Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Jack Ruby Rats Out LBJ
79 views
Skip to first unread message
Saintly Oswald
Oct 12, 2012, 5:06:07 PM10/12/12
to
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
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
Saintly Oswald
Nov 2, 2012, 9:14:49 PM11/2/12
to
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
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
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
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.
how does Jack Ruby fit into it? Did Jack work for the CIA, too? I suppose
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
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
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.
Anthony Marsh
Nov 3, 2012, 3:39:56 PM11/3/12
to
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
> 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
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
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
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.
>
would have fed him his own dogs.
Saintly Oswald
Nov 3, 2012, 7:47:27 PM11/3/12
to
It is my interpretation, that Ruby's statement, "The answer is the man in office now," *directly* implicates LBJ.
0 new messages