reply to post by Malcher
You are using sources from books written about individuals who are all dead. The writers can claim anything they want
That's lie number 1.
I used 2 sources in that post, one of which is by JFK assassination researcher John Simkin. His
website can be found here
. And yes, he is very much alive today.
The other source was from the discovery channel which was hosting a video of Jack Van Laningham, the previous cellmate of one mafia boss involved in
the JFK case, Carlos Marcello. Jack, Whether he is still alive, I'm not sure but either way you're wrong here as no one is writing anything about
him... his interview was done on video thus we know exactly what came out of his own mouth.
I have seen that video before you posted many times. I don't see him going in for a second shot and most people don't seem to see that either.
Amazing. You're simply refusing to believe what's right in front of you then.
To prove it, here are some screen shots and remember, these are screenshots of the official footage which was shown on TV in front of millions of
Here Jack Ruby can first be seen coming into view.
Here we can see him strike Oswald.
Oswald, after just being shot, falls to the ground.
Jack then begins a forward movement into Oswald who is now on the floor dying from his wounds, Jack having his pistol drawn at all times.
Oswalds handler tries to restrain Ruby who moves into Oswald in what is another attempt to get off a shot.
If you still can't see Jack going in for another shot on Oswald as he lays on the ground, Jack having his gun out the whole time, then with all due
respect but you're either purposefully ignoring what's right in front of you, or blind.
I'll consider this point debunked for now, thanks.
I don't see him going in for a second shot and most people don't seem to see that either.
"Most" don't see it either? Great, so we're just making up facts now?
I'll consider that lie number 2.
Now another thing is what benefit to these people would Oswald being dead have since he was already in police custody and of course they interviewed
him extensively at that point. What he wanted to say was already said.
Well that's the whole point really... we can't ever know for sure.
The best theory, IMO, is that by killing Oswald he was then never given the opportunity to defend himself, or explain any of his past behavior, such
as 544 camp street for example, what he was doing in Russia exactly, any connections to the likes of David Ferrie, the fair play for Cuba committee,
the mafia, any prior connections to Jack Ruby himself, the possibility of any Intelligence work and so on. Plus he was never able to be given a chance
to make any sort of challenge against what he apparently did, not forgetting he was never given the opportunity to challenge the warren commissions
findings, which are seriously lacking in many key areas.
Another thing you don't consider is why would Ruby first kill they and then blame other people?
I do consider it, every researcher of this case is forced to.
What you fail to consider is in the months before Jack Ruby died he extensively asked to be moved from a prison in Dallas to a prison in Washington as
he felt unsafe in Dallas, and once moved he would go on record and reveal all he really knew about the case.
He repeatedly left hints, particularly at Lyndon Johnson's involvement in the case, but he never got the chance to fully explain anything as he died
of cancer in January of 1967.
Here's the video where he left hints once again btw, I posted it before but I get the feeling you didn't watch it:
In regards to killing Oswald in the first place, well, some researchers believe he was ordered to do it by others involved in the case. Especially as
Jack Ruby was well in with the police force already at the time, and if he didn't silence Oswald, he himself would be killed. He then did it, and
regretted it thus wishing to reveal what he knew.
That video is not credible at all.
lol, what on earth? How can this video not be "credible"?
That's utterly hilarious. Sorry to break it to you, but this video is certainly "credible".. unless all of those people, including Oswald, are
Sorry my friend but I think you just lost all credibility with what you're trying to claim here.
It's also a well known fact that Ruby was there... as I shown in my last post with the screen shots of him.