It is my interpretation, that Ruby's statement, "The answer is the man in office now," *directly* implicates LBJ.
> On 11/2/2012 9:14 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
> > If, as some assert, the assassination was a CIA rogue element affair, then
> > how does Jack Ruby fit into it? Did Jack work for the CIA, too? I suppose
> No. Jack Ruby was a front for the Chicago Mafia and the Chicago Mafia
> were partners in the CIA assassination plots.
> > he could have been part of that element, since he seems to have been
> > involved in the anti-Castro activities. But why does he implicate LBJ? Was
> > his statement leverage on the part of the plotters to get LBJ to
> He does not implicate LBJ directly. He is indirectly referencing the ad
> by the John Birch Society which suggested that Kennedy should be
> assassinated so that a truly patriotic American could become President.
> > cooperate? I don't think so. I don't know the date of his "The answer is
> > the man in office now," comment, but my impression is that this came well
> > after LBJ had already shown his dedication to the cover up. It seems odd
> > to me that Googling doesn't get me more info on Ruby's statement, but it
> LBJ thought that it was a conspiracy immediately and by that afternoon
> had started the cover-up even before Oswald was booked.
> > looks to me that it occurred in his trial period, when the Warren
> > Commission was in glorious full flight, so there would have been no need
> > for the CIA to prod him at this point. It seems more likely that this was
> > Jack acting in his own interest, or out of a belief that he had been left
> > to twist in the wind by LBJ. And I don't see how that makes any sense
> > unless Ruby saw LBJ as the boss of the assassination plot.
> Ruby was given an offer he couldn't refuse. Just as in Dr. Phibes they
> would have fed him his own dogs.
> > On Friday, October 12, 2012 5:06:08 PM UTC-4, Saintly Oswald wrote:
> >> I was recently accused here by somebody, I don't remember who, of not
> >> wanting people to actually see the outtake of LBJ's interview with
> >> Cronkite, after I had referred to it, an ignorant and silly accusation
> >> when you consider that my most watched YouTube video, posted on April 22,
> >> shows the entire clip. I even play part of it twice. My video puts it in
> >> the context of Jack Ruby implying and then even more than implying, that
> >> Lyndon Johnson was instrumental in the murder of JFK. I have read that one
> >> of Ruby's associates thought it silly that he would be involved, because
> >> *he wouldn't be able to keep his mouth shut.* He loved to talk. Ahem. I
> >> have heard others said, that if it was a conspiracy, then somebody would
> >> have talked. Ahem. Well, this is it. This is my video I supposedly don't
> >> want anybody to see. I think everybody should watch it 100 times.
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xd1wuXrVPjo&feature=plcp
