Friday, February 23, 2018

I want to stay on this point about LBJ's lackey, Cliff Carter, confiscating John Connally's clothes from Parkland Hospital. There are only two possibilities: either the clothes were evidence in the case or they were just Connally's clothes. If they were just Connally's clothes, then LBJ had no business confiscating them. Why would one man confiscate another man's clothes? But, if they were evidence in the case, he also had no business confiscating them. Neither as Vice President nor as President did he have any jurisdiction in a criminal investigation. He had no right to take possession of any evidence whatsoever. He was not police. He was not FBI. And, as we've often been told, shooting and killing the President was not a federal crime in 1963, and shooting the governor of Texas is not a federal crime even today. So, there was no legal basis, by the wildest stretch, for Cliff Carter to do what he did.

The reason for taking the clothes was in case they conflicted with the official story- and remember that it wasn't fleshed out yet, and wouldn't be for months. However, what this implies is that LBJ not only sought to control the investigation from the start, but had a vested interest in the result. It shows that there is NO CHANCE that LBJ was just an unwily party to what happened. He was a wily party, alright. Wily. Do you know what it means?  

I really think the day may come in which they are forced to abandon the official JFK story, and if they do have to jump ship, I think they will target LBJ, and they'll probably throw in Richard Nixon for good measure. They'll say that those two conspired to kill Kennedy. And of course, there are already numerous books pointing the finger at LBJ. Of course, they'd like to keep Oswald in the picture, but that is so ridiculous: the idea that LBJ would choose Oswald to shoot Kennedy. How many times do I have to say that Oswald was not an assassin, and he wasn't even a good marksman. HE HAD NO EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER AT THE KIND OF SNIPERING THAT WAS INVOLVED. He had just spent 3 years in Russia in which the only shooting he did was a few outings rabbit-hunting with a shotgun, which his Russian friends said he stunk at. What bearing does that have on the shooting feat from the 6th floor? And after Russia, there is no credible evidence that Oswald did any shooting at all. So, how could that possibly qualify him to be THE CHOSEN ONE to shoot Kennedy? It's ridiculous and preposterous to think that anyone would choose him, whether you want to say it was LBJ, the Mafia, or the CIA.

The official story is preposterous. But, there are alternate stories that are just as preposterous, pitching Oswald as infiltrator, as spy on the inside, as having this underworld, under-cover life that not even his wife knew about. Did you see the movie True Lies starring Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jamie Lee Curtis?  In it, he plays a US covert agent against counter-terrorism who lets his wife think that he is a greeting card salesman. That, according to some, is much like Oswald's life with Marina. Ridiculous.  

Tuesday, February 20, 2018

Amy Joyce found this image of LBJ point man Cliff Carter hauling off John Connally's clothes from Parkland Hospital.

Now, why would an assistant of LBJ be doing that? Carter didn't work for Connally; he worked for LBJ. And he wasn't law enforcement. He wasn't FBI. He had no business collecting evidence in the case. 

But, let's think about it: LBJ knew that the official story was going to be that Lee Harvey Oswald did all the shooting from the 6th floor window. Of course, that is not how Connally got shot. But, at this stage, LBJ didn't know how well the bullet holes in Connally's clothing would support the official story. And remember that the Single Bullet Theory wasn't born yet. So, just as a precaution, they needed to get Connally's clothing out of there.

So, what it shows is the extent to which LBJ and his lackies starting managing and controlling the cover-up. And Cliff Carter is one of the guys who, as soon as Oswald was arrested, started calling  Captain Will Fritz telling him to shut down the investigation because he "had his man." The other was everybody's favorite modern-day mystic philosopher, Bill Moyers. The Power of Myth, Bill? You've created quite a few myths of your own.  How about confessing what you did on November 22, 1963? You're not going to live forever, you know; I don't care how mystic you are. You were an active participant in the greatest cover-up in American history. And you need to make amends. You can't undo what you did, but you can cough it up.  

You listen up, Moyers: Your boss, LBJ, murdered Kennedy. And then he murdered Oswald. He had his friends at the Dallas PD do it and then swindle a poor hapless guy named Jack Ruby into thinking that he did it. The great reckoning has begun, and you can mystify about that. 

Monday, February 19, 2018

Surely, the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 by George W. Bush was one of the most wicked and abominable decisions ever made by a U.S. President. And, it proves that there is something terribly wrong with this country that he got away with it without consequences. In fact, after doing it, the American people re-elected him when he should have been imprisoned- for life.   

Every justification used for the Iraq War turned out to be false. Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. He submitted a 10,000 page document to the UN detailing how he had disposed of all his illegal weapons. Secretary of State Colin Powell called him a liar at the UN, but it turns out that Saddam was telling the truth, and it was Bush and Powell who were lying. Likewise, Saddam was not aiding and abetting Al Qaeda. 

And about the weapons, they claimed that he had chemical, biological, and was pursuing nuclear weapons. And all three of those claims were proven false. 

Then, the cowardly US Congress gave him a blank-check authorization to start a war if he determined that the threat posed to the United States by Iraq was great enough, which is to say, if he felt like it. 

The Constitution states that only Congress can declare war. That means that it was their job to determine if Iraq was a threat to the United States- enough to justify attacking them. Iraq had not attacked the U.S. To do what we did to them on the basis that they might? We didn't even determine that they could- that they had the means. And, they didn't. Nor was there any evidence that they had the intent.

What did the Bush administration and its defenders say afterwards? They said that Saddam was a bad guy anyway, and aren't the Iraqi people better off having him gone? Well, not the dead Iraqi people. And not the loved ones of the dead Iraqi people. Not the ones we killed or maimed and their families. Not the parents of Iraqi children with birth defects or childhood cancers, the result of our use of depleted uranium. And let me make something crystal-clear: I am talking about not just the civilians deaths, the deaths of non-combatants, including women and children, that we killed, but also the killing of Iraqi soldiers. Why not? We invaded their country, and they tried to defend it. You can't assume that every Iraqi soldier was a monster. Remember, it started with our "Shock and Awe" campaign of aerial terror. The former Big Pharma exec Donald Rumsfeld had to approve every bombing run in which 50 or more people were expected to die as "collateral damage." Guess what percentage of those runs he approved? 100%. He never met a bombing run he didn't like. Talk about monsters. 

Iraq was a broken-down Third World country which had never recovered from the first Gulf War. The idea that they were a threat to us was preposterous. Our vicious campaign of sanctions resulted in the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children. That is a well-established fact. And all those deaths are on us.   

AMERICA DIED IN 2003. Some say it died in 1963 when they slaughtered John F. Kennedy, but if it didn't die then, it surely died in 2003. America is dead. We are not the City on a Hill. We are the Evil Empire.   



Sunday, February 18, 2018

Karen Mitchell is coming back tomorrow, Monday, and she will be singing and recording some songs, and because of that, Paul Popa decided to come too, and he's already here. So, to warm up for our endeavors with Karen, he and I recorded this song, Manha De Carnaval, which is classic Bossa Nova, of which Paul and I are big fans. The English version is called A Day In The  Life Of A Fool

It was written by Luiz Bonfa as the theme song and musical score for the 1959 Brazilian movie, Black Orpheus.  Throughout the movie, the song is sung, hummed, and played instrumentally. And after that it became a jazz standard and one of the most popular Bossa Nova songs of all time. What a rhythm. It's hypnotic! Gotta love this song.

We know that Jack Ruby definitely went to the DPD late Friday night. He went there to distribute sandwiches, which he bought for his precious detectives. But, when they didn't want them, he sought out the KGIF news crew to give the sandwiches to them since they were "working the case." But, how entrenched was he in the Midnight Press Conference? Amy, I, and the Wizard are starting to wonder. And Amy noticed something that in the most famous image of Jack Ruby at the MPC, he doesn't move. At least compared to the others, he doesn't.  Is the image real? Here's Amy:

Amy Joyce:

I stumbled across these pictures today.  Look closely and you will see that they are all slightly different.  

Like the alleged film of Ruby from the same night, notice how little Ruby moves (his mouth/smile/hands all seem the same) compared to the others.  

RC: It doesn't seem like a pose that one would hold very long, with the arm flexed like that.

Amy Joyce (cont.)

The third photo appears identical to the second but it's different.  The main difference can be seen by the position of the man's head at the far bottom left. Both the 2nd and the third were marked as exhibit 2424 from the WC.

RC: The above is the one in which Ruby looks decidedly younger. He also looks thinner. It may be because they altered the aspect ratio.

Amy Joyce cont. 

From Mark Lane's Rush to Judgement, at 1:08:10 there is an alleged clip of the film.  Again Ruby is not in motion while others are.

RC: Wait. They flipped it. They left-to-right flipped it. So, the photo we have been looking at all these years is a mirror image. 

I tell you, the JFK assassination must be the most left-to-right flipped event in the history of Man. 

Why'd they flip it? I don't know. But, I don't assume it was an accident. 

Here he is a few seconds later, still holding that pose. What is that in his hands? Is it a pencil or pen? What's he holding it for? Was he going to write something down? On what?

Later in the video, it features Sergeant Patrick Dean, who said that he was waiting at the armored truck to take Oswald to the County Jail. But, everyone else conceded afterwards that the armored truck was just a ruse, that Oswald was to ride in the car that Dhority was backing up. 

I don't see how Dean could have been up by the armored car, which was at the top of the ramp, and that's because he was embroiled in the melee immediately. He was the one cop in uniform among the penguins. Plus, he lied. He wasn't up by the armored truck. If you watch the KRLD film, he reaches the melee 4 seconds after the shot, but he came from the Main Street side. In the image below, he was went from our right to our left. That's the Main Street side, not the Commerce Street side where the armored truck was.  

Here he is a half second before. And you can see that he came from our right. 

After that, it goes to an interview of Jim Leavelle, in which he told his famous lies about seeing Ruby, recognizing him as Ruby, seeing the gun, etc.

But, something just occurred to me. Bill Lord asked Leavelle if Oswald was unconscious as soon as he hit the floor, and Leavelle said that either he was unconscious or if not, he was nearly unconscious. But, I want you to think about what it means, how serious it rendered the situation. It's not normal for an abdominal gunshot victim to lose consciousness immediately. If Oswald's lights went out immediately, it means that he was really devastated internally. And that's because the abdomen is a long way from the brain, which provides consciousness, and the only thing that could cause the brain to shut down would be a lack of blood. And of course, the story is that Oswald was devastated, that his major blood vessels were cut, and he was bleeding like a fountain inside. But, my point is that if it really happened that way in the garage, then how did Oswald live long enough to reach Parkland alive? If his brain was deprived of blood instantly in that garage, I don't see how he could have lived from 11:20 to 11:30 to reach Parkland alive. 

It is my thesis that Oswald was shot in the jail office, and that's because Dr. Fred Bieberdorf did report seeing Oswald on the floor, with his shirt pulled up, and his entrance wound exposed, bloodless, and Oswald showed no signs of life. The Bieb really thought he was dead. But, I find it difficult to believe that the Bieb flat-out lied about that. So, I do think Oswald was shot in the jail office. But, according to the Bieb's testimony, he wasn't allowed into the jail office for at least 2 minutes after the shooting. It may have been closer to 3 minutes. So, if they were working lightening fast to get Oswald shot and placed on the floor, it means that the clock didn't start ticking for Oswald for at least 2 minutes longer.  And that would have helped a lot. 

This is the first glimpse that we get of Oswald post-shooting.

 We heard Bill Lord say as they were wheeling him out of the jail office that it was 11:24. If Oswald was shot at 11:20, that would make it 4 minutes later. Notice how white and waxen his right hand looks. That I consider to be fake. His left hand doesn't look like that. And look how much smaller his left hand is. I have no idea what that white thing is over Oswald, and that may be fake too, as in trick photography. Nobody claimed to put a dressing or other covering over Oswald. I assume Oswald was really shot here, and again, it's because of the Bieb's testimony. Nevertheless, it is a highly manipulated image. Most likely, Oswald's right arm was not resting on his chest like that. It would have been terribly wrong to do that to an abdominal gunshot victim. Oswald could not have done it himself since he was unconscious. So, who lifted Oswald's arm and placed it over his chest? Doesn't it seem like we would have heard if somebody did that? So, I think that's fake. Oswald's right arm was probably at his side.  

Below is the Wizard's response to Amy's write-up. He noticed the mirror image too. 


Thanks. It is very limited movement again on the part of Ruby, as you say, and another very short clip.

Both photos were designated 'Exhibit 2424'?

In these versions the wall looks a bit papery, like the set of an early 60s Doctor WHO story. Do you remember what Sam Pate said about 'partitions' at the trial after failing to ID Ruby in 2424?  (I wonder which 2424 photo they showed Sam. The judge would not let the defense see it.) I'm beginning to wonder if they staged Sassa, Jim Davidson and a few other 'ops' against a partition and either had a Ruby lookalike or just pasted him into that corner. I am even wondering if the Henry Wade/'Free Cuba Committee'/'Fair Play for Cuba Committee' cross-talk act was part of the performance.

I mentioned it before, but note that the assembly room footage in the Mark Lane film is a mirror image. 

Just in passing, check out the scrawny neck on the Ruby figure in the photos. His shirt collar looks loose. This is something of a contrast to the garage shooter's bull neck. 

RC: Good point, Wizard. Obviously, the neck of the Garage Shooter was very bull-like compared to Ruby's neck. 

Saturday, February 17, 2018

I have been dwelling on Jack Ruby's innocence for so long that my starting thesis, that Oswald was standing in the doorway during the shooting, seems old hat. It seems like it's been so well established and so well covered that it's as secure as any accepted element of the case. There is no doubt that among Oswald defenders- those who say he was innocent of shooting anyone- that more of them place him in the doorway at 12:30 than anywhere else. 

So, why didn't those goofy lawyers, Schnapf and Simpleton, use it in Houston? The short answer is that within the "community" there is respectable way to be an Oswald defender. And when I say respectable, I mean that you are treated well, even by the other side.  It's considered civilized if you just harp on disputing the Single Bullet Theory and stuff like that and don't try to give Oswald an alibi and certainly don't place him in the doorway, which is considered uncivilized. An example of a civilized Oswald defender would be Tink Thompson, who got help from CBS when he wrote his book, and who gets featured on programs with lone-nutters, in which they all get along fine. Another example is Attorney Robert Tannenbaum, and, Tink Thompson was advising him at the mock trial- like his coach- and Tannenbaum announced it at the trial. And it's weird, don't you think? Because, usually you have a lawyer advising a non-lawyer, but there, it was opposite. But, Tannenbaum has been opposed to Oswald in the doorway for a very long time. He denounced it in his 1967 book in which he said that CBS talked to Lovelady, and they assured him that Lovelady said he was the Man in the doorway. But, that was at the same time that CBS was doing its legendary 4 hour television special on the JFK assassination, in which they had a whole segment devoted to the Doorman controversy. But, after paying to get Lovelady there and photographing him, and doing a lot else, they decided to ditch the whole thing: lock, stock, and barrel.   

And note that Tannenbaum isn't really an Oswald defender at all, and he admits it. He doesn't even like Oswald. He's really just a JFK disputer. But, he and Tink are considered to be respectable opposition. So, even though there were 3 lawyers there supposedly defending Oswald, none of them put forward his alibi for the murder, which was that he was standing in the doorway at the time of the shots. And there is no place else he could have been. 

But even though in mainstream circles and in what are considered to be polite, respectable debates, Oswald in the doorway is still considered persona non grata, nevertheless, among the rank and file Oswald defenders, it now has the most support, and no other location comes close. So, enormous progress has been made, despite the lingering aura of it being politically incorrect.

And, it is absolutely certain now that it will never recede into obscurity again. The whole timeworn argument that "it was settled back in the 60s and 70s in two government investigations" means nothing because one of those investigations was the Warren Commission, and the other was the HSCA, which was every bit as corrupt and bad. And, the operative word in that statement is "government." Government investigations protect the government: first, last, and always. And, since the corollary to Oswald being in the doorway, is that THE GOVERNMENT KILLED KENNEDY, it's no wonder that a government investigation will always decide against Oswald in the doorway. 

So, Oswald's innocence based on his presence in the doorway is now well-established - despite the fact that it still is considered unsuitable for polite company. But, just think about who tells you that it's unsuitable for polite company, and you'll realize that it's no one you respect, and you're better off with the impolite company. 

But, in contrast, Jack Ruby's innocence based on the fact that he was not in the garage during the televised spectacle, that that was another man, is admittedly not well-established and it is beyond impolite. But, I maintain that the fact of Jack Ruby's innocence is now just as well established- by the evidence- as the fact of Lee Harvey Oswald's innocence. And both are supported by strong photographic evidence and many other things. 

And I admit that there are many Oswald defenders who are at the same time Jack Ruby accusers. And there were some great men among these Oswald defenders who unfortunately passed on before they acquired even an inkling of awareness that Jack Ruby was innocent. And they got help to think that way from mainstream sources that have continually spread untrue rumors about Jack Ruby: that he was a drug pusher (he was a drug taker but not a pusher), a pimp, a gun runner, a Mafia hit man, etc. About as many lies have been told about Jack Ruby as have been told about Oswald. I heard one about Oswald the other day that floored me. It quoted Oswald as saying "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take." That wasn't said by Lee Harvey Oswald. It was said by Wayne Gretsky, the hockey player, and he was talking about hockey. The very notion that Oswald would have said such a thing is preposterous. 

So, until quite recently, the Establishment has a safety valve to protect the truth about Jack Ruby from being exposed, and that is the stories that he was in deep with the Mob, that his killing of Oswald was Mob hit, that he was ordered to do it- or else. And many continue to brandish the claim that Jack Ruby was a participant in the JFK assassination. BUT, PEOPLE NEED TO REALIZE THAT FALSE RUBY SIGHTINGS ARE JUST AS NUMEROUS AND WIDESPREAD AS FALSE OSWALD SIGHTINGS. 

But, the point is that we are a lot farther back with Ruby than we are with Oswald- and I admit that. But, on the other hand, the realization that Jack Ruby was innocent carries an even heavier payload. What it does is cast the whole assassination plot in an even darker more evil,  more Machiavellian, and satanic light than the JFK assassination has by itself. In a way, the JFK assassination is very straight-forward, in comparison to the Oswald assassination. As frightful as the JFK assassination is, with them blowing up JFK's head right while he sat next to his wife in the car, it's not nearly as scary and disturbing as what they did to Oswald and what they did to Jack Ruby. It's like a whole magnitude higher in terms of the depth of the lies and the depth of the photographic manipulations. And it involved real protracted acting, particularly by Dallas detectives who became actors.  

It's ironic that after framing poor, hapless, confused Jack Ruby and convincing him that he shot Oswald, that they proceeded to order their student doctor to perform a rectal exam on him. I am reminded of the dialogue in No Country For Old Men when the store clerk, whose chit-chat irritated the sociopath, Anton Chigurh. And when the clerk said, "I don't know how to take that" Chigugh responded with, "Yes, you do, and you've been taking it your whole life." 

Well, I can't say that Jack Ruby took it his whole life, and I don't know the exact point in his life that he became a sacrificial lamb. But, what I do know is that they set him up because they were 100% positive that if Dallas Police told him that he shot Oswald that he would believe them- even though he didn't do it. How deranged do you have to be to put someone else's declarations ahead of your own experience and memory when it comes to whether you shot somebody? What they did to Jack Ruby they could not do to the vast majority of people, and I mean well over 99.99%. It's awfully damn hard to convince a person that he shot someone if he didn't. But, they NEVER would have done it the way they did without knowing that Jack Ruby's mind was in their control. Jack Ruby WAS the Manchurian candidate subject, but not as an assassin, rather as the non-assassin willing to take the blame. Jack Ruby was deranged- his lawyers weren't wrong about that. And the Dallas Police knew that he was deranged, and that THEY were his Queen of Hearts. Do you really think this deranged man outsmarted them? That he prevailed over all their unprecedented high security to protect Oswald? That he got the better of them? That he made fools of them? That he made a fool of Officer Roy Vaughan? You believe that, do you? Or conversely, do you believe that the Dallas Police were working WITH Jack Ruby, that they were colluding, and that as messed up as Ruby was mentally, that they were content for him to have and use a loaded gun and shoot it within inches of them? You think that they, the Dallas Police, were going to trust Jack Ruby to shoot a gun in a crowded, cop-filled cubbyhole? What could possibly go wrong, eh?    

Wednesday, February 14, 2018

The story of Jack Ruby shooting Oswald never had any credibility. So, why did virtually everyone accept it? The reasons were: (1) Ruby's veritable acceptance of it. Even though he had no memory of doing it, no intention of doing it, and no awareness of doing it, he was still willing to accept that he did it. And that tipped the scale for just about everybody. (2) the lack of any alternative. The idea that the Dallas Police committed the murder was not on anyone's radar. And that left no one but Jack Ruby. 

But today, there is no excuse for believing it. Anyone who recognizes that the official story of JFK's murder is a lie should be willing to accept that the official story of Oswald's murder is also a lie. And there is no longer any reason or any excuse why anyone should be enamored with the Dallas Police and be unwilling to see them for what they were in this case: the murderers of Lee Harvey Oswald.  

But even at the time, people should have had grave doubts and especially Ruby's lawyers. When they heard Ruby say that he had no memory of shooting Oswald, that all he could remember was going to the bottom of the ramp and then being jumped on by police, they should have accepted that at face value. They should have considered that his memory was crafted like that because the truth was crafted like that- that that is all that happened when he went down there.

But, the story of him shooting Oswald had no credibility as to motive. The idea that he did it out of grief about JFK does not stand up. He wasn't THAT absorbed in the grief. If you study Ruby's movements and activities the two days between JFK's murder and Oswald's,  most of it had to do with his business. And when he went to the DPD on Friday night, it was to distribute sandwiches. The whole time, Ruby never gave any thought to killing Oswald. He, himself, pointed out that when he wound up at the Midnight Press Conference, he never had the slightest compunction to shoot Oswald, even though he had a gun in his pocket. We know now that the motive that was given afterwards, that he did it to spare Jackie another trip to Dallas, was invented by his lawyer, Tom Howard. Moreover, Oswald was in the custody of the Dallas Police, who were Ruby's heroes.  The fact is that he had a very unnatural and excessive admiration for and worship of them. It wasn't anything sexual. It was more like they were his superheroes. But, the point is that his "feeling" for them was much stronger than his "feeling" for Oswald- as different and opposite as those feelings were. So, the idea that he would have disrupted and interfered with their operation is preposterous. He supported them. It was a very big, established value in his life- something that he treasured- his special relationship with the Dallas PD. He would not have endangered it for anything in the world.  

However, those who support the official story of the JFK killing are going to automatically support the official story of the Oswald killing; it's a matter of necessity and default for them.  And, it's really a waste of time to engage them because they are never going to know better.  But, the people who know that the JFK story is a lie, a bold-faced lie, they are the ones who should know better about Ruby. They are the ones who have no excuse for not embracing the truth: that Jack Ruby was innocent.

But, here's what we have among that group, and I really don't know what numbers to assign percentage-wise to each.: 

1) there are those who accept the official story of the Oswald shooting as-is, that Ruby did it; he did it alone; and he did it because of his grief over Kennedy

2) there are those who think Ruby did it because he was involved in the plot to kill Kennedy, and he needed to silence Oswald. 

3) there are those who think Ruby did it because he was threatened, that either he or his loved ones would be killed unless he killed Oswald. "Kill Oswald or your sister gets it." That sounds like something from a gangster movie.

But, none of these reasons make any sense. The first doesn't make sense because Ruby was not that preoccupied with Oswald, and he wasn't that grief-stricken over Kennedy. He told a joke on Friday night, saying to a guy he knew whom he ran into at the PD, "Have they arrested you yet?" That says a lot about his state of mind that he wasn't THAT grief-stricken. 

The idea that Ruby was involved in the plot to kill Kennedy, that he was delivering guns and shooters to Dealey Plaza is ridiculous, despite the witnesses. Why would the plotters go to Jack Ruby for that? He was a night club owner. Furthermore, he was famous for being a blabbermouth, a braggart, and show-off. So, how could they trust a guy like him? Why would Allen Dulles, Lyndon Baines Johnson, and J. Edgar Hoover have any need to resort to Jack Ruby to get JFK killed? It's ridiculous on the face of it. And what would be the point of "silencing" Oswald after he already underwent 13 hours of interrogation? If Oswald was going to say anything, to expose anything, don't you think he'd do it in 13 hours? If you were going to silence him, you'd have to do it before he talked to police, right? Not after 13 hours of interrogation. 

And that brings us to the last one, that he did it because of threats- to himself or even more likely, to members of his family. And so, they think he killed Oswald for that reason. But, it makes no sense. Nobody would do that. Would you? If someone threatened to kill your sister unless you killed someone, would you commit the murder? Of course not. What would you do? What would Jack Ruby do? Well first, he would seek to protect his sister. Remember, he didn't lack resources. He handled a lot of money. He walked around with thousands on him. And that was 1963. If he had two thousand on him, it was worth about $12,000 today. Maybe a little more. And I don't think it's physically possible for a person to carry that much cash. So, Jack Ruby typically walked around with more cash on him (in terms of purchasing power) than anybody walks around with today, not even billionaires. So, he first could have sought to protect his sister by secretly moving her to a new location that was out of reach. He could have sent her far away from Dallas, to another part of the country or even abroad. Swifted her out in the dead of night. Then, he could have gone to the police and told them about the threats. Remember, he had connections with the Dallas Police. He could have gone to his friends in the media and told them about the threats. Don't you think if the threats were published in the newspaper that it would make it awfully hard for the Mafia or the CIA to go through with it? He could have gone to his lawyer. He could have gone to his congressman. He could have gone to his senator. He could have gone to his governor. That's what I did when I was threatened, and I received a very concerned reply in writing from Governor Greg Abbott which I have to this day. He could have gone to the FBI, and likewise, I have gone to them. There is so much that he could have done. The idea that he had no choice but to go through with the murder they wanted is ridiculous. And again: nobody would do that. I wouldn't. You wouldn't. And neither would anyone else we know. Just going off and murdering somebody? It's not something that any sane person does. Most of us are living our lives knowing that we are never going to murder anybody, that it's out of the question. And of course, killing in self-defense or the defense of another is not murder: it is justifiable homicide, and the law says so. 

And if the threat was that they would kill Ruby himself if he didn't do it, so what? Wouldn't it be better to be killed than to go through what Jack Ruby went through the last three years of his life? If I had to choose between one or the other, I'd sooner die than be a cold-blooded murderer. Wouldn't you? 

So, none of these alternate stories about how Ruby came to shoot Oswald make any sense. 

It's time. It's time for the community of Oswald defenders to embrace Ruby innocence the way they do Oswald innocence. And there is no excuse not to. We have the evidence, including the photographic evidence that the Garage Shooter is incompatible with Jack Ruby. Concomitant with that, we have the photographic evidence and other evidence that the Garage Shooter was FBI Agent James Bookhout. We have the evidence that the whole spectacle was a hoax, that Oswald was killed later. We have the evidence that Jack Ruby reported seeing things at the ramp entrance that did not occur when Officer Roy Vaughan was there. We have the many lies told by the Dallas cops, which have been cited and collected by Amy Joyce. And we have all the strange behaviors, such as stripping Ruby to his underwear and keeping like that; we have the strange claim that they replaced his underwear, that he killed a man and the first thing they did was give him regulation underwear; we have the strange order for Dr. Fred Bieberdorf to perform a rectal exam on Ruby to make sure he didn't have a gun stuffed up his butt- as if there was any possibility of that or that they did such a thing with other gun-toting offenders; and we have the weird photographic anomalies concerning the microphone, the A/C duct, and all the freaky things in the Jackson photo showing inappropriate responses to a gun shot by virtually everyone in the photo. 

There is just no reason to believe any of it any more. The official story of the JFK shooting is a grotesque lie, and likewise, the official story of the Oswald shooting is a grotesque lie.  In fact, I believe it is even more grotesque.