it. They knew that if they told him he shot Oswald, the poor sap would believe them. And he did. That's what happened.

Manage

Show more reacti

Alice Gold Ralph Cinque Exactly right. On November 22nd the vast majority thought Oswald was guilty. Doesn't mean they were right as history has proven. People always attack something contrary to popularity.

There was a lot of opposition to Oswald in the Doorway from other gatekeeper researchers when you were started the Oswald Campaign. Now it's common knowledge. Hopefully Mr Hooke will come to his senses and support you on Ruby too.

Manage

LikeShow more reactions

 · Reply · 1h

Ralph Cinque Alice Gold Thank you very much, Alice. That was very well said. The thing people need to remember is that Ruby shooting Oswald to save Jackie a trip to Dallas is Official government story #1. But, that Ruby shot Oswald because he was a Mafioso and a participant in the JFK assassination is government story #2. You can believe either one, and they're happy. You see: they want to control both sides of the debate. If you accept their first story; great. But, if you can't, then latch on to their 2nd story because that's just as good.. In a way, it's better because it's even farther away from the truth, which is that Ruby was totally innocent and unaware of anything. Government story #2 heaps even more guilt on Ruby. So, those who push it are just doing the bidding of the government. They are manikins for the U.S. government, either knowingly or unknowingly.

Manage

LikeShow more reactions

 · Reply · 1m

Juliette de la Bretoniere To talk to Jack Ruby for how many hours, must have been an ordeal for Earl Warren, yet he remained calm and patient with him. Had to read his testimony several times because Ruby kept on talking on and on irrelevantly, indeed without any self-restriction, but without bounderies instead. Warren conversed with him as if Ruby was a child and I agree with you Ralph, it was the only way to talk to him and the wisest.
I believe Ruby didn’t even realise how depressed he was and how much he relied on other people’s acceptances. Like he suffered from an inferiority complex or something.... Have you read about his urge to buy sandwiches and hand them out to the authorities? I mean, it’s nice and thoughtful, but this behaviour is also a bit strange..

1

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 1h

Ralph Cinque Ruby was constantly looking for approval from the Dallas Police. He didn't have a vicious bone in his body. If you think about how you expect a killer to act and talk, Ruby was the opposite. And he was so honest that he couldn't filter anything. His mind just roamed wherever it wanted; he couldn't stay on point. He was extremely submissive. Anytime anyone in authority corrected him he accepted it. He never challenged anyone. And he was kind. His kindness ran deep. Do you think the Dallas Police ever had a more cooperative prisoner? I doubt it. People need to forget about the Jack Ruby of lore and just look at the Jack Ruby that there was. He was harmless.

Jack Ruby requested a polygraph test. I think that that establishes beyond  any doubt, that he had no intention of lying. And he said in the test and passed in saying it that he did not know Oswald and did not see him before 11/22/63. That makes all the claims about Ruby knowing Oswald and conspiring with him completely and totally bogus.

Anybody can lie, on occasion, and I'm sure that everybody, or nearly everybody does. But, to lie for three years? About everything in your life, about everything that you are? You think Jack Ruby did that? To cover up his real identity as a conspirator in the JFK assassination, and as having known Oswald, and some say since Oswald was a teenager? To lie about all that for three years? To his family? To his friends? To his lawyers? To the Warren Commission? To the public? For three solid years?

Let me tell you something: that would take not just a liar, but an actor. Jack Ruby would have had to have been an actor- an Oscar-caliber actor. 

And his family had to know the truth about him, so I guess all of them were lying too. And lawyers, whom you might say are professional liars, are excellent at detecting liars. And yet, Ruby effectively fooled them too? 

You would have to be a very naive and foolish person to believe that. And all the indications are just the opposite, that Jack Ruby was scrupulously honest. Do you understand that he pleaded with the Warren Commissioners to give him a lie detector test or truth serum? That's right: he offered to take truth serum. So, I guess you think he figured he could lie his way through truth serum. And, guess what: you DO figure that he DID lie his way through a polygraph test because he was given one. And these were the first two questions:

   Question. Did you know Oswald before November 22, 1963?
         Answer. No. (16)
         Question. Did you assist Oswald in the assassination?
         Answer. No. (17)

The truth is that what really happened to Jack Ruby is the most Machiavellian story of all time. They deceived him about what he did and didn't do, while at the same time, they deceived everybody else- the public at large, the whole world- about what happened on November 24, 1963. It was all a lie; all an act. Call it the greatest deception of all time. I do. It is unbelievable; the size of it; the depth of it; the scope of it. It was so effective that it led researchers to go in exactly the wrong direction; to start thinking that Ruby was MORE guilty when in fact, he wasn't guilty at all. They had him not only killing Oswald, but being involved in killing Kennedy- and others. It really is incredible what they did. They created a whole false identity for Ruby, a false life, in which he was a killer, a Mafioso, a gun-runner, etc.  They have controlled people like marionettes- not only in believing the official story, but in how they went about disputing it- if that was their penchant. Who do you think started the rumors about Ruby being a gangster? It came from the same people who said he killed Oswald. And what we saw happen last year- with that ridiculous story about him "watching the fireworks in Dealey Plaza" which was published far and wide in the mainstream media, was a classic case of "baiting and battering the buffs." Don't you see that they are controlling everybody? The people who accept the official story as well as those who don't? 

Jack Ruby was innocent. He was bamboozled into thinking that he killed Oswald. He never admitted doing it; he merely accepted that he did it. And he accepted it because his beloved Dallas Police told him that he did it. He had an almost pathological admiration for the Dallas Police. It was more like an adoration. He worshiped them. And I wonder sometimes if he was trained, that is, programmed to be that way. I've said before that he was MK-ULTRA, that he was a Manchurian candidate. Do you remember in the movie The Manchurian Candidate that the soldiers would wake up in a sweat and start saying, "Raymond Shaw is the most nicest, the kindest, the most wonderful human being who ever lived." So, was Ruby put under hypnotic and drug influence and told, "The Dallas Police are the greatest men who ever lived" ?????

Jack Ruby was innocent. He didn't kill Oswald, and he didn't have it in him to kill Oswald. He was completely and totally out of it mentally, and they knew that about him. This is the most dastardly thing I can think of. I don't know that it gets any worse than this. What they did to him: they stole his life, and they stole his very mind. What they turned him into- it would have been easier on him if they had just killed him on November 24, 1963.  

Really, it amazes me that anybody believes that Jack Ruby was capable to doing the things he is purported to have done, such as being a hit man. That's right. According to some, Oswald wasn't the first person that Ruby killed. On the contrary, he was a regular Mafia hit man, according to some. He was also a pimp and someone who often beat people up. His favorite thing to do was to throw them down stairs. He even threw them down his own stairs- when he was trying to get rid of them. Seems like a contradiction to me, but what do I know. Ruby was also purportedly a drug runner, a gun runner, and a guy who regularly abused women. 

You don't have to be a psychologist or a psychiatrist to know that violent acts are committed by those with violent personalities.  Jack Ruby lived in custody for three years, and we got to see a lot of him and hear quite a bit from him. He testified directly to the Warren Commissioners. He wrote letters which became public. And we have enough of Jack Ruby's words and his behavior and reactions over those three years to get a sense about how violent a nature he had.  

He did a long interview with Dorothy Kilgallen, and even though we know nothing about what he told her,  her reaction was like a thunderbolt- like she learned something about him which changed everything. And, I assure you that it wasn't that he was working with Johnson or Nixon or anything like that. It would be very foolish to think that Jack Ruby changed his story to Dorothy Kilgallen. I'm sure it had to do with HIM- that he wasn't the person being depicted by the press.   

And what I gather from it is that he did not have a violent nature at all. The fierce temper that he was supposed to have- it didn't exist. The maddest I ever saw Ruby get was when he erupted at his attorney who was trying to tell the judge not to allow Ruby to speak because he was out of his mind. Lo and behold, Ruby didn't like that. Would you? He told his lawyer, in so many words, to shut up, but he was barely rankled.    

It was the maddest I ever saw him get, but on the scale of anger, I would say it was about 10% as mad as I am capable of getting. From observing him and knowing myself, I would say that I am 10X more hot-headed than Jack Ruby. Seriously. If I feel I have been wronged or mistreated, I can get plenty mad. It doesn't translate into physical violence. I would NEVER initiate violence against anyone- no matter how mad I got. I took an oath when I became a doctor- to do no harm. It was handed down by Hippocrates, and it is the first principle of Medicine. 

So, I would never hit anybody- unless I had to defend myself or another from someone who became violent- where he started it. But still, it is undeniably true that one can emanate a violent energy just with words.  A voice can seem violent even if the words don't threaten physical harm. If one is explosive, if one bursts into anger at the slightest provocation, it can seem violent. 

And one would expect that a person who regularly committed acts of physical violence, as Jack Ruby was purported to,  would display a violent disposition- all the time, or at least frequently.

But, for the whole three years, Jack Ruby was never that way. When did he ever lose control? When did he ever show fierceness? When did he ever show combativeness? And I'll plainly admit that I am VERY combative in my disposition.  Again, I have a firewall of prohibition to being physically violent, but that would fall apart quickly if the other guy got violent with me.  But, the point is that we can look at Jack Ruby over the last three years of his life and get a feeling from his words, his responsiveness, his body language, his gestures, and even his facial expressions about how far down the spectrum of violence he was, and I have to say that he was in the lowest percentile. I've known plenty of women in my life with a greater penchant for anger and violence than Jack Ruby had.  

And that's why I don't believe these stories about him throwing people down stairs and beating women and beating men. I look at him, and I see someone who was very non-aggressive. Even in court, when policemen were testifying against him, and saying terrible things about him, he never reacted with anger, bitterness, or contempt. He retained his admiration, his hero-worship, of the Dallas Police until his last breath. He never put up resistance to them. He was not aggressive. He was never bitter. He was never even irate. The idea that he was this monster of abuse, a psychopath or sociopath, is ridiculous. He was nothing like that.  He was fundamentally a very nice guy, in some ways childlike, and not at all like the Jack Ruby of legend. 

Just recently, it dawned on me that they brought Attorney Louis Nichols in on Saturday precisely because of what Oswald said to the world at the Midnight Press Conference, that Dallas Police were denying him a lawyer, that he complained to the judge about it, and then he asked for someone to come forward to give him legal assistance. 

So, they felt that they had to respond to that, and that's what Nichols was for. 

I don't know who Nichols spent two minutes with, but I don't believe it was with Oswald. And that's because: Oswald wasn't stupid. He would have known that any lawyer was better than no lawyer, and that if he started with a Texas lawyer that Abt could join the team later. Considering how impassioned he was about wanting a lawyer the night before, why would he turn one down a few hours later? It's ridiculous.

And compare it to Ruby. Ruby never asked for a lawyer. Ruby never asked for anything. But, the Dallas Police immediately got him a lawyer: Tom Howard. why Why WHY did the Dallas get a lawyer for Ruby but not Oswald? I'll tell you why. IT'S BECAUSE THEY KNEW THAT OSWALD HAD PLENTY HE COULD TELL HIS LAWYER ABOUT HIS ALIBI AND ABOUT THE PHONY EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM. BUT, RUBY HAD NOTHING HE COULD TELL HIS LAWYER. THEY KNEW THAT RUBY WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THAT HE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. 

Ruby was a blank. Do you get that? He wasn't sitting on any secrets.  He wouldn't know a secret if it cracked him in the skull with a two by four. Do you really think they would have provided him a lawyer if they knew he was sitting on all kinds of dirt: about the JFK murder; about Oswald; about the Mob; about the Dallas Police and his collaboration with them to kill Oswald? 

The very fact that the Dallas Police provided Jack Ruby a lawyer should tell you that he didn't know anything.  Not a damn thing. He had NOTHING he could tell his lawyer. And it's not that they could trust him to keep his mouth shut.  It's that they knew he didn't know anything. They NEVER would have given him a lawyer if they knew he was sitting on a ton of revelations. The whole "Ruby was up to his neck in the conspiracy" theory is pure, unadulterated horse crap. 

Ralph Cinque The reason Ruby didn't deny it is because he was mentally deranged, and they knew he was mentally deranged. You need to answer this: Why didn't Ruby know he shot Oswald until Police told him he shot Oswald? The Police telling him that he did it is the only basis that he accepted it. He said he had no intention of shooting Oswald. He had no thought to do it. He had no memory of doing it. Their telling him was the only reason why he accepted it. He even titled his bio, "They Told Me I Shot Oswald."

Do you realize how often stunt doubles are used in action movies? Try every single time. You have NEVER seen an action movie that did not include the use of stunt doubles. And yet, how many times have you watched an action movie and said, "That was a double!" For most people, the answer is: NOT EVEN ONCE. 

At the following link, you can see famous actors standing with their stunt doubles:

http://viraldroid.com/14-celebrities-stunt-doubles-will-blow-mind/

The Garage Shooter was a stunt double for Jack Ruby. It's as simple as that. Stop fighting it. 

I watched an old rerun of Law and Order today in which the detectives tell someone's defense attorney that they have his client in footage battering someone, and the attorney's response was:

"No. You have an unidentifiable man in footage battering someone."  

And that is exactly the situation with the garage footage. It isn't footage of Ruby shooting Oswald; it's footage of an unidentifiable man shooting Oswald.

There isn't enough visual data there to claim to know that that man is Jack Ruby. And when you start analyzing the small amount of visual data that is there, you realize that it can't be Ruby. He's too short to be Ruby. His neck is too short to be Ruby's. His hairline in back isn't the same as Ruby's. When you stop just assuming that he's Ruby and really try to confirm it, you run into a wall.

There is a reason why the Garage Shooter's face was never captured by any camera, and it's because he wasn't Jack Ruby. It's why they couldn't show his face. 

This says it all. Ruby wrote that he "got up early," but Wakefield wrote "Approximately 9:30". Doesn't everyone and his brother know that sleeping to 9:30 is not getting up early; it's sleeping in?  

Ruby didn't stay in bed to 9:30. He got up EARLY. So, why did Wakefield say 9:30? Because he was conforming to the official story, to arrive Ruby to the basement at 11:20. 

And look above that where Ruby said he went to bed at 1 AM on Saturday night. Now, that was early for him; he was a very short sleeper. He typically slept 3 to 5 hours. And he certainly didn't sleep 8 1/2 hours by staying in bed until 9:30.  

Ruby got to the basement much earlier than 11;20. It was between 9:45 and 10 AM. He was pounced upon, and he didn't know why. That's why he said, "What are you doing? I'm Jack Ruby. You know me." Why would he say that if he had just shot a man? Didn't he know that Police tend to frown on that kind of thing? Furthermore, you only have to watch to footage to realize that the Garage Shooter didn't say anything. You don't hear anything from him, and you don't see him talking. So obviously, it was a different event. 

Jack Ruby was completely innocent, and he was completely different from the Jack Ruby of lore. He wasn't violent. He wasn't a gangster. He never worked for Richard Nixon- that was another Jack Ruby. The whole official story about him is a lie. 

Now, I'll try to piece together the exact time that Ruby was actually snared in the garage, which was prior to the televised spectacle. 

I'll start with the testimony of Dr. Fred Bieberdorf who said that the basement parking area was cleared by police at 9:45, that he and others were asked to leave.

Dr. BIEBERDORF. Okay, on page 3, the last paragraph, second sentence, "He stated he had no knowledge of security measures in effect in the basement on November 24, 1963, other than the fact that he was asked to remove himself from the basement, and he assumed only police officers and press men were allowed to remain." I think that sentence ought to be deleted and changed to something like: "I was asked to remove myself from the basement parking area at--prior to Oswald's being moved, and was told by police officers at that time that only police personnel were being allowed in the area, and I, of course, later saw that press men were able to gain access to the area by presenting their credentials."
And that is, I think, the only correction.
Mr. HUBERT. About what time did you move from the first aid----
Dr. BIEBERDORF. 9:45. It states that earlier in here. States that on the first page.
Mr. HUBERT. Did you remain in the position indicated by you on the chart, which has been identified as Exhibit 5124, all that while? In other words, you were told by the police to leave the----
Dr. BIEBERDORF. To leave the parking area, and I left there, and at the time of the shooting I was at that particular spot.
Mr. HUBERT. That is to say, the spot that----
Dr. BIEBERDORF. That I marked on that you have marked the No. 5124.
Mr. HUBERT. Between the time that you left and the time of the shooting, where were you?
Dr. BIEBERDORF. I was, the majority of the time, down at the subbasement in the locker room. I was no closer to the spot that Oswald was shot--at which Oswald was shot than I was at the time of the shooting, and no time was I--well, with the exception of crossing through about 9:45.

So, the Bieb crossed through at 9:45 to get out because he was ordered to get out. Now, let's go to the testimony of Officer Roy Vaughn.

Mr. HUBERT. Now, about what time did he assign you to the Main Street entrance?
Mr. VAUGHN. I would say, Mr. Hubert, somewhere around 9:30--I couldn't be definite. 

Notice that there are two dispensations there. He didn't say "at 9:30"; he said "around 9:30".  And it certainly wasn't earlier than 9:30 because he said that at 9:00, he was somewhere else in Dallas, and he got a call to report to Lt. Pierce at City Hall. So, he drove from wherever he was, parked, proceeded to the patrol dispatch room; stood around drinking coffee and talking with others until Pierce got there (and you know how long that kind of thing can go on) and then Pierce got there and sent him to the basement where he was ordered by Sergeant Putnam to guard the Main Street ramp.  So, if it wasn't "at" 9:30, it had to be later. And then he added that he couldn't be definite. So, that's two dispensations, two exemptions from being held to that time. 

Time just slips away when you're sitting or standing around with others drinking coffee and chewing the cud. So, that easily could have been 10:00. 

Now let's look at Ruby's own story, as written by him and a Hollywood scriptwriter, the guy who created the tv show Mission Impossible. Look at the title of it. 

They Told Me I Shot Oswald. They Told Me I Shot Oswald. That's the only way Ruby knew. He had no awareness of doing it. He had no memory of doing it. They took him up to the 5th floor, and they told him that he did it. And that's it. That is the totality of his mental process in thinking and accepting that he had done it. 

Here is what he wrote about Sunday morning:

So, he had doubled his dose 4 or 5 days before. Why? And that morning he also took some other tablets. Why? Did someone put him up to it? What were the tablets?

Note that above where he wrote "I was up early" there was a subheading which said "Approximately 9:30". Do you consider rising at 9:30 to be getting up early? Because most people, including me, would call it sleeping in. 

So, who wrote that heading? It wasn't Ruby. It had to be Wakefield, the script writer. 

Then Little Lynn called, but be aware that she had called Ruby the night before, Saturday, lamenting her money woes. So, was it established then that Ruby would go to Western Union the next morning? Obviously, that's not part of the story. 

In his report, Ruby said that he was driving to Western Union when he passed the County Jail and saw all the people gathered. Then, he glanced at a clock and saw that it was a little past 11. But wait. What clock? He's in a car. Was there a clock in the car? This was pre-digital. Today, cars have clocks- digital ones. But, you can't tell me there was a clock built into his car back then. And if he meant his watch, he'd have said so.  Besides, there was no watch in the inventory of Ruby's possessions. So, what the hell was this referring to? Did they have a watch tower like in Back to the Future? It's just script writing. It was just Wakefield trying to insert the official narrative into Ruby's story. 

It said that he went to view the wreaths on Elm Street, but did he? Ruby did that on Saturday morning. He got out; he went and read every card; he talked to a police officer; who pointed out where the shots came from. All that happened Saturday morning. So, would he go back on Sunday? Amy Joyce was the first to suspect that he didn't go to the wreaths on Sunday, and I agree with her. It's just another thing added to the story to kill time so as to put off Ruby getting to the garage until the time of the televised spectacle. 

And keep in mind that Ruby was extremely submissive about anything and everything. If someone corrected him, he accepted it; always. 

Ruby said he got up early. To most people that would mean before 8. But, let's say 8. He perused the newspaper. He had Rabbi Seligman on the tv. He had some breakfast. Karen called. And then he left. I see him having no trouble getting out of there by 9 if he arose early at 8. And then he drove down to Western Union; forget the wreaths. It wasn't that far; a couple miles. He's there by 9:15. He's out of there by 9:30. Did Doyle Lane, the WU rep, say something to him, like, "You ought to go down and see what's happening at the ramp." If Ruby was on scopolamine, that is all it would have taken to get him to do it. He walks down to the ramp. He lingers a little. Then somebody gives him a head gesture, points, and says, "Go on down. Check it out." Again, that's all it would have taken if he was on scopolamine.  So, by 9:45 or soon thereafter, he's down there. He gets. pounced upon and hustled up to the 5th floor. Then, Vaughn gets there and is told to guard the Main Street ramp. It is still before 10 AM.

So why, if that scenario is true, would they wait until 11:20 to stage the shooting? 

First, the press still had to get ready in the garage; assemble there; get their cameras in place; their lights; and that takes time. 

Second, they wanted to give Vaughn a sizable stretch of time to be guarding the ramp. If they did it immediately, others might have wondered if Ruby came before Vaughn. But, by giving Vaughn a good long stint there, it curtailed any such thinking. 

Third, they may have felt that there would be a larger television audience at that time. After all, it was two hours earlier on the west coast.

Plus, Bookhout had to get in position so that he could slip in because he couldn't come down the ramp past Vaughn either. 

The time of Ruby's actual apprehension was probably between 9:45 and 10:00 AM, and Vaughn took over after that. 

So, they had another policeman there on foot. But, Pierce made a point of pulling out so that it would match what he was going to do at 11:18. Pierce was alone, but when he did it the second time, he had two other officers in the car with him. Why? Perhaps to establish witnesses. They both testified. But, Ruby remembered seeing just Pierce in the car and an officer on foot whom he didn't know or recognize. So, we are talking about two separate and different events.   

It all depended on Ruby showing up. The Karen Carlin call got him within a block and a half. So, how could they be certain that he could be coaxed to do the remaining part? That certainty came from a drug, most likely scopolamine, the zombie drug that makes one totally susceptible to suggestion. It was a controlled situation. They didn't just cross their fingers and hope that he showed up. 

Ruby said that he took extra tablets that morning. The tablet form of Scopolamine is called Scopace, and it was available until 2011.