Monday, August 21, 2017

Great find here by Amy Joyce: 

I'm reading through newspapers articles from some files wherein JR describes the shooting.  Although he was very specific that he had shot LHO but this is how he described what he said to the police afterward:  

"What are you guys all jumping on me for?  Why am I here?  I'm Jack Ruby.  I'm not somebody that's wanted." 
"They dragged me into the elevator.  They brought me upstairs.  They told me I had shot Oswald"
"That was the first time I realized what I had done.  I said, 'My God. My God!".

It's meaningful to me that when he says he did it in the same discussion he says that they told him he did it.  It's very telling.  So they not only told him he did it, since he didn't remember they must have told him how he had done it.  It's exactly how you suggested it occurred, that they told him.

Further inside this 192 pages of documents there is an interview with Box:  

Box said, "Oswald had the bureau with him all the time except for 10 minutes. The only time you won't find an fbi agent watching him was when he came down the elevator in the police department and got shot.  How many bureau men were standing in the basement waiting?"

When asked what he thinks of this Box responds,  "I'll leave it to your conclusions. The more I conclude, the more paranoid I sound."

This was my response: 

That's a really great find, Amy. And the most telling thing of all, in my opinion, is him saying, after he was told that he shot Oswald, "My God, My God." What a contrast to what the Dallas cops claimed he said, "I'm glad the son of a bitch is dead. I hope he dies. I did you all a favor.." Etc. How could both be true? And who are you going to believe? I'm going to believe Ruby. 

Sunday, August 20, 2017

From the Roaring Twenties, this is a charming song by Jimmy McHugh and Dorothy Fields. We intended for Karen Mitchell to sing it when she was here, but time ran out. So, Paul Popa and I just recorded it, and I have to say that this song is a lot of fun. It is fun to play; fun to sing; and fun to hear. And it is typical of songs from that era; very light and playful and done with a wink and a smile. So here now is the delightful EXACTLY LIKE YOU. 

https://youtu.be/rXHebBiYTgQ




Jeff Smith there must be some way to mathematically scale the other men in the garage who are known to us and to search for records of their respective height's to determine the actual height of this man, now that we know Ruby's height for sure.
LikeShow more reactions
Reply3 hrs
Remove
Pete Mellor Ralph, have you come across the story from one Grace Pratt that Ruby did not die in prison but was seen boarding a plane to Israel just days after his supposed funeral. Account from the excellent 'Final Judgement' by Michael Collins Piper.
LikeShow more reactions
Reply14 mins
Remove
Ralph Cinque Pete Mellor, I did read Final Judgment, and I knew Michael Collins Piper. But, I find that particular claim very hard to believe. And note that the same claim is often made about Oswald, that he wasn't really killed. But, that can't be true because they absolutely needed Oswald dead. Well, likewise they absolutely needed Ruby dead. They couldn't let him live. Imagine if he woke up one morning and figured out what happened, that his beloved Dallas Police had lied to him. They couldn't risk that. They absolutely had to kill him.

Saturday, August 19, 2017

Sparta is now claiming to know that Oswald was making a defiant, belligerent gesture here, that it's the symbol of Communism, like he is declaring war on America. 

That is insane, and he has no right to claim it. Oswald never said any such thing. This was to reporters, and his only message to them was that he was innocent- not that he killed Kennedy as an agent of Communism.

Sparta even admitted that "that's not something that an innocent person would do." And I agree. But likewise, it's not something that a person claiming to be innocent would do, and Oswald did claim to be innocent. 

So, even if you think Oswald was guilty (which is now ridiculous) he claimed to be innocent, and therefore, he would act like an innocent person. He wasn't an idiot. He wouldn't do such a stupid thing as that.

Oswald mentioned to the reporters that "they're taking me in because I lived in the Soviet Union." But, he didn't pitch Communism to them. And, the cops asked him about his involvement with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, but if they hadn't mentioned it to him, do you think he would have mentioned it to them? Why? What for? Look: he was innocent. His case and his message was that he did not own a rifle, and he was not up on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy. And his politics had nothing to do with that. His politics was irrelevant to it. So, he had no reason to bring it up, and he wouldn't have. He didn't. They did. And making a defiant, belligerent, warlike gesture to the press was something he never would have done. Again, he wasn't an idiot. He was 10x smarter than Sparta.

So, let's look at it again:


It was accompanied by no statement concerning Communism, and the ONLY thing he was defiant about were the charges against him. "I didn't shoot anybody. I emphatically deny these charges." Etc. Now, what is he doing there? He is displaying to the press that he is in handcuffs. Notice that he is stretching the chain, to give it the greatest visibility. The fact that he's making a fist with his hands? So what? He has to do something with them. If he left his fingers open, it would be distracting. He's trying to show off the handcuffs, not his hands. So, he makes his hands as small as he can. And look at the expression on his face. Does he look defiant? Does he look belligerent? Does he look combative? Does he look like Floyd Mayweather or Conor Mcgregor at a faceoff? No! To me, he just looks demonstrative. 


Fact: Oswald never brought up Communism to the press, and his message to them was that he was innocent and that he wanted a lawyer, and the Dallas Police would not let him have one. He vaunted his innocence- not his idealism.  It is preposterous to claim that he was making a Communist gesture there. No one has the right to do it because there is no sufficient basis to do it.  We are dealing here with a demonstrative gesture. And what he was demonstrating was his restraints. To read more into it than that is baseless, stupid, and very malicious.  
Big, big, big, big, find! I found Jack Ruby's driver's license, and it says that he was 5'9".


Now, how could he be that pipsqueak in the garage? No way was that guy 5'9". He stood out for being the shortest guy in the garage among 30 men. No way was he 5'9". 



This is a very slow-motion gif of the Oswald shooting done by the Wizard, and it's very good because it shows very well what Oswald did. He first cringed forward and started going down, and then he veered back. Of course, there is no sign of any arm-slapping. That is seen in the Jackson photo and nowhere else .

The Shooter shot Oswald from the side, and of course, he had to since the bullet crossed Oswald's body from left to right.  But, in the Jackson photo, the shooter is more in front of Oswald, with his back to the camera. The implication is that that was the position of the shooting, and it's commonly spoken of as if it was. 

 But, you only have to look at the gif to see that it was NOT the position of the shooting. And how it got to that in .3 second is very dubious and doubtful. We do not see the Jackson photo in the films, only in the Newsreel, when it appears as a still frame at the end of the film, to which they tacked it on. 
It's interesting that there are almost no references to Jack Ruby's height. The only one I have found, so far, is John Armstrong, who reported that Ruby was 5' 8 1/2".  In contrast, there are lots of references to Oswald's height. Oswald was 5'9", and there is no doubt about it. You can even see him standing on a height ledger which shows it at the New Orleans P.D. However, some of his military records and his passport from when he went to Russia show him as being 5'11". The Oswald of fame was definitely 5'9".

I am going to have to ask John Armstrong how he learned that Ruby was 5' 8 1/2". But, we can confirm it ourselves by comparing Ruby to Oswald in reference to another known measure: Detective Elmer Boyd who was over 6 feet, 6'2", I believe.


  Oswald was leaning forward there, reducing his height, but he went up to about Boyd's eyes. Boyd is on his left, our right. 
And it's about the same. So Ruby and Oswald were very close in height. A half-inch difference would be hard to detect unless they were standing right next to each other, which of course we don't have. 

So, Ruby was indeed 5' 8 1/2" as John Armstrong, a very reliable researcher, reported. So, how tall was the garage shooter?

Last night, I posted this image.


The Garage Shooter was short: strikingly short. He was shorter than Will Fritz, and I don't think Fritz was more than 5'7". Of course, I am talking about the guy wielding the gun who rushed Oswald and fired. I am not talking about the taller man who has also been called Ruby.


It is preposterous to claim that those dark spheres around his eyes are shadow since there is no object that could cast such a shadow. A shadow, in the main, takes the shape of the object that casts it. So, what object could be casting that shadow? There is none. They look like sunglasses, but they were probably added to the image. Why would he need to wear sunglasses in that situation? But, my point right now is that he is too tall to be the Garage Shooter. And I have a feeling that even Denis Morrissette would agree, that this guy was not Ruby, since Denis was willing to scuttle the Friday afternoon sighting of Ruby at the P.D. But, let's look at some images of the short Garage Shooter.


The Beers photo certainly lends support to the Garage Shooter being uniquely short in that garage.


Likewise, the Jackson photo supports his diminutive stature. 


This comparison to Jim Leavelle supports it, and Leavelle was not among the taller cops.


This one too lends support.


 I could keep going, but we'll leave it at that. The Garage Shooter was conspicuously short, decidedly short, and uniquely short among the men in that garage. Jack Ruby was of average height and would not have stood out that way- the way this man stands out in that crowd. 

And this is something that should have been observed and recognized by everyone at the time, and especially by Jack Ruby's lawyers and his family. This, by itself, exonerates Jack Ruby. And it is something that cannot be rationally denied, which is to say that no one could come up with a rational reason for denying it. Anyone can deny anything just by flapping lips or hitting keys on a keyboard. But, that does not constitute a rational denial. Rather, it's just a stubborn, obstinate, arrogant, bullying denial. That's what punks do. Then, there's the wisecracks and sick jokes treatment. That's what pinks do. But, none of that matters. What matters is that we have clear, objective, concrete evidence that the Garage Shooter was not Jack Ruby.  He is way behind Oswald in climbing out of the terrible hole he was thrown into. But, at least now, he's moving. 


I was reading an article about the rampant rise in obesity in America, and the following line jumped out at me: 

The average height for men increased from just over 5-foot-8 in 1960 to 5-9 in 2002.

Jack Ruby was 5' 8 1/2 ". In every sense of the word, he was of average height. But, the Garage Shooter, in a space packed with dozens of men was by far the shortest. 


Think about it: the Garage Shooter was the shortest man in that garage, and that is among dozens of men that we could see. He stood out for being the shortest. So, how could a man who was of average height be the shortest among dozens of men? It wasn't a gathering of basketball players.  

It is preposterous to think that that short man was 5' 8 1/2". He was obviously much shorter than that. And therefore, he could not possibly be Jack Ruby. 

This is very cut and dry, and the people who are fighting it know it. They just don't care. They spit on the truth. They spit on Kennedy. They spit on Oswald. They are vile and disgusting; they are sub-human. 

All Jack Ruby's lawyers had to do was look at the films and photos with a critical eye, and they would have seen right away that it was a different man. But, they didn't look at it with a critical eye. They saw the middle finger, and they made excuses for it. Did they even ask Ruby if he shot the gun with his middle finger? Of course, he had no memory of the shooting at all, so he couldn't tell them what finger he used.

Otherwise intelligent men acted very unintelligent about this. They acted blindly. They looked at the photos and they "saw" Jack Ruby. But, it was a mental seeing. They saw Jack Ruby even before they looked. They didn't inspect the image of him. Then Ruby's lawyers accepted that he did it even though he had no memory of doing it and no motive to do it and no plan to do it and no intention of doing it. One stupid lawyer of his thought it would be helpful to give Ruby a motive, and so he came up with the spare Jackie a trip to Dallas nonsense. They should have left it that he had no motive. 

Then, the State actually sought and got the death penalty. The death penalty? For killing a guy they were also determined to kill and had every expectation of killing? The death penalty when he wasn't even conscious of doing it? 

Why did his lawyers not question his guilt? They didn't question it because the reality of what happened was outside the scope of even their imagination. Another way of putting it is that they accepted it because they didn't have an alternative to it; not even conceptually. You know how we often say that the Man in the Doorway had to be Oswald or Lovelady. There wasn't a third employee who looked like them, and it's not reasonable to think that an unrelated spectator from the street would have taken that position at the top of the TSBD steps.  Well in this case, there was no Lovelady. The Garage Shooter, in the mental paradigm that prevailed, had to be Jack Ruby and there was no one else on the radar. To jump through the Looking Glass and ask, "What if the Police are lying?" was something they could not do. There was a mental wall blocking it.
They were grossly naive. 

But, today it's different. And the people who are fighting it today- the punks and pinks- they aren't naive at all; they're just rotten.

The reality that the Dallas Police and FBI killed Oswald and framed Ruby for it is the scariest story of official corruption that has ever occurred. It is a nightmare. But, it is also the truth.     


Friday, August 18, 2017

You spew nonsense, Sparta. All you do is demonstrate that anyone can hit any keys on the keyboard. The image of Young Bookhout is a spot-on match to the shooter by the elevator with the detectives, and if it goes to court, I'll bring in a geneticist and a gerontologist to say so. 

And you're wrong, Sparta. I often display, side by side, a photo of Ruby, circa 1963, and not just 1963 but November 24, 1963, with the Garage Shooter standing by the detectives all saying "cheese."  


So, we see the longer forehead on Ruby on the left, the pyramidal shaped nose in contrast to the pinched nose on the shooter, and then there is also the longer face on Ruby in contrast to the rounder face of the shooter. They are definitely different men.


Then you say that in the larger picture, it shows that shadow from the hat is casting shadow on his eye. That is ridiculous, Sparta. How can a hat cast a discreet round shadow? Don't you know that the shapes of shadows is determined by the shape of the object that casts them?





Clearly, there is no shadow being cast on Bookhout's eye by any hat. How dare you say such a thing? And you don't even show it. I'm the one who has to show it.


Sparta, you are so inept, so incompetent, and so willing to spew nonsense, I put you in the lowest echelon of shill: the kind the spews not just lies, but bold-faced lies. 





You've got to read this. It is hilarious. It's by Vincent Bugliosi from his book Reclaming History. Now, I know he defends the Warren Commission, that Oswald did it alone, etc. But, that should not stop us from using islands of lucidity that are in the book, and this is one of them. He is addressing the very stupid idea that Jack Ruby was a Mafia hitman, and that he took out Oswald on order of the Mob. It starts with an imaginary conversation between a Mafia capo, Vito, and Jack Ruby.


Indeed, this is very funny and very good. However, it leaves some unanswered problems for Bugliosi. Indeed, why didn't Jack Ruby shoot Oswald in the head or otherwise in the heart? You don't have to be in the Mafia to know that that's the surest way to instantly kill someone. People do survive abdominal gunshots; it happens all the time. Everyone knows that the surest way to kill someone is with a head shot or a heart shot. So, why wouldn't that apply to Ruby? 

And, Bugliosi never explained why Jack Ruby would fire with his middle finger. He ridiculed the idea that that was the Mafia way to do it. And why would it be the Mafia way to do it? There is no truth to that. Do a Google search for "Mafia way to shoot with middle finger"; and you won't find a thing. It's not as though there are cameras at Mafia killings to capture the shooting method. And the victim is hardly going to notice which finger his attacker is using. and since the victim is going to be dead within seconds, what difference would it make if his last thought was, "Say, he's shooting me with his middle finger on the trigger. I wonder why he's doing that." So, as a Mafia gesture it would be pointless. One blithering fool suggested that the Mafia did it that way to "guide the gun" but that is ridiculous. And leaving your index finger out by the cylinder gap exposes it to the hot, toxic gases that burst out. A Mafia hit man would certainly know that.  

Bugliosi cited Ruby's lawyer who suggested that Ruby used his middle finger because he was mentally ill. But no, that makes no sense either. There is only one image that shows the use of the middle finger, and that is the Jackson photo. Ruby's lawyer needed to question the validity of that image and whether it even displays Jack Ruby.  But, that would mean the State was involved in the crime, and his mind was unable to go there. He was too loyal an American. Talk about mental illness. It's too bad he couldn't snap out of it. 

No, the right explanation for why we see the middle finger in the Jackson photo is because in setting it up, the plotters were under the mistaken notion that Jack Ruby's right index finger had been severed. And they wanted everyone to notice the use of the middle finger, so they stuck it out like he was giving the world the finger- sideways. Obviously, no one could fire a gun like that. Even if you were going to use your middle finger, you would wrap it around the trigger just as you would your index finger. 

If only people in 1963 could have woken up to photographic alteration and manipulation.  If only, if only, if only, if only, if only.   

Thursday, August 17, 2017

There is separate issue to discuss. They say the shooter used his middle finger to fire the gun. But, why is that finger straight and extended all the way through the trigger guard? Why isn't it wrapped around the trigger as you would do with your index finger?


And note that the official story has it that Ruby tried to shoot the gun again immediately. But, how was he going to fire it like that with his middle finger straight? And why was it straight? What was the practical reason for doing that? 

Of course, there isn't any practical reason. So, why does it look like that? Notice that that middle finger is a slightly different shade than the rest of the hand. It's a little lighter. So, is it something they added to the photo? Why would they do that?

Well, I think they wanted the middle finger to stand out. They didn't want it to be overlooked. If it was just curled around the trigger, with his distal interphalangeal joint on the trigger, it might not have been noticed. And they wanted it to be noticed because they felt that it really marked the guy as being Jack Ruby. Who else but Jack Ruby with his amputated index finger would shoot with his middle finger? It was like leaving his signature. But alas, they were mistaken. It was his left index finger that was partially amputated. But, they didn't know that. Someone gave them the wrong information. And they thought this was a bonanza for them: the hallmark of Jack Ruby, that he had to fire the gun with his middle finger. But, it's actually a disaster for them because Jack Ruby had an intact right hand and would definitely not have fired the gun with his middle finger. So really, they blew it.  They blew it big-time. Shooting with his middle finger is something Jack Ruby had no reason to do and would not have done; not instinctually, not intuitively, not by accident, and not on purpose. 
Now, Sparta has taken Oswald's hand from the clenched fist image, and he's rotated it and put it alongside the hand in the Jackson photo. He says it's a match. What a complete, total incompetent. 



Alright, so now that we see how he derived it, we will remove the bottom image. I'll count the disparities between these two hands.
1) size of the thumbs: normal on the right and humongous on the left
2) shape of the wrist: normal horizontal on the right, and weird two-shape, with the horizontal and then a crescent on the left, as if he's got two wrists there, and he does
3)number of fingers: 5 on the right (we can see index, middle, ring, and pinkie, in addition to the thumb, which makes 5. On the left, there is the humongous thumb and 3 fingers totalling 4)
4) on the left the thumbnail is facing us, as if turned counterclockwise, which it cannot do. So, it must be a right thumb. On the right, the thumbnail is facing away from the fingers and in profile to us. We are seeing it from the side. The flat face of the thumb that we see in the Jackson photo is an anatomical and biomechanical impossibility. A left thumb could not move like that.



The idea that these two hands match is a display of gross incompetence, gross obtuseness, and gross denial of reality. It is an outrage that Sparta considers these images to be corresponding. That hand on the right proves the falseness and grotesqueness of the hand in the Jackson photo. 


Imagine how an opposing lawyer would have cross-examined Bookhout.

Attorney: Mr. Bookhout, you claim that instead of observing the jail transfer, you chose to remain in Captain Fritz' office. Why? What did you have to do there?

Bookhout: I had some paperwork to do.

Attorney: Paperwork? Could you be more specific?

Bookhout: Paperwork pertaining to the investigation.

Attorney: I see. It couldn't wait? The jail transfer was supposed to consist of Oswald being walked to a car and driven away. So, without incident, how long would that have taken?

Bookhout: I wouldn't know. 

Attorney: The distance was 20 yards, and you know how long it takes to get into a car. Don't you think it could have been done in say, one minute? 

Boohout: Perhaps.  

Attorney: Is it fair to say that you just weren't interested in watching the jail transfer?

Bookhout: That's right. 

Attorney: But, you knew that threats had been coming in against Oswald and that Dallas Police were very concerned about it and were on high-alert about it, right?

Bookhout: Yes.

Attorney: So, with so much concern, why didn't you want to see how it unfolded?

Bookhout: Like I said: I had paperwork to do, and I really didn't think Oswald was going to be attacked in a police garage. 

Attorney: Then you say that there was an announcement over the intercom for all homicide detectives to report to the jail office. Do you recall who made that announcement? Or on whose behalf? Was it officially from Captain Fritz?

Bookhout: I don't recall. 

Attorney: And then you said that you learned from Lt. Baker that Oswald had been shot, so you proceeded down to the basement. What was your reaction when you heard that Oswald had been shot?

Bookhout: I was shocked and appalled. 

Attorney: I see. So, you went down to the basement. Did you see Oswald?

Bookhout: He was lying on the floor, and I saw him there. 

Attorney: And then when the ambulance attendants came in, you followed them when they rolled Oswald's stretcher out to the garage, didn't you?

Bookhout: Yes, I did.

Attorney: Why didn't you go to Parkland Hospital?

Bookhout: I didn't see any need.

Attorney: But, you just said you were shocked and appalled that he got shot. So, weren't you interested in the outcome? Whether he was going to live or die?

Bookhout: Of course.

Attorney: Then, why didn't you go? More paperwork? What did you do instead?

Bookhout: I conferred with witnesses about what happened. There were plenty who didn't go. 

Attorney: But, many did. Did anyone invite you to ride to the hospital with him?  

Bookhout: Not that I recall.

Attorney: But, you had no inkling to go to the hospital?  I'm asking because it seems like you were very interested in following Oswald everywhere until then. And having conversed with him and interacted with him and gotten to know him better than anybody, it really seems like you would have wanted to go.

Bookhout: Well, I didn't.
  
Attorney: I see. No more questions.  



    







Amy, we need to ask ourselves: why did Bookhout, upon being released, go down to the jail office and follow Oswald's stretcher out? I think he was thinking ahead to his cover story, and he knew he would be asked. So, he was going to say that he remained in Fritz office during the jail transfer (without ever providing a reason why) but then when the news arrived of the shooting, he went down there, and it seemed like a reasonable thing to do. Here's his testimony: 

Mr. BOOKHOUT -  Shortly thereafter he (Oswald) was taken out of the homicide and robbery bureau. I remained in the homicide office. 
Mr. STERN - Did you see him again? 
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Next time I saw him was after a report came out over the intercom system for any homicide and robbery officers to report to the city hall basement. I proceeded to the basement after learning from Lieutenant Baker in the homicide and robbery bureau, who had made a telephone call to the dispatcher to inquire what was going on, that Oswald had been shot.
When I arrived in the basement I asked where was Oswald, and they said that he was in the jail office. I asked who had shot him, and I was told an individual by the name of Jack Ruby. I asked where he was. They said, they have already taken him up to the jail. (5th floor) 
Mr. STERN - Fine. 
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Just shortly thereafter the ambulance came, and I observed them roll Oswald out of the jail office on the stretcher and that is the last---- 

So, notice that Bookhout just said that he remained in the homicide office during the jail transfer, without providing a reason or an activity that he was doing there, and Stern did not question him about it.

So, that's Bookhout's alibi for not being present at the shooting, but it's weak. It wasn't his office, so he had nothing to do there. And if he was involved in, say, sending something to the FBI, why didn't he say so? And since Bookhout didn't proffer any activity, no one has the right to invent him one. When you look at the way Bookhout doggedly attended everything Oswald did, it makes no sense for him not to attend the jail transfer. And especially realizing that the national press was filling that garage like pilgrims at Mecca, why wouldn't Bookhout go down and watch it, especially when he apparently had nothing else to do? 

It's obvious that that was all a lie, that Bookhout was there, and he was there as the garage shooter.

Ralph
Dr Cinque

I am an avid reader re the assassination.  I was 12 at the time.  Somehow I think it is the most significant event during my lifetime.  I have read many many books on this.  

I am struggling with some of your comments on online blogs I have been reading.  In particular on 2/20/15 you backed away from suspecting it is William Shelley in the film of Oswald leafletting in front of the Trade Mart on 8/16/63. You state you were wrong and believe it is "absolutely" Thomas Beckham.  

Is that still your belief?  The images I have seen of Beckham make me strongly think it is not him.  Besides all of the reasons you originally stated, his thick brows and shape of the head all seem to support it being Shelley.  A blog I found also raises questions re Beckham's believability when he self ID'd it as him in the film.  Questions also raised re Joan Mellon accepting Beckham's statement ( I have not read her book).  

If you still buy it is Beckham, I would be very interested in knowing why?  I agree with your original position it is Shelley which would be BIG and indeed just as explosive as your extensively researched "doorman" position.  In fact, I would recommend you do just as extensive a work up as you did with doorman.  

Thank you in advance for any response.  

M.L.

Ralph Cinque: 

Yes, I am very sure that it's Beckham at the Trade Mart with Oswald. It's confusing because Beckham's looks changed. He got heavy, even fat in the face, while he was very thin and gaunt in 1963. It was when I came upon this image of him that I realized that he was the guy at the Trade Mart. 

Another consideration is that the guy at the Trade Mart looks very young, like early 20s, and Bill Shelley was in his mid-30s in 1963.

Notice that Shelley on the right had a longer forehead. And he looks a good 10 years older than the guy at the Trade Mart. Besides, what would they have needed to involve Bill Shelley in the goings-on down in New Orleans? They had other people for that. Linking the TSBD with the New Orleans chapter was not something they would have done.  Bill Shelley had his role to play, which was to frame Oswald for shooting Kennedy. I also think it's likely that Shelley ordered Oswald to go to the lunch room, and I mean right there in the doorway.  And there may even have been a bit of a commotion about it. Why else would Dave Wiegman have done his famous second pan of the doorway? Something happened there which distracted him, caught his attention. 

So, Shelley was in on it. He was CIA, and the whole company (the TSBD) was CIA. It was a CIA front company which under the guise of distributing school books, carried on espionage and gun-running and other things. Then, their whole focus became the assassination. They moved into the 411 Elm Street building that summer even though it was way bigger than what they needed precisely to set up Oswald. Their ridiculous book business was just a cover. Who would operate a legitimate book distributorship this way? 

 How could one "mailer" Troy West, who was wrapping a few books at a time, handle the kind of volume that could generate enough revenue to pay 75 employees?

In his testimony, Troy West actually started saying that he worked in another building. But, that quickly got ignored. There was no designation of a shipping room at the TSBD. It was just a front; just a cover. 

Look at the height of this stack. Who would do that? Stack boxes of books that high?

And how did they do it? We never saw any forklifts. What if the book that Buell needed was in the top box? How was he supposed to get it?

The whole book distributing operation was just a cover. Read William Weston:










If you accept that Jack Ruby was framed and innocent- there not being a single image of him in the garage during the spectacle- then I want you to consider the necessity that he be drugged.

Imagine if YOU were informed by police that you lethally shot someone, and of course, you didn't. Would there be any amount of insistence by police that could convince you that you did it? 

Imagine how you would react. Imagine the determination you would have to fight it. 

And if they told you that you were captured on film doing it, what would say? You would say, "I demand to see it." And when you got to see it, you would certainly look closely at the shooter, and you would certainly have the ability to recognize yourself and distinguish yourself from someone else. 

If Jack Ruby had put up resistance when told that he shot Oswald, it would have been a disaster for the plotters. Imagine if the first thing he told his lawyer was, "I didn't do it. They are framing me." And if his lawyer got there right away, he could have demanded an independent paraffin test and nitrate test, saying that they don't trust the police. Again, it would have been a disaster for the plotters. They had to be certain that Jack Ruby would roll over when told that he shot Oswald. But think about the natural, instinctual resistance that a person has, their instinct for self-preservation. 

What the plotters needed was absolute certainty that Jack Ruby would accept it when he was told that he shot Oswald. That kind of certainty only comes from a pharmaceutical. It's a crap-shoot without a pharmaceutical. Scopoloamine makes a person extremely susceptible to suggestion- even the suggestion that he killed somebody. You can think of it like a chemical form of hypnotic suggestion. 

And look how well it worked. It took 50 years for the first person, Maxsim Irkutsk, to realize that Jack Ruby was innocent. 50 years. Half a century. Even the people who were vigorously fighting the claim that Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit all accepted that Ruby shot Oswald. They just tinkered with it around the edges: did Oswald and Ruby know each other? Did Ruby do it to silence Oswald? And that latter question is really, really stupid. And I hate to say it because there were some good people who thought it, but it's true. It's very, very stupid. NOBODY would throw away his entire life and utterly destroy himself and lose everything just to silence someone. There is nothing worse than losing everything, including one's own life. So, nobody would do it. It's a degree of masochism that is impossible. And the idea that Ruby did it because of threats that were made is equally stupid. No threat compares to losing everything including one's own life. And, if they threatened to harm or kill his loved ones, he could have dealt with it. Especially him because look at all the people he knew in law enforcement. The idea that they threatened to hurt his sister, so therefore he blew Oswald away? That is insane, and it is insane of the people who spout it. They are just not thinking straight. 

Before I settled on scopolamine, I figured that they must have used hypnotic suggestion on Ruby to get him to go the garage. And, I have no doubt that there were people messing with his head that weekend, and it may or may not have involved specific hypnotic techniques. But even that would not have given the plotters enough control. They needed chemical control. 

I just reread the testimony of Doyle Lane, the WU clerk who waited on Ruby.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/lane_d.htm 

I thought he was very slick. He sounded like a lawyer the way he answered- with a lot of precision. He claimed that there was a customer before Ruby, but that customer left before he got started with Ruby. It sounded like he and Ruby were alone in the store during the transaction. And he said that upon leaving, he noticed that Ruby turned left- towards Harwood Street and City Hall. But, Ruby's car was parked to the right. So that means that Ruby got the idea to proceed to the police ramp- opposite the direction that his car was parked and his dog was waiting- before he left that WU office. 

Think about it: Ruby turned left, even though his car and his dog were right. And, it was not just a few feet. He had to walk to the end of the long block, cross Harwood Street, and then walk the distance to the police ramp, which was past the entrance to City Hall. I think somebody timed it and said it was about 2 minutes altogether. Of course, it would depend on whether or not you caught the light at Harwood. If he had to wait for a red light to change before he could cross the street, that would make it longer. 

But, it was a strange thing to do because even if he was lured by the crowd when he passed them coming in, conducting his WU business would have distracted him from that, and then afterwards, he would have thought about the rest of his plans for the day, which included moving some of his things into the swanky new apartment he leased. Lane said that Ruby just exited WU and immediately turned left- which means he didn't think about it.  But, that doesn't really seem normal either. It seems like he would have stopped and just peered at the crowd- to see if they were still there and to see if the situation still looked interesting. But no, according to Lane, Ruby just turned left immediately upon exiting WU, without deliberation.  

Doyle Lane was very precise in his testimony, and he answered like he was in court or was giving a deposition. Did he suggest to Ruby that he go down and check out the activity at the police ramp? If he did, I'm sure he would not have mentioned it, and of course, he certainly wasn't asked.   

Ruby left the WU office and immediately turned left and headed down to the police ramp. He had no purpose in doing so. He definitely did not have the thought to kill Oswald. And honestly, if he did have such a thought and intention, would he have busied himself with sending a money order scant minutes before? 

"Let's see. Before I go shoot Oswald and thereby destroy my entire life including my business, I better send this $25 to Karen Carlin." 

The two don't really go together, do they? 

So, Ruby had no purpose in going to the ramp, and upon getting to the ramp, he had no purpose in walking down the ramp. Yet, he did both. He walked to it and walked down it without knowing why he was doing it. He was in a drug-induced, zombie-like state. What if Lane coaxed him to go to the ramp, and someone at the ramp coaxed him to go down the ramp? If he was on scopolamine, that's all it would have taken.