Did Ruby really kill Oswald?

[Andrew Mason]

Hello, I am new here. After researching the video footage of Oswald getting shot, as well as  photos of Jack Ruby, his own words, etc... as well as the work of other independent researchers on this topic, I am convinced there is more to Oswald's killing than meets the eye. The short man in the fedora who killed Oswald, how can we be sure it was really Jack Ruby? We never see his face. The Oswald shooter is shorter, has stocky legs wider and has a wider face than Ruby did. He was also wearing a different colored suit jacket than Ruby was in the Dallas County jail corridor, minutes before, and he had no fedora on and an entirely different build, hairline, messy hair cut, and ear shape. Plus no one ever photographs or films the Oswald shooters face EVER. When he is wrestled to the ground after he shoots Oswald, everyone seems to carefully cover him so NO ONE sees him. There is zero photographic or film evidence of this man's face. Then only afterwards do you see Ruby walking without his suit jacket on, supposedly right after he was arrested and apprehended. It just doesnt match up. Why doesn't he still have his suit jacket ojn? Maybe because they knew it is much lighter than the Oswald shooter's jacket? That is just one inconsistency in all this. Plus, listening to Ruby interviewed convinces me he was set up as a patsy, just like Oswald was. RAlph Cinque did some interesting work on this subject: I agree with a lot of his thesis. What do you guys think? Isn't it strange we NEVER see the Oswald's shooter's face from the time he appears to the time he is wrestled to the ground and apprehended? http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2016/10/oh-my-god-its-him-its-bookhout-impostor.html

Ruby had Melvin Belli and William Kuntsler as his defense attorneys. Neither would have failed to raise as a defence that he did not shoot Oswald if that defence had any merit.  Robert Jackson's photo of Ruby shooting Oswald speaks for itself. It is not as if Ruby (the guy with the gun) was hiding his face.

[Rob Conti]

Ruby had Melvin Belli and William Kinsler as his defense attorneys. Neither would have failed to raise as a defense that he did not shoot Oswald if that defense had any merit.  Robert Jackson's photo of Ruby shooting Oswald speaks for itself. It is not as if Ruby (the guy with the gun) was hiding his face.

J. Tonahill and Melvin Belli were Ruby's defense attorneys. After researching both of them I see no reason why they would have had any reason to go against the official narrative put forward by the media, the Dallas Police and FBI that their client did the actual shooting. These defense attorneys were not on the scene. There was absolutely no proof for them to go by to the contrary. Outside of the testimony of the 'higher ups', there was nothing.  And if they were all in on a cover-up (or die), Ruby had not a chance. He wanted to talk in Washington. He was itching to get a different version out to the public. He said so in an interview, just before he died. He wanted to "Let the true facts come above board to the world. " and "The world will never know the true facts, his motives, etc unless he was taken to Washington." It never happened. He dies mysteriously before he was able to have a second trial. Ruby's lawyers did plead for Ruby as not guilty by reason of temporary insanity. So they also defended his innocence. The guy with the gun was hiding his hair, face, and everyone around him was hiding him! We never see his face, whether he didn't want to hide it or not and what we see is not enough for a positive identification that it is Ruby. Indeed, when you put a photo of Ruby in the same angle with the basement hallway Oswald shooter in same angle, you can see it is NOT the same person's head. Hairline is different, sideburn and ears are different, shape of head is different, shape of body is different. Age and height are different.

[Andrew Mason]

J. Tonahill and Melvin Belli were Ruby's defense attorneys. After researching both of them I see no reason why they would have had any reason to go against the official narrative put forward by the media, the Dallas Police and FBI that their client did the actual shooting. These defense attorneys were not on the scene. There was absolutely no proof for them to go by to the contrary. Outside of the testimony of the 'higher ups', there was nothing.  And if they were all in on a cover-up (or die), Ruby had not a chance. He wanted to talk in Washington. He was itching to get a different version out to the public. He said so in an interview, just before he died. He wanted to "Let the true facts come above board to the world. " and "The world will never know the true facts, his motives, etc unless he was taken to Washington." It never happened. He dies mysteriously before he was able to have a second trial. Ruby's lawyers did plead for Ruby as not guilty by reason of temporary insanity. So they also defended his innocence. The guy with the gun was hiding his hair, face, and everyone around him was hiding him! We never see his face, whether he didn't want to hide it or not and what we see is not enough for a positive identification that it is Ruby. Indeed, when you put a photo of Ruby in the same angle with the basement hallway Oswald shooter in same angle, you can see it is NOT the same person's head. Hairline is different, sideburn and ears are different, shape of head is different, shape of body is different. Age and height are different.

So who was the shooter? Why did he look a lot like Ruby? Why was Ruby identified as the killer? Why did Ruby say he killed Oswald?  Why did he use Ruby's gun? How did the killer know not only that Oswald would be there, two hours after Oswald was supposed to be transferred but that Ruby would also be there to take the fall? Why did Ruby not mention this to his defence counsel?

[Richard Smith]

That is a problem if we simply accept by blind faith what is told to us by our government, police officials, etc. Have they ever lied to us before? Yes! Gulf of Tonkin incident, no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and MANY other times. We should believe the facts. If government and high officials have lied to us in the past, they CAN still lie to the people. It is our job to question what we are told and allow the Truth to prevail. Or else we are all sheeple and we deserve a Communist takeover.

Ruby committed the crime on TV.  He was immediately arrested.  He admitted the crime and never denied it even at his trial.  To compare that situation to those noted in your post is silly.  A healthy skepticism can be a good thing when there are legitimate grounds for skepticism, but it can also be the paranoid ravings of a lunatic when there are no grounds whatsoever to doubt a conclusion.  There is zero doubt that Ruby shot and killed Oswald.

[Rob Conti]

So who was the shooter? Why did he look a lot like Ruby? Why was Ruby identified as the killer? Why did Ruby say he killed Oswald?  Why did he use Ruby's gun? How did the killer know not only that Oswald would be there, two hours after Oswald was supposed to be transferred but that Ruby would also be there to take the fall? Why did Ruby not mention this to his defence counsel?

The shooter was FBI agent James Bookhout. He had interrogated Oswald that day with Hosty, another FBI agent, and no one but Captain Fritz had greater access to Oswald that day than Bookhout. He looked a lot like Ruby? Or maybe Ruby was chosen bec, among many other reasons (besides being a CIA informant, having a criminal record, the Dallas police knew him very well, etc), he also looked quite like agent Bookhout. Ruby was identified as the killer bec they needed SOMEONE to take the blame that day, and Ruby was the perfect patsy to do so, being there at the right time, the right place, with the right criminal record, having the right ties with law enforcement, being the right build. How did he know Oswald would be there, you ask? What if the Police lured Ruby to the Western Union building, which was less than 200 steps away from the police station, via the stripper employee named Karen Carlin and her plea to Ruby for money? The police could have easily jumped Ruby (an hour before Oswald gets shot) and have taken him into the police station next store on some pretext or another. This would put Ruby exactly in the same building and at the same time where Oswald was and where Oswald was about to be moved from the police station to the County Jail. Ruby used the gun of the shooter? What if it was the other way around? What if the shooter's gun was planted on Ruby, after the shooting? How can this not be plausible if Ruby was now in police custody and being held on the 5th floor, and they had fingerprinted him? How do we know the gun was truly Ruby's? I have seen no independent ballistics test results done to prove Ruby's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon moments after. And even if they were, they could have been planted on the murder weapon by the police, who were in on it too - along with the higher ups, all the way up to LBJ. YES, these are bold claims. And if what I say is even remotely true it is the greatest cover-up and best kept secret in history. And I believe it truly is. Why did Ruby not mention this to his defense council, you ask? Ruby told his defense council that he didn't remember anything. That he didn't remember shooting Oswald. "I just remember going down there, then suddenly, the police pounced on me, pushing me down to the ground". " Then, they dragged me upstairs. And that's when they told me that I shot Oswald.", Ruby said.

[Rob Conti]

Ruby committed the crime on TV.  He was immediately arrested.  He admitted the crime and never denied it even at his trial.  To compare that situation to those noted in your post is silly.  A healthy skepticism can be a good thing when there are legitimate grounds for skepticism, but it can also be the paranoid ravings of a lunatic when there are no grounds whatsoever to doubt a conclusion.  There is zero doubt that Ruby shot and killed Oswald.

Yes, the crime was televised but no one EVER actually clearly sees the shooter's face, only a backview. You can't positively identify someone without a shadow of a doubt from a second back view where half the shooter's head is covered up. It isn't silly if the premise is that government and police officials can lie to the public and have lied to us in the past. Why couldn't they have done it in this case? The grounds for skepticism are that there is so much mystery surrounding this incident. So much we don't know and we can't verify or even see or question. You claim there is zero doubt, but you say that on the basis of what you were told by the police agents who were present. I'm saying they were all told to lie by pointing out that Ruby was the shooter, not an FBI agent. Yes, it was a higher up who really did the shooting. It had to be. No way Ruby could have been that close to Oswald without being left alone or go undetected. An FBI agent with more access to Oswald than almost anyone - other than the chief of police Fritz - and with supreme clearance and authority to be there? Yes, THAT is plausible! Not a nite club owner helping out a stripper when he happens to cross the street and waltz into the police station undetected at the last minute - out of rage for Jackie and pity for his country.?? It's a fake story and the public just believed it as fact without any questioning.  Look again at known photos of Ruby and the shooter's back view. It is NOT the same person. I am a specialist in portrait photos and can tell you with 100% certainty that is not the same person, in the famous photo taken the moment Oswald gets shot. 

[Rob Conti]

It's also interesting to note that that morning Ruby went to Western Union to send the money to his stripper employee Karen Carlin, his beloved little dog was left waiting in the car. This showed that Ruby intended to go to Western Union, get back into his car and then leave. I believe he had no intention to ever walk over to the police station, get in via the back door entrance, and shoot Oswald to defend Jackie's honor and his country (ha). Ruby would have been seen and would never have been allowed into the police station at that crucial moment in history. No, instead he was seized upon by police and brought into the station and held against his will. It is telling that he never had a chance to go back into his car to drive away with his dog.

[Michael Walton]

DICK SMITH SAYS:

Ruby committed the crime on TV.  He was immediately arrested. He admitted the crime and never denied it even at his trial. To compare that situation to those noted in your post is silly.  A healthy skepticism can be a good thing when there are legitimate grounds for skepticism, but it can also be the paranoid ravings of a lunatic when there are no grounds whatsoever to doubt a conclusion.  There is zero doubt that Ruby shot and killed Oswald.

This reply by Dick is so, so funny. So here we have him talking about a "legitimate grounds for skepticism." But when you mix in something like skepticism for could it just possibly be that Oswald didn't kill Kennedy, then all of *those" folks are "paranoid ravings."

Hahahaha. So, so funny, Dick. Thanks for the Monday humor of the day.