Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

The claim that that was Ruby is ridiculous

303 views
Skip to first unread message

Ralph Cinque

unread,
May 24, 2017, 12:20:02 AM5/24/17
to
If Blackie Harrison ALONE had control of "Ruby" as we see in the footage,
it would be enough to completely contain him and control him. But, in
addition, there were all the other cops who were bearing down on him.
The idea that the struggle didn't end right there is ridiculous. The idea
that "Ruby" continued to resist from there is ridiculous. The idea that
the struggle went anywhere from there is ridiculous. To get out of that
predicament and keep fighting, Jack Ruby would have had to be Superman.

But wait: How did they know they were going to drag him into the building?
Shouldn't some of them have assumed that they were just going to put him
down to the ground and cuff him right there? There was no verbal
direction. Nobody yelled: "Let's take him inside!" So, was this some kind
of non-verbal communication? Did they read each other's minds? With no
preparation, no discussion, and no understanding, how did these men know
what they, as a group, were doing? And don't tell me that it came from
police experience because that is NOT what police do, drag a guy off
somewhere without cuffing him.

And, that's a pretty big pileup, so how did they get through the door? How
many could have fit through the door with Ruby? One of two at the most?
And what happened once they were inside? Did "Ruby" finally give up? Why?
Just from being inside? And if he could fend off a whole swarm of cops,
then reduced to one or two, "Ruby" should have had the advantage. But look
how sheepish and docile Ruby quickly became. He looks so tame, nobody is
even looking at him or paying attention to him. Is this the same guy who
was mightily fending off a bevy of big cops just moments before?

No, it's not. He was upstairs on the 5th floor at that time. And note that
in his account that during his struggle (which came before) he was talking
to them, saying, "Hey, it's me, Jack Ruby. You know me." You know very
well that that didn't happen during the televised event. We don't hear it,
and we don't see it. There is no point or place where it could have
happened. Plus, it's ridicuous! WHY WOULD HE SAY THAT IF HE JUST SHOT A
MAN AND TRIED TO SHOOT ANOTHER? James Leavelle said that after shooting
Oswald, that Ruby pointed the gun at him and tried to pull the trigger,
and that his partner LC Graves prevented it and saved his life. We don't
see that either, but if it were true, why would Ruby say what he did? How
stupid do you have to be not to know that police take offense when you
point guns at them and pull the trigger? So, why did Ruby say what he did?
BECAUSE HE HADN'T DONE ANYTHING. It was a prior incident. Ruby got there
earlier. They're lying about when he was at Western Union. It may have
been an hour before or the better part of an hour before. Then, while he
was being processed on the 5th floor, they put on the spectacle in the
garage with James Bookhout playing Ruby. Then, they brought the real Ruby
down from the 5th floor and paraded him around the jail office just to
insert him into the scene. But, they forget about his jacket. At that
point in time, if he was the garage shooter the world saw, his jacket
would still have been on.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/05/if-blackie-harrison-alone-had-control.html

bpete1969

unread,
May 25, 2017, 6:11:37 AM5/25/17
to
Yawn. Got anything new?

Ralph Cinque

unread,
May 25, 2017, 12:24:53 PM5/25/17
to
The televised assassination of Oswald was so preposterous and outlandish that it's amazing anybody believed it, never mind everybody. But, the reason they believed it is because they were still in shock from the assassination of JFK. They were pummeled; they were beat up, and they were too beat up to critically analyze what happened to Oswald. An extremely unlikely thing had already happened, so when another extremely unlikely thing happened just two days later (where a prisoner engulfed by police, who were supposedly prepared to the max to protect him, was summarily gunned down) But, the point is that when one incredible thing happens, you become more amenable to another incredible thing happening.

But still, people should have known better. They should have been cued by the theatrical nature of it all, the pomp and circumstance, the bloodlessness of it, and the bizarre aftermath in which the garage was cleared some hectic seconds in which all things pertinent became instantly invisible. Before we knew it, it was just cops holding their arms out to block people from entering the jail office, and Oswald and "Ruby" had just disappeared. It really did have the air of a magic show in which, presto!, Oswald and Ruby were both gone, evaporated, vanished in thin air as in, "Wait a second; what just happened?; where'd they go?" It is no exaggeration to call it a sleight of hand trick.

But, what about today? The shock of JFK's murder is long gone. We're still affected by it, but the shock of it is long gone. We still have the footage of Oswald's murder, so why doesn't looking at it with cooler heads in the light of day today wake people up?

Well, people are waking up. Plenty of people have been receptive to my work on this, and I mean people from all over the world. But, far too many people, including people who should know better, are still wrapped up in the cocoon of the official story of the Oswald killing. And, there are several things, mental things, that hold them back; that hold them captive. Certain thought processes keep them locked up. I want to address those things to show you that the facts are not the problem; it's the way of thinking that is the problem.

1. People are hung up on the idea that Ruby admitted doing it or at least didn't deny doing it. Only the latter is true, that Ruby didn't deny doing it. He claimed to have no memory of doing it. That is equivalent to him saying, "I don't remember doing it, and I certainly didn't have a plan to do it. For goodness sake, I brought my dog along. But, they tell me that I did it, and I, being respectful and trusting of the Dallas Police, assume that I did just because they tell me so." Now, that is a far cry from him admitting doing it. The fact is that he had no knowledge of doing it and no memory of doing it. He was just going along with what they told him- not what he recalled. Ruby got tricked along with everyone else.

2. People get hung up on the idea that many witnesses ID'd Ruby. Well, most of those witnesses were outright liars. I am talking about cops like Leavelle and Graves and Harrison, etc. They were in on it, and some of them, like Jim Leavelle, are still alive. And, it's important to recognize that Jim Leavelle lied from the getgo. He lied on the very day it happened. He said he saw "Ruby" coming and recognized him and saw the gun and reacted to it by jerking Oswald behind him and shoving on "Ruby's" shoulder, and none of that happened. We have the video from several different angles, and he did none of those things. And he told those lies on 11/24/63, just a few hours after the debacle. He lied from the start. Now, how are you going to trust a witness like him?

3. The alterations, manipulations, and falsifications of the images (photos and films) of the Oswald shooting are legion, and the poster boy of that has got to be the grotesque Jackson photo.


That is not how it was when "Ruby" shot Oswald. The shooter came at him from the side; he wasn't in front of him. This is supposedly .3 second after the shot, but this much rearrangement was not physically possible in .3 second. .3 second? Do you know how short a period of time that is? That isn't Oswald's hand slapped to his chest. He didn't have a hand that big. He had a delicate hand, meaning: with a small thumb.


That's Oswald's hand on the left. The hand on the right is a monstrosity. Note that, on the right, there are only 3 fingers opposing the thumb when there should be 4. Hey, if there are only three knuckles, there are only three fingers, and there are only three knuckles. And the thumb we see there is a monstrosity. It isn't even a left thumb; it is actually a right thumb. And it is certainly not Oswald's thumb.

So, with phony images abound, how could the event be real? They only try to sell you with phony images when something isn't real. If it's real, then they'd have real images and no need to alter anything.

4. There are so many other lies connected to this story, including lies about Jack Ruby. They said he was tied to the Chicago Mafia. That is a lie. He had NO ties whatsoever with them. What John Armstrong discovered is that Ruby had extensive ties with the CIA. That's the Central Intelligence Agency. You know them? The outfit that framed Oswald? Sent him to Russia. Framed him for going to Mexico City, where he never went. John Armstrong found out that Ruby spent the whole decade of the 1950s gun-running for the CIA. Knowing, as you do, that the CIA has set up a lot of patsies and twisted them with their mind control programs, and that Ruby was treated in captivity by the CIA's "Maestro of Mind Control" Dr. Louis Joylan West, why should you reject Ruby being one of those mind control patsies?

5. And most important to me, an honest and painstaking examination of the photographic record of the Oswald shooting finds that there is no confirmation whatsoever that that was Jack Ruby in the garage. A Fedora hat on a short pudgy man does not Jack Ruby make. You may think you see Jack Ruby there, but you are NOT seeing him there; you are THINKING him there. You are letting 53 years of indoctrination and brainwashing blind you. And every single one of the images of that garage shooter is an obscure one. The idea that they show you Jack Ruby is a joke.

The plotters were fortunate to get away with the Jack Ruby con for over half a century. And they probably thought that that was long enough to forever get away with it. But, truth has landed on the beaches of Normandy, and it has made a foothold. It is never going back out to sea.



Jack Ruby was innocent. He did NOT shoot and kill Lee Harvey Oswald. The cops who said they saw him do it are the ones who really killed Oswald. That fact has made a beachhead.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-televised-assassination-of-oswald.html

Jason Burke

unread,
May 26, 2017, 1:07:25 AM5/26/17
to
I'm SOOOO glad we have Ralph around to tell the truth.
Especially the troof that everything about this matter is either fake or
altered.
All hail Ralph's brilliant analysis and insight.

What *did* everyone do for the first 48 years?


bpete1969

unread,
May 26, 2017, 2:45:46 PM5/26/17
to
I'll take all that bloviating as a no.

Mark OBLAZNEY

unread,
May 27, 2017, 11:37:52 AM5/27/17
to
Hey, Ralph, sing us a song !!!

Ralph Cinque

unread,
May 28, 2017, 2:05:28 AM5/28/17
to
Wrap your ears around this:

It is really quite amazing that anybody, who is an adult, believes that
the Dallas Police actually did everything they could to protect Oswald. In
that 20 foot walk to the car, Jack Ruby just got the better of them, and
there really was nothing they could do about it.

That's what Jim Leavelle said that very day, that it being a double-action
pistol and all, there was nothing anybody could do. In fact, he had the
audacity, the unmitigated gall, to say that if he had known that Ruby was
going to be there that there was nothing he could have done.

But, that doesn't make any sense because if he knew it was going to
happen, then presumably, he would not have been there with Oswald in the
first place, right? What happened when the Chicago plot to kill Kennedy
was uncovered? They cancelled his trip there, right? But, Leavelle talked
as though he would have walked right into it with Oswald anyway. You can
hear him right here; it's from November 24, 1963. Start at the 2 minute
mark.

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

The very idea that Dallas Police were incapable of protecting Oswald is
preposterous. If they were so worried that he would be shot, then why
announce his transfer at all? What was more important: protecting Oswald
or giving media outlets a photo opportunity? Also, you can hear Leavelle
say in that video that it was "almost a solid wall of flesh in front of us
and to our left." Then, why was he looking to his right? On the right were
police officers and detectives, who presumably were not a threat. So, why
didn't Leavelle look to his left?

There you can see that Ruby was about to pull the trigger, and it would
have been about the time that Leavelle claimed to have seen Ruby and
jerked on Oswald and then shoved Ruby in the shoulder. All of that, of
course, never happened. It was a total, utter lie.

If the danger to Oswald was so great, enough to amass all those detectives
there to protect him, why didn't they put a bullet-proof vest on him? How
hard would it have been to do that? How hard was it to think of it? They
did it with Terry Nichols.

They did it with the Charleston shooter, Dylann whatshisface.
They did it with John Hinckley.


How stupid do you have to be to actually believe that Dallas Police did
everything they could to protect Oswald? They didn't have to do what they
did at all. They could have moved him without fanfare in the middle of the
night and announced it the next morning. Then, they could have let
reporters photograph him at the County Jail. Why was it necessary for them
to get pictures of Oswald walking through a garage? What was so special
about that? Why really did all the major news organizations in the United
States have to be there for that 20 foot walk through a dusty, grimy
garage? They could have gotten much more commercially valuable images of
him at the County Jail. The press had been shooting Oswald constantly. The
very evening before, they were in the hallway as Oswald was brought to
Fritz' office, and Oswald had the impulse to go talk personally to a short
man in the hallway. It was the only time he did that. The man he talked to
was FBI Agent James Bookhout.

And, if anyone doubts that Bookhout was that short, Bookhout himself told
us so. He said that after hanging around Fritz' office doing nothing
during the jail transfer that when he heard that Oswald was shot, he went
down and looked at him in the jail office, and then followed him on the
stretcher when they wheeled him out.

Now, Bookhout said he was there. He said he was there. That is exactly
where he said he was. That is him. That is the garage shooter of Lee
Harvey Oswald. And that is the guy that Oswald was talking to in the hall
the very night before.

Heaven help us that such evil transpired in our country. And we have been
living in darkness and rot ever since. But now, the sanitizing light of
the sun is shining on this. And there is NO CHANCE it will ever recede
into darkness again.




bpete1969

unread,
May 29, 2017, 2:01:53 AM5/29/17
to
There were no functioning bullet proof vests in 1963.

Flak jackets had been around since WW II but wouldn't stop a bullet from a
.38.

Ralph Cinque

unread,
May 29, 2017, 11:29:00 PM5/29/17
to
A flak jacket would have "provided some modicum of protection" and, new
fibers were introduced in the 1960s made vests truly bullet-resistant.


https://bulletsafe.com/pages/the-history-of-bulletproof-vests

bpete1969

unread,
May 30, 2017, 6:47:08 PM5/30/17
to
From your source..."In the 1960s, new fibers were discovered that made
truly bullet resistant vests possible."

Possible...name one manufacturer and then explain why the DPD didn't have
any.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
May 31, 2017, 2:30:35 PM5/31/17
to
What is this, a joke? The DPD was broke. They couldn't even afford a
magnet to test the Walker bullet. They couldn't even afford a tape
recorder to record the interviews. Inventing a bullet proof vest in the
late 60's doesn't help in 1963.


Ralph Cinque

unread,
May 31, 2017, 2:39:01 PM5/31/17
to
They surely had something, and they could have put it on him. Would it
have hurt? No. And if they perceived the danger to be so great as to
require half the department to be there to "protect" Oswald, then why do
it at all? Why not just move Oswald unannounced in the dead of night and
then announce it the next day? And if any reporter complained about it,
there are things you can say in response to that. You can't post them
here, but you can say them.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jun 1, 2017, 1:21:48 AM6/1/17
to
There weren't THAT many cops there. I think you are counting in the
reporters by mistake.


Jason Burke

unread,
Jun 1, 2017, 1:33:53 AM6/1/17
to
I get it, Ralph!

Everybody lied, Ralph.
Everything is fake, Ralph.
Everyone is in on it, Ralph.

Well, except Ozzie, eh, Ralph?


bpete1969

unread,
Jun 1, 2017, 2:21:22 AM6/1/17
to
We're still waiting for you to produce evidence that Ruby didn't shoot
Oswald. For that matter, we're still waiting for your evidence that Oswald
was standing in the doorway when Kennedy was shot.

David Von Pein

unread,
Jun 1, 2017, 6:11:24 PM6/1/17
to
In Ralph Cinque's mind, the "evidence" (i.e., the NON-evidence) that he
has presented which he thinks proves beyond all doubt that James Bookhout
shot Lee Oswald instead of Jack Ruby, is *somehow* supposedly STRONGER and
MORE ironclad and MORE persuasive and MORE powerful than the actual
evidence (i.e., 100% proof) which indicates Ruby shot Oswald.

Ralph *ACTUALLY* seems to believe his own delusional crackpot "Ruby Is
Innocent" theory is a BETTER theory than believing the actual truth of
Ruby's guilt.

Is there some kind of medical term to define Ralph's affliction (other
than "delusional")?

Ralph Cinque

unread,
Jun 2, 2017, 12:56:30 AM6/2/17
to
Von Pein: You didn't say anything. You didn't advance any argument. And
I'm going to make you famous for it too.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/david-von-pein-111-pm-1-hour-ago-show.html

You just spoke in generalities. You challenged my evidence for Bookhout
being the shooter and said it was trumped by evidence that Ruby was, but
you didn't cite any evidence at all; nothing. Can't you see how empty that
is? Can't you see that you were just waxing rhetorical? I know you're not
the smartest guy in the world, but you should be smart enough to see that.

The most important thing I can tell anyone about this is that they need to
look at the evidence, and particularly the images, with your eyes, not
your mind. You can't assume that the Garage Shooter was Jack Ruby just
because he's wearing a Fedora hat. So, if you're smart, you'll just ignore
that and not be biased by it. So, what else is there? What do we have that
we can actually compare to Jack Ruby? There isn't much, and they made sure
of that, but we have conflicts with him being Jack Ruby.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/david-von-pein-111-pm-1-hour-ago-show.html

The Garage Shooter is very obscured by the angle of the shots, the speed
by which he got blanketed by police, and by his hat, but what visual data
we have of him conflicts with Jack Ruby. And that includes the Fedora hat:
If Jack Ruby really had the habit of wearing one, wouldn't he have worn it
to the Midnight Press Conference? He didn't. How many images are there of
Jack Ruby in a Fedora hat? Not many. In most of his images he is not
wearing one. The idea that the hat clinches it for Jack Ruby is
ridiculous.

Von Pein, you can'at win the way you are going about it. You can't win any
which way, but you certainly can't win by babbling, which is all you did.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/david-von-pein-111-pm-1-hour-ago-show.html


bpete1969

unread,
Jun 2, 2017, 12:11:25 PM6/2/17
to
Wait a minute Raff*. You claimed that the fedora was the key to proving
that Ruby was captured in Altgens 6 and hidden by the insertion of a woman
holding a child.

Trying to have it both ways again? Like the first it was plaid and then
not plaid and then kinda sorta could call it plaid shirt.

David Von Pein

unread,
Jun 2, 2017, 5:58:31 PM6/2/17
to
Ralph,

Who do you think the person is who is being escorted by police into the
elevator at City Hall within a couple of minutes of Oswald getting shot
(go to 22:07 in the video below)?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2oJmFGgfM3zSHhjd3pMYWcxOWM/view

If you agree that the man with the torn shirt being taken to an elevator
IS Jack Ruby, then what do you think the police are doing with Ruby at
that moment? Did Ruby JUST HAPPEN to coincidentally be in that area of
City Hall within minutes of Oswald getting shot by someone ELSE?

Or will you simply say that the WFAA video isn't nearly clear enough to
determine who the man with the torn shirt is? I expect that will be your
only reply.

It's Jack Ruby in that video, of course. And Ruby is being escorted
upstairs just minutes after he plugged Oswald. But Ralph will now have to
invent some excuse for why the police are escorting an INNOCENT Ruby (or a
Ruby look-alike) upstairs. Or maybe Ralph thinks the man in the torn shirt
is really James Bookhout. Could that be it?

Let's watch Ralph's comedy act continue....

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jun 2, 2017, 11:38:53 PM6/2/17
to
Only Ruby would wear a Fedora that ugly.

Ralph Cinque

unread,
Jun 2, 2017, 11:43:48 PM6/2/17
to
What I know for certain is that Fedora Man is someone important whom they
wanted covered up because they DEFINITELY covered him up. They inserted
the Woman and Boy in the Altgens photo just to do that.

We are looking at a physical impossibility there, where the boy is much
too upright and erect to be carried by someone, and yet he is too elevated
to be standing on the ground. She can't be holding him like that; she'd
have to be Superwoman to do it. And no, there was nothing he could have
been standing on. Some fool suggested a car bumper, but my response to him
was: try it yourself. See if you can stand that straight on a car
bumper.

Jack Ruby was a reasonable guess as to who Fedora Man is, but I never
claimed certainty of it. And, at the time, I didn't know about James
Bookhout. I now think it is more likely that he was Bookhout. But, more
important than who Fedora Man was is the fact that he was facing Oswald.
We're seeing his back. He is not facing forward; he is not facing Elm
Street; he is turned around, facing Oswald, who was in the doorway. And
that is the compelling reason they had to cover him up.

Plus, the boy is wearing a wool cap, pulled down over his ears no less, on
a warm sunny 70 degree afternoon. It's ridiculous. He was installed into
the photo, and there is no doubt about that.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/bpunk1969-711-am-1-hour-ago-show-quoted.html


Ralph Cinque

unread,
Jun 3, 2017, 12:41:28 AM6/3/17
to

David!!!!!!!

Yes, that is the real Jack Ruby, but he was brought down from the 5th
floor. He had been up there for the better part of an hour, and they just
brought him down for a photo op- to insert him into the story.

If he was just being brought in, then how could he be out of his jacket?
He was wearing one, right? And there was a big struggle, wasn't there? And
for some reason, they didn't handcuff him in the garage, right? But once
they got him inside the jail office, then they did handcuff him, right? We
can't assume that they removed his jacket first before they handcuffed
him, can we? Why would they do that? They wouldn't. They would have had no
thought in their minds to do such a thing. They would have just handcuffed
the violent man, however he was dressed. So, how could he be handcuffed in
just a shirt there? What happened to his jacket?

They probably left his jacket upstairs. They forget about it. It was a
slip-up. They took him downstairs to redo bringing him in, except they
forgot to put his jacket back on him. And that's why we see him there
handcuffed with no jacket.

It was all an act, David; a dog and pony show. This was their feeble
attempt to insert the real Jack Ruby into the story. This was the switch
in the bait and switch.

Pathetic. Hapless and pathetic.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/david-von-pein-1258-pm-1-hour-ago-on.html

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jun 3, 2017, 12:47:51 PM6/3/17
to
He has to know everyone in Dallas? Did you identify Black Dog Man?

> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2oJmFGgfM3zSHhjd3pMYWcxOWM/view
>
> If you agree that the man with the torn shirt being taken to an elevator
> IS Jack Ruby, then what do you think the police are doing with Ruby at
> that moment? Did Ruby JUST HAPPEN to coincidentally be in that area of

Bar Mitzvah?

> City Hall within minutes of Oswald getting shot by someone ELSE?
>
> Or will you simply say that the WFAA video isn't nearly clear enough to
> determine who the man with the torn shirt is? I expect that will be your
> only reply.
>

Ruby had a torn shirt? I doubt it.

Jason Burke

unread,
Jun 3, 2017, 12:58:32 PM6/3/17
to
Well, that pretty much describes the last four years of ol' Ralph's work
on this matter.

>
> http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/david-von-pein-1258-pm-1-hour-ago-on.html
>


David Von Pein

unread,
Jun 3, 2017, 12:59:09 PM6/3/17
to
Ralph,

Your stupendously ridiculous theories about a variety of issues relating
to JFK's assassination are a sad example of how delusions can take over a
person's brain. I'd like to be able to help you break free from all of
those delusional thoughts and preposterous theories, but I just don't know
what I could say at this point to make your common sense return to you. I
hope you can eventually find your way back to reality at some point in
time in the future. Good luck.

Amy Joyce

unread,
Jun 3, 2017, 10:17:06 PM6/3/17
to
Interesting: at about 25:20 the reporter said that apparently the shooter
was a "small man" an "elderly man"....that doesn't describe Ruby at all.

Ralph Cinque

unread,
Jun 4, 2017, 1:08:01 AM6/4/17
to


If Ruby was just brought in, as this film implies, he should definitely be
wearing his jacket. They were fighting and struggling in the garage,
right? And they should have handcuffed Ruby in the garage. There is NO
EXCUSE for them not doing so. But, the story became that as soon as they
got him inside the jail office, then they handcuffed him. Detective
McMillon said that it was his handcuffs that went on Ruby. No explanation
was given as to why he didn't apply them in the garage, and the WC
questioner didn't ask him.

But, McMillon certainly did not say that they helped Ruby out of his
jacket first. So, at the point in time that this was, Ruby should
definitely be wearing his jacket, and yet, he's not. He is only in a
shirt. And yes, the shirt was presumably torn, as in: the buttons turn
off. Why else would it look that way? OR, are we supposed to assume that
they helped him out of his jacket and then unbuttoned his shirt? Are we
not supposed to assume that the arrangement of his shirt that we see there
was spontaneous? So, the idea has to be that the buttons got torn off
during the fracas. Right? But, that's impossible too because he was
wearing a jacket at the time. So, how could his buttons get torn off? What
is obvious is that that was an arrangement that they imposed on him, like
an actor walking out onto a stage or into the scene of a movie. Lights,
camera, action. That's his costume, they arranged it. Ruby was taken up to
the 5th floor, and then he was brought down from the 5th floor, just for
this, just to be paraded around in front of the camera. It was the

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jun 4, 2017, 1:15:55 AM6/4/17
to
Yes, exactly. Just like the government saying that 9/11 was a
conspiracy. Or George Bush claiming that Husseing had nuclear missiles.
Things like that can lead to war.

Ralph Cinque

unread,
Jun 4, 2017, 4:34:23 PM6/4/17
to
You know, Von Pein, nothing irritates me more than when a person writes
something but says nothing. I pointed out something very concrete to you,
the fact that Ruby is seen handcuffed in just his shirt shortly after the
shooting, when he surely would have been handcuffed in his jacket, since
he was wearing one. And you completely evaded the point, refusing to
respond to it, and instead going off on a diatribe about me.

Being evasive; it is very dishonest. But, it does tell me that even you
realize that it is an insurmountable problem.

Ruby was NOT just brought in then. He was brought in much earlier; before
the televised spectacle. And he was brought down from the 5th floor just
to be paraded around like he was just brought in. And you, apparently,
have no answer to it.

bpete1969

unread,
Jun 5, 2017, 1:06:29 AM6/5/17
to
Marsh breaks the news that Husseing is a threat to the U.S.!!!!!

David Von Pein

unread,
Jun 5, 2017, 10:53:05 PM6/5/17
to
Ralph,

The things that you consider to be "concrete" are, in actuality, nothing
more than watered-down mush. And everybody knows it. Take your "Ruby was
wearing a jacket" mush, for example. Yes, Ruby was certainly wearing his
jacket when he shot Lee Oswald, and he's not wearing it when he was being
escorted by the police to the elevator in the jail office just a few
minutes later.

But, so what? Why can't those two things possibly co-exist? Why couldn't
Ruby be wearing his jacket one minute, and then not wearing it the next?
Why is that impossible? A jacket is an item that can be taken on and off
very quickly and easily in a matter of seconds. Why couldn't the police,
after struggling with Ruby to take the revolver out of his hand, have then
yanked the jacket off his back to make certain there were no additional
weapons in the pockets of his jacket? Why is that possibility not even on
Ralph Cinque's radar screen? Ralph, instead, always jumps to the most
ludicrous and "conspiratorial" conclusion imaginable, even when ample
non-conspiratorial explanations are readily available. Why do you always
do that, Ralph?

Another hunk of pure mush that Ralph has offered up recently is the idea
that Ruby must be innocent because Ralph says he knows for sure that Ruby
(or the "person" whom Ralph tells us is really NOT Ruby at all in the
NBC-TV footage) was carrying some papers under his left arm just before
the shooting. But it's very clear what the answer to that "mystery" is ---
the papers weren't being held by Ruby; they were, instead, under the right
arm of the person standing to Ruby's immediate left. But Ralph won't even
consider that alternate possibility (which is, of course, the absolute
truth of the matter).

In summary, a nonsensical theory like the one Ralph has created from whole
cloth about James Bookhout killing Lee Harvey Oswald instead of Jack Ruby
doesn't deserve anything more than scorn and ridicule because it is so
patently silly and provably wrong for a whole host of reasons. But you,
Ralph, don't care about those reasons. You have it set in your mind that
an FBI man (of all people) took the shot at Oswald instead of Ruby. Which
is a crazy notion all by itself from this standpoint....

If Jim Bookhout HAD, in fact, been the actual shooter of Oswald, then it
would have given the Dallas Police a perfect way to "save face" in front
of the world after the shooting, because Bookhout was an *FBI man* who had
a RIGHT to be in that basement on November 24th. He was a member of *law
enforcement*. Ruby wasn't. Ruby was an outsider who shouldn't have been in
the basement at all.

So please tell the world, Ralph, WHY the DPD was trying to pin the murder
on someone whose entry into the basement could only make the DPD look like
fools, idiots, and Keystone Kops---instead of just placing the blame on
the person you say did it--a "rogue" FBI man who had a grievance against
Oswald?

Blaming the actual killer would certainly have been much better for the
DPD (and much easier, of course), versus going through the complicated
"bait and switch" charade and "fake films" operation that you say did
occur on 11/24/63. Ever think of that?

Jason Burke

unread,
Jun 5, 2017, 11:07:58 PM6/5/17
to
Do you have ANY idea how stupid EVERYTHING you've said on this matter
is, Ralph?


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jun 6, 2017, 6:09:57 PM6/6/17
to
OLD NEWS. I said that long before the US invaded Iraq the first time. And
I said that Iraq was working on a nuclear bomb in their hidden lab inside
the mountain. The point I made was about Bush's lie that Saddam Hussein
already had nuclear weapons and was planning to use them on us.

To justify his invasion to take over the oil fields.

Hussein was bluffing to scare his only enemy, Iran.

Do you think Hussein is still a threat to the US, talking over his plans
with the Devil in Hell?


John McAdams

unread,
Jun 6, 2017, 6:12:24 PM6/6/17
to
On 6 Jun 2017 14:09:55 -0400, Anthony Marsh
When did Bush say that?

Don't evade? Either you can post a video clip, or a transcript.

But no, you will evade and try to slither out of your irresponsible
statement.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

bpete1969

unread,
Jun 7, 2017, 12:37:45 AM6/7/17
to
Hell, John...we've been waiting for him to back up that claim several
threads ago. Only in that one, Marsh said it was all for the benefit of Da
Joooooos.

OHLeeRedux

unread,
Jun 7, 2017, 12:40:19 AM6/7/17
to
False. Blatantly false.




Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jun 7, 2017, 4:03:18 PM6/7/17
to
OK, so you are defening Bush's lie. Is that because you wanted the Iraq
oil?

Trump said it and you claim that Trump would never lie.


During last weekend???s GOP presidential debate, Donald Trump asserted
that former President George W. Bush and his administration deliberately
misled the world about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Trump declared: ???They lied! They said there were weapons of mass
destruction. There were none, and they knew there were none.???

The Bush administration said that aluminum tubes Iraq had tried to import
were ???only really suited for nuclear weapons programs??? ??? even as
Bush himself was being told the State Department and Energy Department
believed (correctly, of course) they were intended to be used as
conventional rockets.

Bush declared in his 2003 State of the Union address that ???Saddam
Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa,???
even though his administration had been repeatedly warned this was dubious
(and it turned out to originate with crudely forged documents). Colin
Powell doctored intercepted Iraqi communications for his U.N. presentation
to make them appear more alarming.


1/26/98 Project for a New American Century (PNAC)???founded by Cheney,
Scooter Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, and other top
neocons???demands President Clinton undertake the ???removal of Saddam
Hussein???s regime.???

8/17/01 Memo to CIA from Energy Department experts eviscerates ???Joe???s???
theory that aluminum tubes purchased by Iraq are for nuclear
centrifuges. Memo given to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice,
who later claims tubes are clear evidence of Iraqi nuke program. [Date
the public knew: 5/1/04]

9/20/01 PNAC letter to Bush: ???Even if evidence does not link Iraq
directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of
terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove
Saddam Hussein from power.??? [Date the public knew: 9/21/01]

9/8/02 Page 1 Times story by Judith Miller and Michael Gordon cites
anonymous administration officials saying Saddam has repeatedly tried to
acquire aluminum tubes ???specially designed??? to enrich uranium. ???The
first sign of a ???smoking gun,??? they argue, may be a mushroom cloud.???
9/8/02 Tubes ???are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs???we
don???t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.??????Rice on CNN
9/8/02 ???We do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his
procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich
uranium to build a nuclear weapon.??????Cheney on Meet the Press

10/7/02 Bush delivers a speech in which he says, ???Facing clear evidence
of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof???the smoking gun???that could
come in the form of a mushroom cloud.??? Also says Iraq is exploring ways
of using drones to target the US, although Iraq???s drones have a reach of
only 300 miles.

Maybe you're not a real scientist, only a Political Scientist, so you
don't know what a mushroom cloud is. Most of us who lived through the
Cuban Missile Crisis knew by fourth grade.
Maybe you think he meant he got a cloudy head after eating
hallucinogenic mushrooms.

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>


John McAdams

unread,
Jun 7, 2017, 4:26:53 PM6/7/17
to
On 7 Jun 2017 12:03:16 -0400, Anthony Marsh
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 6/6/2017 2:12 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 6 Jun 2017 14:09:55 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/4/2017 9:06 PM, bpete1969 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Marsh breaks the news that Husseing is a threat to the U.S.!!!!!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> OLD NEWS. I said that long before the US invaded Iraq the first time. And
>>> I said that Iraq was working on a nuclear bomb in their hidden lab inside
>>> the mountain. The point I made was about Bush's lie that Saddam Hussein
>>> already had nuclear weapons and was planning to use them on us.

Note what Tony said: that Bush lied, and claimed that Saddam
*already* had nuclear weapons.


>>>
>>
>> When did Bush say that?
>>
>> Don't evade? Either you can post a video clip, or a transcript.
>>
>> But no, you will evade and try to slither out of your irresponsible
>> statement.
>>

Yes, as you can see below, that's what he did.

>
>OK, so you are defening Bush's lie. Is that because you wanted the Iraq
>oil?
>

Tony just doubles down.

>Trump said it and you claim that Trump would never lie.
>

Trump never said that, and I never said Trump would never lie.

>
>During last weekend???s GOP presidential debate, Donald Trump asserted
>that former President George W. Bush and his administration deliberately
>misled the world about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
>
>Trump declared: ???They lied! They said there were weapons of mass
>destruction. There were none, and they knew there were none.???
>

Not all WMDs are nuclear weapons.

And the CIA had told Bush Saddam had WMDs (but not nuclear weapons).

>The Bush administration said that aluminum tubes Iraq had tried to import
>were ???only really suited for nuclear weapons programs??? ??? even as
>Bush himself was being told the State Department and Energy Department
>believed (correctly, of course) they were intended to be used as
>conventional rockets.
>

Claiming Saddam was *seeking* nuclear weapons is not the same as
saying he already had them.
All this is about Saddam supposedly *seeking* nuclear weapons. Nothing
about his already having them.


>Maybe you're not a real scientist, only a Political Scientist, so you
>don't know what a mushroom cloud is. Most of us who lived through the
>Cuban Missile Crisis knew by fourth grade.
>Maybe you think he meant he got a cloudy head after eating
>hallucinogenic mushrooms.
>

You are the one who would know about the hallucinogenic mushrooms.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jun 7, 2017, 9:21:10 PM6/7/17
to
False. I said that it was the neocons who where pushing for he US to
invade Iraq and many of them are Jewish. I never said all.
So if I say that Jack RUby shot Oswald and he was Jewish is that blaming
the Jews for the JFK assassination?


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jun 8, 2017, 2:33:47 PM6/8/17
to
So you still are in denial and don't know what a "mushroom cloud" is. Then
why would they use that term if the public did not know what it means? Are
you saying that YOU don't know what it means because YOU didn't grow up
with the Cuban Missile Crisis or see the anti-Goldwater ad? Or you're not
smart enough to GOOGLE it?

http://www.strangemilitary.com/images/content/144835.jpg

When you put your head into the sand, watch out, it may still be
radioactive.

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>


bpete1969

unread,
Jun 8, 2017, 7:26:20 PM6/8/17
to
The hell you didn't.

This is exactly what you said....

On May 10, 2017, Anthony Marsh wrote this:

"Neo-cons were different. Most were Jews who used to be Liberals who then
gave up on Liberalism and embraced Conservatism, mainly because the
conservatives would be willing to do the dirty work for them of invading
Arab countries to get their oil for Israel. Israel had sweetheart deals
with moderate Arab countries like Iran under the Shah. But when the Jihads
started taking over those countries they shut up the oil to Israel. The
Israeli Lobby pumped billions of dollars into US politics to get the US to
invade those Arab countries and assure Israel's access to oil."

The "all" in my statement referred to the reason you gave for invading
Iraq, not referring to the number of people included in the group of Da
Jooooooos or neo-cons.

Do you need me to post the original thread?

Again, Marsh is found to be making an untrue statement.

Have you ever gone to chiropractic school?

John McAdams

unread,
Jun 9, 2017, 12:57:52 AM6/9/17
to
On 8 Jun 2017 10:33:46 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Tony, Bush was saying Saddam is *seeking* nuclear weapons, and we need
to act before he gets and uses them.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jun 9, 2017, 2:54:27 AM6/9/17
to
I did, but you didn't pay attention.

Jason Burke

unread,
Jun 9, 2017, 1:26:35 PM6/9/17
to
^^^
Clear winner for `Best Comment of the Week'.

>


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jun 9, 2017, 8:03:02 PM6/9/17
to
How can he use them if he doesn't have them?
He was bragging that he had them.
Try to pretend that nuclear missiles were not mentioned at all.

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>


John McAdams

unread,
Jun 9, 2017, 8:05:01 PM6/9/17
to
On 9 Jun 2017 16:02:59 -0400, Anthony Marsh
You can't be this dense, Tony.

You cannot produce any statement from Bush (or anybody else in his
Administration) that Saddam *had* nuclear weapons.

Bush was claiming that, left alone, Saddam might well *get* them.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Jason Burke

unread,
Jun 9, 2017, 8:32:12 PM6/9/17
to
Have you not learned that Anthony Anthony and reality don't occupy the
same universe?


> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jun 10, 2017, 5:30:34 PM6/10/17
to
So, if we leave Iceland alone they MIGHT WELL GET them. So you think we
should invade Iceland just in case. Bush said we had to invade immediately
or else Saddam Hussein would use nuclear weapons. You personally assured
me that Saddam Hussein did have nuclear weapons.


John McAdams

unread,
Jun 10, 2017, 5:33:53 PM6/10/17
to
On 10 Jun 2017 13:30:33 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>So, if we leave Iceland alone they MIGHT WELL GET them. So you think we
>should invade Iceland just in case.

Iceland has never tried to get nuclear weapons.

>Bush said we had to invade immediately
>or else Saddam Hussein would use nuclear weapons.

Quit saying things that aren't true. He said that unless we stopped
his WMD programs, Iraq might get nuclear weapons.

>You personally assured
>me that Saddam Hussein did have nuclear weapons.
>

That's untrue.

You just continue to pull stuff out of your ass.

I can see why you have been banned everywhere else on the Internet.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

bpete1969

unread,
Jun 11, 2017, 1:18:54 PM6/11/17
to
Maybe he and Raff* can start a club. Banned Boys Banned Boys, whatcha
gonna do?

0 new messages