Jack Ruby was a killer but McAdams assassination logic says he is

[Mike]

Jack Ruby murdered Oswald. But according to McAdams assassination logic
we should believe that he is not a lier. Would a murderer lie? According
to assassination logic, no.

[John McAdams]

You are misrepresenting what I said.

Buffs lie about what Ruby said. They represent his testimony as
wanting to confess that *he* was part of a conspiracy, while in fact
he insisted that he was a scapegoat, and was never part of any
conspiracy.

And Tony, *not* a conspiracy to kill Oswald either.

But in fact we should believe him that the shooting was a spur of the
moment thing, because HIS ACTIONS CLEARLY PROVE THAT.

P.S. You buffs believe Oswald when he said he didn't kill anybody.
What happened to "would a murderer lie" in that case?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Mike]

The only person we know for a fact killed someone is Jack Ruby.

[Mike]

On 11/28/2011 9:38 AM, John McAdams wrote:

His actions do not show that it was a spur of the moment thing. His
actions show that he stalked Oswald. Ruby was at the friday nite news
conference.

[pdoherty76]

On Nov 28, 3:38 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:

How can Jack Ruby consider himself a "scapegoat"? In fact, how can he
consider himself as anything other than someone who decided to kill
Oswald on the spur of the moment?

When Ruby says that people in positions of power will never let the
true facts about his motives become known, what does he mean?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/28/2011 10:38 AM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 28 Nov 2011 10:34:16 -0500, Mike<MikeR...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Jack Ruby murdered Oswald. But according to McAdams assassination logic
>> we should believe that he is not a lier. Would a murderer lie? According
>> to assassination logic, no.
>
> You are misrepresenting what I said.
>
> Buffs lie about what Ruby said. They represent his testimony as
> wanting to confess that *he* was part of a conspiracy, while in fact
> he insisted that he was a scapegoat, and was never part of any
> conspiracy.
>

No, just that he KNEW about a plot and was a victim of that plot.

> And Tony, *not* a conspiracy to kill Oswald either.
>

I already said thousands of times that Ruby said he was not a part of a
conspiracy to kill Kennedy, but he was saying that he was put in a
position to kill Oswald. You have trouble understanding English?

> But in fact we should believe him that the shooting was a spur of the
> moment thing, because HIS ACTIONS CLEARLY PROVE THAT.
>

No, they show preknowledge and premeditation. He confessed that he had
gone to the Friday night press conference to kill Oswald.

> P.S. You buffs believe Oswald when he said he didn't kill anybody.

"You buff"? There you go again painting with your broad brush in order to
attack all conspiracy believers. I have always said that Oswald killed
Tippit. Just because someone killed one person does not prove that he
killed someone else.

A mass murder can kill 100 people and then the 101st person can be killed
by a copy cat killer piggybacking on the crime spree to avoid suspicion.

[Robert Harris]

In article <ria7d71tgklr7mrld...@4ax.com>,

That reminds me of another one on your taboo list, john.

Why don't you want to talk about the fact that the very first "communist"
act by Lee Harvey Oswald was his refusal to salute the American flag at
the age of 13?

Isn't it because you now realize that this happened within three weeks of
the pilot episode of "I Led Three LIves", which Oswald was obsessed with
and watched religiously for three years?

Don't you want to talk about why he spent the rest of his short life,
telling everyone that he was a communist, EXACTLY like his hero and
fanatical anti-communist Philbrick did?

Philbrick was an FBI informant John, as was Oswald. That's why the FBI
didn't put him on the list of threats, prior to the assassination.

John Elrod and others, including the Dallas Chief of Police, proved that,
as you must have figured out a long time ago.

But you only take on the easy ones, don't you?

I never read your book, but I would give 100-1 odds that you never
mentioned any of this or the reactions following 285, or the proven fact
that CE399 was not the bullet that wounded Connally, or the fact that the
FBI's polygraph test of Ruby was a scam.

You evade the arguments that you cannot refute, don't you John? That's
your strategy, isn't it??



Robert Harris

[Gerry Simone]

If Ruby says he was a scapegoat, then that implies conspiracy.

With respect to your postscript, we can believe that Oswald says he didn't
kill anybody if from the circumstantial evidence we believe he was framed
and/or innocent.

"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:ria7d71tgklr7mrld...@4ax.com...

[Anthony Marsh]

That doesn't follow. The McAdams position is that murderers always lie
so Oswald always lied and Ruby always lied.

[Sandy McCroskey]

I think it's highly probable that Ruby had brooded about killing Oswald
ever since the assassination.
But he had managed to control his impulses up until that utterly
fortuitous (and unfortunate) last encounter. He must have felt that fate
was giving him a last chance.

/sm

[bigdog]

> conference.- Hide quoted text -
>

If he planned to kill Oswald when he left his apartment, why did he bring
his dog along for the ride?

[Bud]

On Nov 28, 3:22 pm, Mike <MikeRa.1...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snicker> The only one *you* know for sure. I`m as sure that Oswald
killed Kennedy as I am that Ruby killed Oswald.

[Bud]

On Nov 28, 3:22 pm, Mike <MikeRa.1...@gmail.com> wrote:

So being in the same room as Oswald wasn`t a spur of the moment
thing, just the shooting part.

[Mitch Todd]

Of course Ruby was a lier...probably for eight hours a night.


"Mike" <MikeR...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:4ed33902$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[Anthony Marsh]

Guess there wasn't a grassy knoll handy in the basement. So far I don't
remember any conspiracy theorist claiming the real murderer used a gun
in a TV camera.
BTW, there is a new push for a retrial for Sirhan Sirhan based on new
evidence.

[pdoherty76]

What a ridiculous argument. You lot have already said numerous times that
he was a nut so why expect rational behaviour from him? Why would
planning to kill someone stop you taking your dog anyway? It could be
argued that he knew he was going straight to jail so wanted to be with his
dog until the last moment.

[Mike]

You do not know that Oswald was a murderer. You only know that Ruby was
a murderer.

McAdams position is not that murderers always lie. His position is that
Ruby did not lie.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Do you think that bombs were really dropping bombs on Jews in America
and that conspirators behind the assassination were torturing and
killing Jews in the same building where Ruby was held?

Ruby was delusional. He sincerely believed such things were happening.
The fact that they weren't doesn't make him a liar. To be a liar, he'd
have to know better.

/sm

[TJC76]

I agree that Nutters paint Ruby in an illuminous light that is not
deserved. Just a loner devastaed at the though Jackie might have to
testify at a trial. Nover mind his numerous connections to Mafia
figures, or his gun-running to Cuba. Never mind that he stalked Oswald
all weekend waiting for his "chance."

http://www.tonsethhouse.net/DB/jfk_theses.shtml

[Anthony Marsh]

Because he took his dog everywhere.
Why did he leave the doors of his car unlocked and the dog in the car
and the trunk key in the glove compartment?

[jas]

On Nov 28, 4:28 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <ria7d71tgklr7mrldnsenc2n1s9crsi...@4ax.com>,

>  John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>
>
> You evade the arguments that you cannot refute, don't you John? That's
> your strategy, isn't it??
>
> Robert Harris

Well, we certainly know what YOUR strategy is Harris. You make up your own
scenario based on your opinions and your own fabricated "evidence," then
admonish people who don't wish to waste time engaging your theory because
the hard evidence renders it impossible.

When it comes right down to it, there is no way you can prove your theory,
so you attack people who ignore you.

[pdoherty76]

How do his apparent delusions in jail affect what he said about
killing oswald?

[Anthony Marsh]

Fine, but don't misrepresent the historical record to push a political
agenda.

[Mike]

Can you please give me a source for those comments you attribute to Ruby?

[Sandy McCroskey]

I don't think they do.

What Ruby said about killing Oswald was that it was a crime of passion and
he did it on his own initiative, not as part of any conspiracy. He said
over and over that he was being *framed* as part of the conspiracy to kill
Kennedy. I believe he was sincere in saying he believed that and also in
saying that he did not kill Oswald because anybody else told him to.

/sandy

[Robert Harris]

In article
<4288bb29-db94-4ac3...@q30g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,

Hmm... well, this is just a wild guess - but maybe he meant that people

in positions of power will never let the true facts about his motives

become known.



Robert Harris

[Sandy McCroskey]

Sorry, I was thinking this was the thread where I originally posted
it. That's in the footnote on pg1137 of Bugliosi's "Reclaiming
History." Guards' accounts of what Ruby said were included in the
biography of Ruby by Willis and Demaris, cited by Bugliosi. The HSCA
record, of course, contains psychiatric evaluations of Ruby.

/sm

[pdoherty76]

On Nov 30, 1:20 am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article

> <4288bb29-db94-4ac3-882a-903b49ce3...@q30g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,

Gee, you think?

[Anthony Marsh]

Because his lawyer told him to say that in order to save him from the
electric chair.

[Sandy McCroskey]

He was too nuts to be cagey. He was spewing everything that went through
his head.
/sm

[Sandy McCroskey]

What misrepresentation are you accusing me of?

> to push a political
> agenda.
>

What "political agenda" are you accusing me of?

/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

What Ruby really said.

>> to push a political agenda.
>>
>
> What "political agenda" are you accusing me of?
>

Rightwing.

> /sm
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/30/2011 6:22 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:

Let me get this straight. You say he was too nuts to be cagey, but sane
enough to fry?

[Sandy McCroskey]

I haven't misrepresented anything Ruby said.
And you really don't understand that I was asking for something
*specific*, not just a repetition of what you just said?
How juvenile.

> >> to push a political agenda.
>
> > What "political agenda" are you accusing me of?
>
> Rightwing.
>
>

I'm a left-winger, Marsh.
But it goes without saying that you would say that... without
*thinking*.
It's your knee-jerk reaction, predictable as the rising of the sun.
Grow the fuck up.

/sm

>
>
>
>
>
> > /sm

[Sandy McCroskey]

Where do you get the idea I ever said anything *like* that?!
I am not in favor of the death penalty for *anybody*, Marsh.
And I have never said anything about Ruby's copping an insanity plea.
I said *Oswald* would not have gotten away with that.

/sm

[jas]

On Dec 1, 10:12 am, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Where do you get the idea I ever said anything *like* that?!
> I am not in favor of the death penalty for *anybody*, Marsh.
> And I have never said anything about Ruby's copping an insanity plea.
> I said *Oswald* would not have gotten away with that.
>
> /sm

He's playing Kreskin again with his crystal ball.

More like an 8-ball I'd say.

[jas]

On Nov 28, 1:22 pm, Mike <MikeRa.1...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > But in fact we should believe him that the shooting was a spur of the
> > moment thing, because HIS ACTIONS CLEARLY PROVE THAT.
>
> > P.S.  You buffs believe Oswald when he said he didn't kill anybody.
> > What happened to "would a murderer lie" in that case?
> > .John

> > --------------
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> His actions do not show that it was a spur of the moment thing. His
> actions show that he stalked Oswald. Ruby was at the friday nite news
> conference.

So what? So was everybody else. We know that Ruby liked to hang out
where the action is, and often hung out with the cops.

[pdoherty76]

Evidence of this?

[Anthony Marsh]

They called him a police buff.

[Sandy McCroskey]

I don't think the delusions he expressed invalidate his statements about
why he killed Oswald.

Do you think he was deluded about why he killed Oswald? Do you think he
hallucinated an absence of conspiratorial involvement in that, although he
had delusions of a Jew-killing conspiracy out to get him and behind the
assassination?

/sm

[pdoherty76]

So you just believe these random guards with no corroborating evidence?

[John McAdams]

On 28 Nov 2011 15:22:35 -0500, Mike <MikeR...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 11/28/2011 9:38 AM, John McAdams wrote:

>> On 28 Nov 2011 10:34:16 -0500, Mike<MikeR...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Jack Ruby murdered Oswald. But according to McAdams assassination logic
>>> we should believe that he is not a lier. Would a murderer lie? According
>>> to assassination logic, no.
>>

>> You are misrepresenting what I said.
>>
>> Buffs lie about what Ruby said. They represent his testimony as
>> wanting to confess that *he* was part of a conspiracy, while in fact
>> he insisted that he was a scapegoat, and was never part of any
>> conspiracy.
>>
>> And Tony, *not* a conspiracy to kill Oswald either.
>>

>> But in fact we should believe him that the shooting was a spur of the
>> moment thing, because HIS ACTIONS CLEARLY PROVE THAT.
>>
>> P.S. You buffs believe Oswald when he said he didn't kill anybody.
>> What happened to "would a murderer lie" in that case?
>> .John
>> --------------
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
>His actions do not show that it was a spur of the moment thing. His
>actions show that he stalked Oswald. Ruby was at the friday nite news
>conference.

If he really wanted to kill Oswald on Friday night, he could have
easily done it in the crowded hallway of the DPD.

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

[Sandy McCroskey]

No, as I've said, there is plenty of corroborating evidence. Ruby's
testimony in court, in transcripts, for one.
Absolutely no one who talked to Ruby during his incarceration had a
different take on his state of mind.
/sm

[Sandy McCroskey]

On Dec 4, 10:17 am, pdoherty76 <pdohert...@googlemail.com> wrote:

"Random guards"?
Huh?
/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

He wasn't in the crowded hallway. He was in the back of the room
pretending to be a reporter. There were too many reporters in the way
for him to get off a clear shot.

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

[John McAdams]

On 4 Dec 2011 21:05:18 -0500, Anthony Marsh

But he *was* in the crowded hallway.

Video footage shows him there, and multiple witnesses reported him
there.

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

[Anthony Marsh]

At the same time as Oswald on Friday? Please upload that video from
Friday.

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

[John McAdams]

On 4 Dec 2011 21:37:34 -0500, Anthony Marsh

The Warren Commission Report has a still from the video. It also has
the testimony of several witnesses who saw him.

He was all over the place. He was trying to find somebody from KLIF,
and get the studio line.

Did you not know this already?

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

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/4/2011 9:40 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 4 Dec 2011 21:37:34 -0500, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 12/4/2011 9:07 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 4 Dec 2011 21:05:18 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If he really wanted to kill Oswald on Friday night, he could have
>>>>> easily done it in the crowded hallway of the DPD.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He wasn't in the crowded hallway. He was in the back of the room
>>>> pretending to be a reporter. There were too many reporters in the way
>>>> for him to get off a clear shot.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But he *was* in the crowded hallway.
>>>
>>> Video footage shows him there, and multiple witnesses reported him
>>> there.
>>>
>>
>> At the same time as Oswald on Friday? Please upload that video from
>> Friday.
>>
>>
>
> The Warren Commission Report has a still from the video. It also has
> the testimony of several witnesses who saw him.
>

Cute. So where is Oswald?
Don't you know how to upload and post inline graphics?

[David Von Pein]

>>> "He [Ruby] was all over the place. He was trying to find somebody from

KLIF, and get the studio line." <<<

Yes, and also on Friday night, Ruby even helped Ike Pappas get an
interview with DA Henry Wade for Pappas' WNEW radio station in New York.

During Wade's November 24 news conference (after Oswald had been killed),
Pappas and Wade even discuss the fact that Ruby was hanging around City
Hall. In fact, Ike Pappas even uses the words "he seemed to be all over
this place". You can hear Pappas' remarks at about the 15:00 mark of the
video below:

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/09/henry-wade-press-conference-11-24-63.html

[Jean Davison]

In his WC testimony, Ruby said that Jews were being tortured and
killed because he, a Jew, had been falsely accused of being part of a plot
to kill JFK..

QUOTE:

RUBY.

Now it is the most fantastic story you have ever heard in a lifetime. I
did something out of the goodness of my heart. Unfortunately, Chief Earl
Warren, had you been around 5 or 6 months ago .... and immediately the
President would have gotten ahold of my true story, or whatever would have
been said about me, a certain organization wouldn't have so completely
formed now, so powerfully, to use me because I am of the Jewish
extraction, Jewish faith, to commit the most dastardly crime that has ever
been committed.

* * * * *

Chief Justice WARREN. Well, I don't quite get the full significance of it,
Mr. Ruby. I know what you feel about the John Birch Society.

Mr. RUBY. Very powerful.

Chief Justice WARREN. I think it is powerful, yes I do. Of course, I don't
have all the information that you feel you have on that subject.

Mr. RUBY. Unfortunately, you don't have, because it is too late. And I
wish that our beloved President, Lyndon Johnson, would have delved deeper
into the situation, hear me, not to accept just circumstantial facts about
my guilt or innocence, and would have questioned to find out the truth
about me before he relinquished certain powers to these certain people.

Chief Justice WARREN. Well, I am afraid I don't know what power you
believe he relinquished to them. I think that it is difficult to
understand what you have to say.

Mr. RUBY. I want to say this to you. The Jewish people are being
exterminated at this moment.

* * * * *

Mr. RUBY. All I know is maybe something can be saved. Because right
now, I want to tell you this, I am used as a scapegoat, and there is no
greater weapon that you can use to create some falsehood about some of the
Jewish faith, especially at the terrible heinous crime such as the killing
of President Kennedy.

Now maybe something can be saved. It may not be too late, whatever
happens, if our President, Lyndon Johnson, knew the truth from me.

[...]

But he has been told, I am certain, that I was part of a plot to
assassinate the President.

* * * * *

Chief Justice WARREN. Mr. Ruby, I think I can say this to you, that if he
has been told any such thing, there is no indication of any kind that he
believes it.

Mr. RUBY. I am sorry, Chief Justice Warren, I thought I would be very
effective in telling you what I have said here. But in all fairness to
everyone, maybe all I want to do is beg that if they found out I was
telling the truth, maybe they can succeed in what their motives are, but
maybe my people won't be tortured and mutilated.

Chief Justice WARREN. Well, you may be sure that the President and his
whole Commission will do anything that is necessary to see that your
people are not tortured.

Mr. RUBY. No.

Chief Justice WARREN. You may be sure of that.

Mr. RUBY. No; the only way you can do it is if he knows the truth, that I
am telling the truth, and why I was down in that basement Sunday morning,
and maybe some sense of decency will come out and they can still fulfill
their plan, as I stated before, without my people going through torture
and mutilation.

UNQUOTE

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/ruby_j1.htm OR
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_0096a.htm


Jean

[jas]

On Dec 4, 7:37 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 12/4/2011 9:07 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>
>
> > On 4 Dec 2011 21:05:18 -0500, Anthony
>

> At the same time as Oswald on Friday? Please upload that video from
> Friday.
>
>
>
> > .John
> > --------------
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

That news footage appears in part 1 of the "3 shots that changed America"
documentary shown on THC. Ruby is standing in the corridor on Friday night
with plenty of opportunity to shoot.

[Anthony Marsh]

With Oswald in the hallway at the same time?

[jas]

Looks like Oswald had just passed Ruby, and was down the hall, or was
in the process of coming towards Ruby and the camera.

In any event, the footage confirms he was there Friday night, and
since we know Oswald was in the same corridor it stands to reason
there was a moment of opportunity he could have stepped up right
between people and fired.

Just like he did Sunday morning.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/6/2011 9:49 AM, jas wrote:
> On Dec 5, 9:49 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 12/5/2011 7:21 PM, jas wrote:
>>
>
>>> On Dec 4, 7:37 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 12/4/2011 9:07 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>
>>>>> On 4 Dec 2011 21:05:18 -0500, Anthony
>>
>>>> At the same time as Oswald on Friday? Please upload that video from
>>>> Friday.
>>
>>>>> .John
>>>>> --------------
>>>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>
>>> That news footage appears in part 1 of the "3 shots that changed America"
>>> documentary shown on THC. Ruby is standing in the corridor on Friday night
>>> with plenty of opportunity to shoot.
>>
>> With Oswald in the hallway at the same time?
>
> Looks like Oswald had just passed Ruby, and was down the hall, or was
> in the process of coming towards Ruby and the camera.
>

Looks like? Prove it. Show me. You guys talk a big game, but never have
any proof. This is your lame attempt at caving in and admitting I was right.

> In any event, the footage confirms he was there Friday night, and
> since we know Oswald was in the same corridor it stands to reason
> there was a moment of opportunity he could have stepped up right
> between people and fired.
>

Silly. That's a long hallway and you have yet to show that he could have
a close and clear shot. You fail.

[jas]

On Dec 6, 3:29 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>
>
> > On Dec 5, 9:49 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net>
>

> Silly. That's a long hallway and you have yet to show that he could have
> a close and clear shot. You fail.

>

Why the big argument Marsh? We also know he was in the crowd in the
conference room when they brought Oz-man out Friday night/Sat.
morning, so we know he had at least one other opportunity to shoot.

How many times did the police escort Oz-man through the corridors
Friday and Saturday with nary an effort to clear the crowds of
reporters? Several?

How many chances do you think that gave Ruby those 2 days?

Get real.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/7/2011 10:05 AM, jas wrote:
> On Dec 6, 3:29 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 5, 9:49 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net>
>>
>> Silly. That's a long hallway and you have yet to show that he could have
>> a close and clear shot. You fail.
>
>>
> Why the big argument Marsh? We also know he was in the crowd in the

The big argument is because WC defenders keep making up crap. Saying
things that simply aren't true and ignoring things that are proven.

> conference room when they brought Oz-man out Friday night/Sat.
> morning, so we know he had at least one other opportunity to shoot.
>

He did not take that opportunity because there were too many reporters
in the briefing room which made a clear shot impossible.

> How many times did the police escort Oz-man through the corridors
> Friday and Saturday with nary an effort to clear the crowds of
> reporters? Several?
>

Irrelevant if Ruby was not there at the same time. Do I really have to
explain the physics to you?

[jas]

On Dec 7, 7:03 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

>
> Irrelevant if Ruby was not there at the same time. Do I really have to
> explain the physics to you?

It's NOT irrelevant because those trips through the police corridors
with the crowds allowed in gave Ruby all kinds of opportunities to
shoot on Friday and Saturday.

If he had been contracted to shoot Oz-man, he would have done it
Friday ASAP, not on Sunday morning, almost 48 hours after the
assassination.

Using the crowds around Oz-man as an argument Ruby didn't shoot on
Friday or Saturday --as you do -- IS irrelevant because, as it turned
out, Ruby shot him in a crowd on Sunday morning anyway.

[Ramon F. Herrera]

On Nov 28, 2:22 pm, Mike <MikeRa.1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/28/2011 9:38 AM, John McAdams wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On 28 Nov 2011 10:34:16 -0500, Mike<MikeRa.1...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> >> Jack Ruby murdered Oswald. But according to McAdams assassination logic
> >> we should believe that he is not a lier. Would a murderer lie? According
> >> to assassination logic, no.
>

> > You are misrepresenting what I said.
>
> > Buffs lie about what Ruby said.  They represent his testimony as
> > wanting to confess that *he* was part of a conspiracy, while in fact
> > he insisted that he was a scapegoat, and was never part of any
> > conspiracy.
>
> > And Tony, *not* a conspiracy to kill Oswald either.
>
> > But in fact we should believe him that the shooting was a spur of the
> > moment thing, because HIS ACTIONS CLEARLY PROVE THAT.
>
> > P.S.  You buffs believe Oswald when he said he didn't kill anybody.
> > What happened to "would a murderer lie" in that case?
> > .John
> > --------------
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

> His actions do not show that it was a spur of the moment thing.
> His actions show that he stalked Oswald. Ruby was at the friday
> nite news conference.

Not only that but he was:

- Crouching behind reporters.

- In the last row.

- DPD: "Why didn't you shoot him the day before, Jack?"
JR: "Because I did not want to shoot you guys".

- Wearing glasses for the only time ever (I looked ALL available
pictures of him. He was vane, did not like to appear in photographs
wearing glasses)

See glasses:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kMbcRPishQ&NR=1

http://patriot.net/~ramon/misc/Semi-Disguised-Ruby.jpg

It would be really interesting to find that his glass prescription was
actually for hypermetropia, which makes perfect sense for his age.
That would indicate the real purpose of the glasses was to disguise.

http://www.healthguidance.org/entry/10003/1/What-Is-Hypermetropia.html

-Ramon

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/8/2011 1:03 PM, jas wrote:
> On Dec 7, 7:03 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Irrelevant if Ruby was not there at the same time. Do I really have to
>> explain the physics to you?
>
> It's NOT irrelevant because those trips through the police corridors
> with the crowds allowed in gave Ruby all kinds of opportunities to
> shoot on Friday and Saturday.
>
> If he had been contracted to shoot Oz-man, he would have done it
> Friday ASAP, not on Sunday morning, almost 48 hours after the
> assassination.
>

He wanted to but he couldn't get off a clear shot. Just as Booth did not
shoot Lincoln at the Inaugural address.

> Using the crowds around Oz-man as an argument Ruby didn't shoot on
> Friday or Saturday --as you do -- IS irrelevant because, as it turned
> out, Ruby shot him in a crowd on Sunday morning anyway.
>
>

He pushed his way through the crowd. He didn't shoot through them. And
nobody stopped him.

>
>

[jas]

On Dec 8, 8:10 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 12/8/2011 1:03 PM, jas wrote:
>
> > On Dec 7, 7:03 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net>  wrote:
>
> >> Irrelevant if Ruby was not there at the same time. Do I really have to
> >> explain the physics to you?
>
> > It's NOT irrelevant because those trips through the police corridors
> > with the crowds allowed in gave Ruby all kinds of opportunities to
> > shoot on Friday and Saturday.
>
> > If he had been contracted to shoot Oz-man, he would have done it
> > Friday ASAP, not on Sunday morning, almost 48 hours after the
> > assassination.
>
> He wanted to but he couldn't get off a clear shot. Just as Booth did not
> shoot Lincoln at the Inaugural address.

Weak analogy. Booth was situated too far from Lincoln at the inaugural for
a derringer, nothing like the inches in the corridor at the DPD station
for Ruby.

>
> > Using the crowds around Oz-man as an argument Ruby didn't shoot on
> > Friday or Saturday --as you do --  IS irrelevant because, as it turned
> > out, Ruby shot him in a crowd on Sunday morning anyway.
>
> He pushed his way through the crowd. He didn't shoot through them. And
> nobody stopped him.
>
>

Sure, just like he pushed his way through on Sunday.