It is absolutely crazy that Jack Ruby had inside knowledge of the JFK assassination and was in cahoots with Lyndon Johnson. It's true there is a famous piece of footage in which Ruby, talking to reporters, said that Johnson had a role. But, that's only because he read a book called A Texan Looks at Lyndon by J. Evetts Haley, which came out in March 1964. Somebody- I don't know who- brought the book to Ruby, and he read it there at the County Jail. And what the book says is that Oswald was the lone gunman but Johnson put him up to it. It's ridiculous. As you know, Oswald wasn't a gunman at all and didn't own a gun. 

If Ruby had any inside knowledge, if he had the means to incriminate and make revelations about the movers and shakers and what really happened, THEY WOULD HAVE HAD TO KILL HIM IMMEDIATELY. 

Recall the movie Casablanca, when Police Captain Renault, played by Claude Rains, says of Ugarete played by Peter Lorre, 

"We haven't quite decided yet whether he committed suicide or died trying to escape." 

The fact that Ruby lived for 3 years should tell you that he knew nothing. Absolutely nothing. And it is likely that they did kill him in 1967, but it wasn't because of what he knew and could say about the assassination, which was nothing. It was because he won a new trial, and they weren't going to risk having a second one.  They knew that his lawyers would have learned from the first trial, and it was possible that a light would go on in their heads.  For instance, what if they smartened up and put Ruby on the stand? His childlike nature would have come through to the jury. His religiosity. And just how completely devoid of awareness he was of what happened. The gist of it would have been, "I don't know what happened. I had no thought of shooting Oswald. All I know is that police told me I did it."  

The point is that even by accident, a crack could have occurred in the story if he was tried again. And then, what if his layers really studied the Shooter in the films and photos and really compared him to Ruby? And I mean in the way that a fingerprint comparison is made, comparing fine points. 

Don't you think it's awfully convenient that Ruby should suddenly come down with lung cancer right after winning a new trial? He was practically a non-smoker. He rarely smoked a cigarette. And when he was taken to the hospital and asked about his health, he didn't say anything about lung cancer. He thought he was there because of a rectal problem. He officially died of a blood clot, and there are a lot of drugs that can cause blood clots. 

Jack Ruby was innocent, and the stories that he was a hit man, a Mafioso, a pimp, etc. are just bull shit. He was a nicer, softer, kinder person than most people you are ever going to meet. He was almost childlike in his simplicity and his assumptions. And he was deeply religious in the Jewish faith.  He did not shoot Oswald. He showed up there much earlier than reported and was skirted up to the 5th floor where he was held during the televised spectacle. Then, they wove him into the story by bringing him back down and parading him around. 

It is just so dastardly what they did to him, so Machiavellian, but I'm not surprised that no one in 1963 thought of it because it was a naive time when people trusted authority and trusted the media. People were incapable of fathoming this much evil back then. But, this is 2020. It's almost 2021. And nobody is naive any more, right? Everyone knows how rotten and corrupt and driven by lies the whole system is.  So, anyone who fights this now is just an ostrich with his head in the sane. 

Oliver Janssen "Why did they have to fly Jolly out from California when there were plenty of psychiatrists in Dallas?"
LBJ had the power over all Texas police it was easy for him to cover it up there. a few hours later he had the power over all american police forces and the power to cover up anything and everything. i don't believe he was the head of the assassination. but he sure was one of the accomplices.
Jack Ruby knew this and therefore wanted to go out of texas. if a psychiatrists would come that he didnt know, it could have been anybody who would have rat him out.

Also: Jack Ruby owed the Internal Revenue Service $86,000 ($600,000+ today) at the time of the assassination. He didn't owe the mob. He was under a lot pressure due to this debt. What would he do to earn money to clear it? https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/.../jack-ruby...

JFKCONSPIRACYFORUM.FREEFORUMS.NET

Jack Ruby And The IRS | JFK Assassination Board

Jack Ruby And The IRS | JFK Assassination Board

• Like
•  · Reply
•  · 27m

• 

  Ralph Cinque Oh no, You are completely, totally wrong. Everything that Jack Ruby knew about LBJ he learned from a book called A Texas Looke at Lyndon by J.Evetts Haley. And the fact that Ruby owed money to the IRS only proves that he was not the high flyer that people think. He had no money. He just handled a lot of money because the night club was a cash business. This was 1963 before there was widespread and universal use of credit cards. Would you please just think???? If Ruby knew LBJ, if he had any inside knowledge of the assassination at all, they would have had to kill him immediately. The fact that he lived for 3 years should tell you that he didn't know a thing. Oh, and by the way, I'm making you famous.

These interviews of Sirhan Sirhan and Jack Ruby are very much the same, where they both say that they do not remember what happened, and they do not remember shooting RFK  and Oswald, respectively.

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


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VjbE0Y2YMg&t=34s

They were both innocent. They were both manipulated and mind-controlled, through psychological and pharmacological means. Why do you think Dr. Louis Joylan West became Ruby's psychiatrist in prison? Why did they have to fly him out from California when there were plenty of psychiatrists in Dallas? And guess what? Sirhan Sirhan saw "Jolly" too. There is no official record of it, but when he was shown an image of Jolly, Sirhan said that he recognized him as one of his handlers. 

Oswald was different. He had an aversion to taking drugs, and perhaps their inability to drug him is what limited their ability to manipulate him mentally. Oswald was of sound mine; Jack Ruby and Sirhan Sirhan were not.  

Ruby was the first of the MK-ULTRA patsies, and Sirhan was not the last. Oswald was the first and last sound one, and they were not going to go down that road again. He did a lot of damage to them in the last two days of his life. He did so much damage that they had to shut him up before he talked to a lawyer. 

Why did they have to kill Dorothy Kilgallen? It was because she talked to Ruby, and the fear was that she was getting a glimmer of the truth that he was innocent. They couldn't take the chance.  

As a rule of thumb, don't believe any of these people who started to claim, years or decades later, that they were there and part of it all. That includes the ladies JB and BO, as well as this guy, Louie Steven Witt, who claimed in 1979 that he was Umbrella Man. He told the preposterous story that what he was doing there with that umbrella on a bright sunny afternoon was demonstrating against JFK's father, Joseph P. Kennedy Sr. for appeasing the Nazis. It is absurd for anyone to expect JFK to see a guy with an umbrella in 1963 and think, "Oh, he must be protesting my father, because my father, like Neville Chamberlain, tried to appease Hitler, and his umbrella is a symbol for Chamberlain's umbrella. Of course!"

For Goodness sake, it was 1963, and World War II was long over. The Nazis were defeated- except for the 2800 of so that we brought over here and gave lush lives to for what they could do for us, including Michael Paine's boss, Nazi General Walter Dornberger. 

But, we had a new enemy by then, our former ally, the Soviet Union. So, why would JFK's mind be on Hitler and Chamberlain, with or without his umbrella? It's just ridiculous. Louie Witt was full o' shit.

But, while I'm at it, I'll point out that Joseph P. Kennedy Sr. was a hero. He, at least, tried to stop World War II from happening. His goal was not to appease the Nazis but to prevent the slaughter of millions of people that would come with another world war. 65 million people got killed in World War II. And don't anyone try to tell me that it was the "good war." There was absolutely nothing good on either side of that war. If you really get into studying World War II, as I have, you'll realize that it was just plain evil. And that's why we have to stop having wars because wars are inherently and inevitably evil. War makes monsters out of men. I can't say it too many times. War makes monsters out of men; war makes monsters out of men; war makes monsters out of men. Joseph P. Kennedy could not prevent World War II, but at least, he tried. And yet, they continue to smear him to this day. And by the way, they killed his first son Joseph P. Kennedy Jr. too, and for the same reason they killed JFK except pre-emptively. His was more like the killing of JFK Jr. which was also pre-emptive. Why wait until they get into office? It's much easier if you do it beforehand. A stitch in time saves nine. 

All the amateur films and photos got confiscated by law enforcement.  So, what do you think? I think they had people there combing the crowd. And they weren't in uniform. Every photographer's catch got taken- except for one, Babushka Lady's. 

So, you figure she just slipped through the cracks, did she? They just didn't notice her? But, she was right in the center and got photographed herself by many people. 

Oh, and by the way: that is not a 17 year old cocktail waitress, although she may have had a 17 year old daughter. Babushka Lady was in on it. She was there to record the event, and I mean: the kill. Her film went directly to the plotters. It did not disappear; only she did. Babushka Lady was, you might say, the official photographer.  

On the film front, the BlastOff Festival is holding their online screenings of their winners, including My Stretch of Texas Ground. Jeff Weber and Junes Zahdi won for Best Lead Actors, and the film won the Jury Award for Best Feature Film.

I like their description of MSOTG: "a riveting action/thriller that will make your hair stand on end." 

https://blastoff.us/screenings/

And Allied Vaughn has the DVD of the film for sale for $14.58 on Movie Zyng.

https://www.moviezyng.com/my-stretch-of-texas-ground-dvd-jeff-weber/810044711011?fbclid=IwAR3kcbXpHtY-pM5fhVbFMbpgkHSC4jg1wUefDZAcOllfQUqunjoe6WrTanc

It includes the film, the trailer, and a 15 minute commentary by me about the making of the film. 

I continue to ponder that mother and boy in the Altgens photo. Most people assume that she is holding him, but based on what? He's seems upright. He's not leaning towards her. And she doesn't have her arms wrapped around him. The Fedora Man behind them is turned around and looking at Oswald in the doorway. That's his back we're seeing, You can see the point of his right shoulder. I'll point an arrow to it. 

So, the President of the United States, the Leader of the Free World, and his glamorous wife are riding by, and this guy has got his back to them. And that's why they put that mother and boy in there, to obscure him. I'm thinking that he may have been James Bookhout. He definitely was not Jack Ruby. Ruby told the truth:that he was in the Dallas Morning News building during the motorcade tending to his newspaper ads. Ruby told the truth about everything. 

But, the very idea of a mother standing there watching a parade holding such a child is preposterous. She would have to be Superwoman. Lifting the child is one thing. And even that gets hard. How many times have we heard women say that such and such child is getting too big for her to lift? I've been hearing it all my life. But, we're not talking about lifting; we're talking about holding. The object gets heavier and heavier the longer you hold it. It doesn't really, of course, but it seems to as your muscles tire. 

Here's an experiment: just hold your arms out and see how long you can hold them up. See how long before you are aching to put them down. And in holding a child, women do things such as lean backwards or lean sideways- anything to take the pressure off her relatively weak arms. What we're seeing in the Altrgens photo is impossible. 

And it's one more example of the ugly, murderous photo alteration that was done to hide the truth and protect the killers. They must have had a crack team there. And it's not that they were so good but that they were so fast. I wonder if Dino Brugioni was on it. I'd bet he was.