This is a press conference that Ruby did in which he postured himself as if he knew something; and as if he knew the people involved in the assassination.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we2eucWXqjg

But, notice that it's his lawyers sitting next to him. So, they were hearing it too. Don't you think they would have pried it out of him afterwards to tell them everything he knew? Isn't it plainly obvious that they didn't believe he knew anything? And what he thought he knew he obtained from a book that someone gave to him to read, A Texan looks at Lyndon by J Evetts Haley. I read it, myself.

https://www.amazon.com/FIRST-PRESIDENT-LYNDON-JOHNSON-ILLEGITIMATE/dp/B08K8QPWTW/ref=sr_1_2?crid=9SFIQOMI9X6H&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.gtRHcjlBfoxOIvgSyLf_oXNObXZIChpYdpVuU9xtVajU6eG5Q1nP1l1uuyktME8zM3mGtOF1e9Lg8OCqs8npktCtoB6oD_Bg6K-GRhzBWrI.xAe3xIsVHbPvMbTXkRc8a6aLRc-O0VNWllbGYp0idCA&dib_tag=se&keywords=A+Texan+Looks+At+Lyndon&qid=1724717060&sprefix=a+texan+looks+at+lyndon%2Caps%2C152&sr=8-2

It came out January 1, 1964, so little more than a month after the assassination. The gist of the book is that Oswald did it, but LBJ put him up to it. In fact, it was the first book to implicate Johnson in the assassination.

But, what concrete facts did Ruby ever provide? None. Not a one. He didn't have anything to provide. And hypothetically, if Ruby really was involved in the JFK assassination and knew the movers and shakers, don't you think they would have killed him? They certainly could have. And consider how easy it would have been for them to scrap that press conference. But, not only have they not scraped it, they have promulgated it. They want it out there, to this day.

The real secret truth about Ruby is that he wasn't even in the garage during the Oswald shooting. He was already being held up on the 5th floor, and they slipped him into the story later.

I'm a fan of old movies, and last night, I watched Double Indemnity on TCM. In it, Fred McMurray helps Barbara Stanwyck kill her husband, and then, he pretends to be her husband. He boards a train wearing a very low-riding fedora hat. And he used crutches because her husband used crutches. He interacts with some people, always careful to keep his face out of view. Then he goes to the rear car, which was empty, and he jumps off the back of the slow-moving train. Then, Stanwyck, who was parked nearby, helps him move the dead body of her husband to the same spot on the track.

So, here's a collage of the two of them. They both wore a fedora hat, but the Shooter also wore a goofy Howard Cosell wig. It certainly wasn't real hair, and it certainly wasn't Ruby's hair.

So, this was a case of life imitating art. Double Indemnity came out in 1944. In the movie, it was insurance man Edward G. Robinson who figured it out.

The reason why that press conference of Ruby's is so visible on the net is because it serves the killers. It shifts Ruby's pendulum from guilt to super-guilt. And the plotters knew that there would be people who wouldn't accept the official story that Ruby did it alone, as a lone gunman. So, they planted and fed the alternative story that Ruby not only killed Oswald, but was involved in killing Kennedy as well. And after that, their attitude was: "Help yourself to either story. We don't care which one you take because they both serve us fine." But, the truth is just the opposite: Ruby didn't know anything, AND HE WASN'T EVEN THERE IN THE GARAGE.

 The first and foremost evidence in the exoneration of Jack Ruby is the comparison of images of the Garage Shooter to Ruby, and I mean a point by point comparison, as they do with fingerprints. And when you do such a comparison, you can plainly see that the Garage Shooter wasn't Ruby.

 

The Shooter had a very round face; Ruby didn't. The Shooter was short, while Ruby was 5'9" which is average height for a man, then and now. The Shooter had an especially short neck, while Ruby's neck was loner. And it looks like the Shooter was wearing a wig, while Ruby did not. 

The Dallas Police killing of Oswald and framing of Jack Ruby (and even convincing him that he did it) was probably the most successful psy-op of all time. For 50 years, half a century, nobody doubted that Ruby did it. Nobody.

That’s amazing. After all, there were people who immediately doubted that Oswald did it. Vincent Salandria was one of them, and he told me so.

So, how were people universally bamboozled into believing that Ruby did it?

Well, Oswald defiantly, on camera, denied that he did it. Ruby wasn’t doing that. He didn’t make any public statements right away, but within hours, his lawyer Tom Howard confirmed that Ruby did it. Did you know that Tom Howard lived and practiced law in Houston, not Dallas? Did you know that he was at the Midnight Press Conference on Friday night and was seen talking to  Will Fritz? And then, he just happened to be there at City Hall on Sunday morning too? Did you know that Ruby never asked for Howard, that they just told him that his lawyer was there? Did you know that Howard wasn’t currently Ruby’s lawyer? Ruby had used him for some legal work years before, but he wasn’t currently Ruby’s lawyer. But, Ruby went along with it because he went along with everything. He did what he was told. He was extremely submissive, complaint, and obedient to authority.

When they told him on Sunday that they needed to perform a rectal exam on him to make sure he wasn’t hiding a gun in his rectum, he submitted to that too.  Of course, they didn’t do that to Oswald. He too brandished a pistol too, but they didn’t think it was necessary to examine his rectum. What if they had? I have a hunch Oswald would have objected and refused. But, Oswald was Oswald, and Ruby was Ruby.  

But, let’s get back to the public because they’re the ones who bought the story, hook, line, and sinker, that Ruby did it. So, why did they buy it?  I mentioned that Ruby didn’t deny it. And in a very gross way, there was some likeness between the Shooter and Ruby. For instance, they were both middled-aged white men who were hovering around 50. Ruby was several inches taller than the Shooter, but I guess that wasn’t enough to register as a difference to the public. The Shooter’s face was never captured in the basement in any film or photo. And other differences, such as different hair and different length neck, didn’t register either. But, let’s remember that the Shooter was only seen for a few fleeting seconds, and people didn’t get that good a look at him. So, when Ruby was brought out and paraded around in handcuffs, there was no way to compare, except by memory. There were no images to put side by side. An image of Ruby and the Shooter were NEVER put side by side. Maxim Irkutsk was the first to do it- in 2013.

The newspapers did publish the “iconic” photos right away (Beers and Jackson). A close inspection and comparison of those photos to Ruby would have revealed that they were different men. But, people didn’t make a close inspection and comparison.  They had a mental weight on them, which was government and media telling them, over and over, emphatically and absolutely, that Ruby was the Shooter.  That shut down the peoples’ critical faculties.

But, the plotters knew that some people would eventually challenge the official story, so they led them to think that Ruby not only killed Oswald but was involved in killing Kennedy too. They made Ruby out to be a Mafioso, a pimp, a hitman, a gun runner, and a guy who liked to throw people down the stairs, including women. All of it was psy-op. It was all Pavlovian dog conditioning. So, there was a witness who said that Ruby was in the theater behind Oswald. There is no chance that it’s true. There was a witness who said that Ruby was at Parkland Hospital. There is no chance that it’s true. They spread the story that Ruby was stalking Oswald on Friday afternoon at the PD, and they used an image of him from late Friday night when he WAS at the PD, to sell it. But, Ruby was NOT there at the PD on Friday afternoon.  They lied about that.

Apparently, they had a Ruby double delivering weapons to Dealey Plaza on Friday morning before the assassination, whom Julie Ann Mercer saw, but he definitely wasn’t Ruby. The real Ruby was in the Dallas Morning News building at the time tending to his ads. And over time, they came up with all kinds of Ruby sightings that were false and malicious.  

So, the official story was that Ruby shot Oswald as a lone gunman with no conspirators, and the alternative story became that the Mafia put Ruby up to doing it, at the threat of killing him or his sister if he didn’t. The interesting thing is that there isn’t a speck of evidence that any such meeting took place. There is absolutely nothing known about it; not who was present; not where it took place; not when it took place; nor how it was arranged. Nada, zilch, zero. Nothing. And yet, people talk about it as if it’s factual.

The bottom line is that people were incapable of conceiving that the authorities could lie to them about this. And they were also incapable of suspecting the Dallas Police of committing murder. It’s a mental condition that I call “Americana” which is the belief that things as bad as that don’t happen in America. They happen In Red China and Soviet Russia; but, they don’t happen in the USA.

Ruby was certainly afflicted with that, and so were his lawyers, and so were his family. So was everybody. So, since the Police were beyond suspicion, and since the public saw a man do it who looked crudely, marginally, and minimally like Ruby, and since Ruby, himself, wasn’t denying that he did it, there was nowhere for the public mind to go but to accept that Ruby did it. I was tempted to say that they “concluded” that he did it, but that isn’t the right word because when you conclude something, you actually ponder it and examine it. You start from a mental place of not knowing, and you try to figure It out and reach a conclusion. But, that is not what happened. It was instantaneous. It was automatic. It was without thought. It was more like the way a young child absorbs a language, where he or she just soaks it up without resistance.

And there was no one else to go to but Ruby. They saw someone do it. Then, they were shown Ruby in handcuffs, and he wasn’t denying that he did it.  So, why doubt it?

But, let’s consider what Ruby did deny. He denied that he had any motive to do it. He said he was not raging against Oswald that weekend. He denied having any thought or premonition to shoot him. He denied having any memory of shooting him.  He denied that he sent the money wire at 11:17. He said he sent it at 10:17. And yes, I know about the paperwork, but it’s easy to replace paperwork. And they confiscated his clothes and his paperwork immediately. Ruby said he felt no anger, that the word “anger” wasn’t in his vocabulary, that what he was feeling that weekend was great remorse for Kennedy.

And the motive that was released, that he did it to spare Jackie a trip to Dallas, was invented by his lawyer Tom Howard.  

The most amazing thing about this to me is that not only did no one question that Ruby did it, but the rabble-rousers who wanted to dispute the story did so by casting him as being even more criminal. So, there was a spectrum from innocence to guilt, and the rabble-rousers disputed the story by saying Ruby wasn’t just guilty; but super-guilty.  They piled on more bad acts to his resume. I’m sure the puppet-masters could not have been more pleased.

But, I admit that the truth is frightening, that Oswald was killed by law enforcement, and Jack Ruby was framed by them.  The magnitude of the evil involved would be hard to exceed. It was the same weekend that Kennedy and Tippit were killed by law enforcement.  What a monstrous weekend it was.

Since the State, which arrested Oswald and charged him, actually killed Kennedy, they had to be the ones to kill Oswald. They needed to- and before he talked to a lawyer.

If you haven’t joined me yet on this, don’t you think it’s time?

 The Dallas Police killing of Oswald and framing of Jack Ruby (and even convincing him that he did it) was probably the most successful psy-op of all time. For 50 years, half a century, nobody doubted that Ruby did it. Nobody.

That’s amazing. After all, there were people who immediately doubted that Oswald did it. Vincent Salandria was one of them, and he told me so.

So, how were people universally bamboozled into believing that Ruby did it?

Well, Oswald defiantly, on camera, denied that he did it. Ruby wasn’t doing that. He didn’t make any public statements right away, but within hours, his lawyer Tom Howard confirmed that Ruby did it. Did you know that Tom Howard lived and practiced law in Houston, not Dallas? Did you know that he was at the Midnight Press Conference on Friday night and was seen talking to  Will Fritz? And then, he just happened to be there at City Hall on Sunday morning too? Did you know that Ruby never asked for Howard, that they just told him that his lawyer was there? Did you know that Howard wasn’t currently Ruby’s lawyer? Ruby had used him for some legal work years before, but he wasn’t currently Ruby’s lawyer. But, Ruby went along with it because he went along with everything. He did what he was told. He was extremely submissive, complaint, and obedient to authority.

When they told him on Sunday that they needed to perform a rectal exam on him to make sure he wasn’t hiding a gun in his rectum, he submitted to that too.  Of course, they didn’t do that to Oswald. He too brandished a pistol too, but they didn’t think it was necessary to examine his rectum. What if they had? I have a hunch Oswald would have objected and refused. But, Oswald was Oswald, and Ruby was Ruby.  

But, let’s get back to the public because they’re the ones who bought the story, hook, line, and sinker, that Ruby did it. So, why did they buy it?  I mentioned that Ruby didn’t deny it. And in a very gross way, there was some likeness between the Shooter and Ruby. For instance, they were both middled-aged white men who were hovering around 50. Ruby was several inches taller than the Shooter, but I guess that wasn’t enough to register as a difference to the public. The Shooter’s face was never captured in the basement in any film or photo. And other differences, such as different hair and different length neck, didn’t register either. But, let’s remember that the Shooter was only seen for a few fleeting seconds, and people didn’t get that good a look at him. So, when Ruby was brought out and paraded around in handcuffs, there was no way to compare, except by memory. There were no images to put side by side. An image of Ruby and the Shooter were NEVER put side by side. Maxim Irkutsk was the first to do it- in 2013.

The newspapers did publish the “iconic” photos right away (Beers and Jackson). A close inspection and comparison of those photos to Ruby would have revealed that they were different men. But, people didn’t make a close inspection and comparison.  They had a mental weight on them, which was government and media telling them, over and over, emphatically and absolutely, that Ruby was the Shooter.  That shut down the peoples’ critical faculties.

But, the plotters knew that some people would eventually challenge the official story, so they led them to think that Ruby not only killed Oswald but was involved in killing Kennedy too. They made Ruby out to be a Mafioso, a pimp, a hitman, a gun runner, and a guy who liked to throw people down the stairs, including women. All of it was psy-op. It was all Pavlovian dog conditioning. So, there was a witness who said that Ruby was in the theater behind Oswald. There is no chance that it’s true. There was a witness who said that Ruby was at Parkland Hospital. There is no chance that it’s true. They spread the story that Ruby was stalking Oswald on Friday afternoon at the PD, and they used an image of him from late Friday night when he WAS at the PD, to sell it. But, Ruby was NOT there at the PD on Friday afternoon.  They lied about that.

Apparently, they had a Ruby double delivering weapons to Dealey Plaza on Friday morning before the assassination, whom Julie Ann Mercer saw, but he definitely wasn’t Ruby. The real Ruby was in the Dallas Morning News building at the time tending to his ads. And over time, they came up with all kinds of Ruby sightings that were false and malicious.  

So, the official story was that Ruby shot Oswald as a lone gunman with no conspirators, and the alternative story became that the Mafia put Ruby up to doing it, at the threat of killing him or his sister if he didn’t. The interesting thing is that there isn’t a speck of evidence that any such meeting took place. There is absolutely nothing known about it; not who was present; not where it took place; not when it took place; nor how it was arranged. Nada, zilch, zero. Nothing. And yet, people talk about it as if it’s factual.

The bottom line is that people were incapable of conceiving that the authorities could lie to them about this. And they were also incapable of suspecting the Dallas Police of committing murder. It’s a mental condition that I call “Americana” which is the belief that things as bad as that don’t happen in America. They happen In Red China and Soviet Russia; but, they don’t happen in the USA.

Ruby was certainly afflicted with that, and so were his lawyers, and so were his family. So was everybody. So, since the Police were beyond suspicion, and since the public saw a man do it who looked crudely, marginally, and minimally like Ruby, and since Ruby, himself, wasn’t denying that he did it, there was nowhere for the public mind to go but to accept that Ruby did it. I was tempted to say that they “concluded” that he did it, but that isn’t the right word because when you conclude something, you actually ponder it and examine it. You start from a mental place of not knowing, and you try to figure It out and reach a conclusion. But, that is not what happened. It was instantaneous. It was automatic. It was without thought. It was more like the way a young child absorbs a language, where he or she just soaks it up without resistance.

And there was no one else to go to but Ruby. They saw someone do it. Then, they were shown Ruby in handcuffs, and he wasn’t denying that he did it.  So, why doubt it?

But, let’s consider what Ruby did deny. He denied that he had any motive to do it. He said he was not raging against Oswald that weekend. He denied having any thought or premonition to shoot him. He denied having any memory of shooting him.  He denied that he sent the money wire at 11:17. He said he sent it at 10:17. And yes, I know about the paperwork, but it’s easy to replace paperwork. And they confiscated his clothes and his paperwork immediately. Ruby said he felt no anger, that the word “anger” wasn’t in his vocabulary, that what he was feeling that weekend was great remorse for Kennedy.

And the motive that was released, that he did it to spare Jackie a trip to Dallas, was invented by his lawyer Tom Howard.  

The most amazing thing about this to me is that not only did no one question that Ruby did it, but the rabble-rousers who wanted to dispute the story did so by casting him as being even more criminal. So, there was a spectrum from innocence to guilt, and the rabble-rousers disputed the story by saying Ruby wasn’t just guilty; but super-guilty.  They piled on more bad acts to his resume. I’m sure the puppet-masters could not have been more pleased.

But, I admit that the truth is frightening, that Oswald was killed by law enforcement, and Jack Ruby was framed by them.  The magnitude of the evil involved would be hard to exceed. It was the same weekend that Kennedy and Tippit were killed by law enforcement.  What a monstrous weekend it was.

Since the State, which arrested Oswald and charged him, actually killed Kennedy, they had to be the ones to kill Oswald. They needed to- and before he talked to a lawyer.

If you haven’t joined me yet on this, don’t you think it’s time?

 

 

 

 

 This was in response to my imaginary conversation between Oswald and his lawyer. 

Brian Gilmour

Level 2

I know this is an imaginary conversation, but it provides not only a compelling argument as to what would have happened if Oswald was permitted legal representation, it links very neatly, the offences by omission which were committed against him whilst in custody.

No records of his interviews; hearing he'd been charged with the murder for the first time from a journalist at the press conference; parading him in front of crowds at the police station without carrying out proper security.

The 'script' captures an alternative reality in a very poignant and thought provoking manner also, which for me only serves to destroy anything that promotes guilt by Oswald as a lone assassin.

• 27m

  27 minutes ago
• Like
• Reply
• Share

Active

Ralph Cinque

Author

Level 3

Brian Gilmour You expressed that very well, Brian. You're a better writer than I am. And what you make clear is that the whole case against Oswald was appalling, and it would never have held up in court. And that's why the perpetrators knew, even before they killed Kennedy, that they would have to kill Oswald. I really appreciate your perspective.

 The abominable image on the right is from the online rendering of the NBC footage of the Oswald shooting, but why is it so bad? Was it really that bad on November 24, 1963? No, it couldn't have been. I was alive then. I was watching tv in the 1950s, and it wasn't that bad. Television was never that bad.

And to shut down people like David Matlock, who spawns excuses for everything in a "dog ate my homework" way, I'll point out that the Jackson photo was shot in the same place with the same lighting, but it came out much better, as you can see in this collage.

So, is that going to shut Matlock up? No. Not on your life. He'll spew some new excuse why Jackson's photo came out relatively sharp and with balanced lighting, while the NBC footage is crude and blurry and extremely unbalanced and exaggerated. Matlock will never run out of "dog ate my homework" excuses for the perpetrators.

The bottom line is that they don't want us to see the NBC footage too well. So, what are they trying to hide? What do they not want us to see?

And by the way, the Jackson photo was taken in advanced at a photo-shoot. It was taken in the same place but not at the same time.