Posts: 2,131
Threads: 199
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Apr 2014
06-08-2014, 05:32 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-08-2014, 06:13 PM by Drew Phipps.)
I think there is another angle to work on Ruby's story. Ruby took a polygraph test, over his attorney's objection, concerning his role in both JFK and Oswald's shooting, with questions drawn from witness statements that were known at the time. The polygraph test was administered by FBI SA Herndon.
( http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/war...ix-17.html )
Ruby denied knowing pretty much anything other than the story he told at trial, which was that he acted alone, and without foresight.
SA Herndon, testifying to the HSCA (iirc) claimed Ruby passed the polygraph.
( http://www.jfk-online.com/rubyhscapoly.html)
Herndon was careful to qualify his opinion with the assumption that Ruby wasn't psychotic (i.e. that he would know the difference between the truth and a lie). I would also suggest that folks can fool the polygraph (if trained), and the polygraph examiner can fudge the results, which are subjective (which is why they aren't used in court). The HSCA found that improper polygraph procedures were used and that the test couldn't be considered reliable. (same link as above)
One of the specific questions Ruby passed was whether or not he went to Parkland Hospital the day of the Kennedy assasination. He denied it. (His denial didn't even cause the machine to twitch enough to merit a follow-up question, something that happened on a few other statements) This directly contradicts the publicly known account of reporter Seth Kantor, who claims he was following Kilduff to the Parkland press conference announcing JFK's death when he was accosted by Ruby in the hall. The general consensus of the government is that Kantor was mistaken about seeing Ruby. On the other hand, Kantor remembers Ruby talking about closing his club, something Ruby apparently mentioned to everyone else who ran into him.
So, is Kilduff lying, or Ruby? If Kilduff is lying, then Ruby probably acted alone. If Ruby is lying, then he is either a total psycho (not believed by a handful of psychiatrists who tested him, except the defense expert Dr. William Beavers, who the jury didn't believe) - which btw would probably make him not guilty by reason of insanity - or he beat the polygraph by training, or by the connivance of the FBI polygraph examiner.
One last point: There were a handful of Ruby sightings at the scene of the JFK assassination, by otherwise reasonably reputable witnesses, including an Altgens photo (iirc) with a guy that looks like Ruby. Ruby denied being there too, and was confirmed by the polygraph.
"All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."
Posts: 5,374
Threads: 149
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2010
You should read DiEugenio on Ruby's lie detector test. They rigged it in their favor.
Posts: 5,374
Threads: 149
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2010
Tracy Riddle Wrote:Does it really sound believable that an assassination team would park the truck right there on Elm in full view of everyone?
What would they have to fear? The assassination was completely covered, right down to the Dallas cops. When they had trouble with a witness who saw the whole thing like Bowers first they cut his finger off, then they murdered him.
Why would they run two Oswalds by Texas Theater ticket-taker Julia Postal? Because they knew they could count on Texas-style damage control to take care of such problems.
Heck, if you think about it Ruby was right wide in the open with his Carousel Club relationship with the cops. It didn't stop them from getting him to kill Oswald.
The human mind likes to seek rational order in order to make sense of things. However with what we already know about the assassination we are well through the looking glass on normal expectations.
Posts: 2,131
Threads: 199
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Apr 2014
If the FBI rigged the test for him, that makes it a little less likely that he was an accredited, trained agent, with a security clearance, et.al. This does seem like the most likely explanation.
You gotta wonder if his insistence on taking the polygraph, over his lawyer's objection, was because he had been told they would pass anything he said.
PS: which DiEugenio book?
"All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."
Posts: 2,690
Threads: 253
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: May 2013
Albert Doyle Wrote:Tracy Riddle Wrote:Does it really sound believable that an assassination team would park the truck right there on Elm in full view of everyone?
What would they have to fear? The assassination was completely covered, right down to the Dallas cops. When they had trouble with a witness who saw the whole thing like Bowers first they cut his finger off, then they murdered him.
Why would they run two Oswalds by Texas Theater ticket-taker Julia Postal? Because they knew they could count on Texas-style damage control to take care of such problems.
Heck, if you think about it Ruby was right wide in the open with his Carousel Club relationship with the cops. It didn't stop them from getting him to kill Oswald.
The human mind likes to seek rational order in order to make sense of things. However with what we already know about the assassination we are well through the looking glass on normal expectations.
Well, if we follow that logic, they could have had the shooters just stand out on the sidewalk on Elm and open fire in front of everyone. The conspirators were not magicians with supernatural powers. They had to take some basic precautions. Was it really that hard to drive the truck around to the back parking lot behind the fence? Was there something to be gained by having the shooter walk up the grass in full view of everyone? No.
No, I think Mercer just saw a truck that had pulled over to the curb for some reason, and the driver was a heavy-set, balding middle-age guy who looked something like Jack Ruby. You know how many guys look like that? Remember the younger "Jack Ruby" photographed in front of the TSBD after the assassination - it's clearly not him, but from one angle it appears to be.
And why would Ruby be needed to drive this truck? The conspiracy was so small that Ruby had to be everywhere that day doing everything? These are the kinds of things that don't pass the 'smell test'; we can't get carried away by our own imaginations.
Posts: 2,690
Threads: 253
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: May 2013
Drew Phipps Wrote:One last point: There were a handful of Ruby sightings at the scene of the JFK assassination, by otherwise reasonably reputable witnesses, including an Altgens photo (iirc) with a guy that looks like Ruby. Ruby denied being there too, and was confirmed by the polygraph.
There were 3 or 4 photos of this guy in front of the TSBD. He is clearly younger (35-40) and thinner than Ruby.
Posts: 2,131
Threads: 199
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Apr 2014
A "Ruby sighting" doesn't mean it was actually Jack Ruby, any more than an "Oswald sighting" meant it was actually Lee Harvey Oswald.
"All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."
Posts: 16,111
Threads: 1,773
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
07-08-2014, 03:48 AM
(This post was last modified: 07-08-2014, 05:55 AM by Peter Lemkin.)
The JFK assassination was done by professionals running the 'show'....yes, they used some other pros and some that were not [Ruby might fit in that category]. That said, I'm sure everything was carefully planned and hidden best it could be...but any ****ups they felt they could contain too. Things were done on a need-to-know basis - and I doubt that Ruby [or any of the other mechanics] had the 'Big Picture'. Yes, Ruby certainly knew Oswald was innocent and there was a conspiracy; yes, he knew who some [some!] of the players above him might have been - but I'm sure he also didn't know the full picture. He obviously knew too much to allow him to live for a second trial - or Kilgallen to write what he told her. I have little faith in 'lie-detector' exams [having witnessed someone faking one by just knowing a little how they work, in a matter related to my own life - also by knowing how 'law enforcement (sic) often abuses them]. Ruby hinted about several things clearly pointing to conspiracy he was involved with at different times, and he should have been granted his wish to be out of the control of persons/police in Dallas so he could speak more freely - but the powers that be didn't want to hear or know what Ruby knew or thought!...so afraid of that truth or approximation of the truth were they! Ruby, however, was not any 'central' figure in the plot...he was used and used a lot - even playing an important role on the ground, but others were running the show - many of whom I'm quite sure he didn't know or even know the existence of. He knew more than enough, however, to prove the 'official version' 110% false, so he had to 'go' - and go he did....with the help of the Dallas Police, being ignored by Warren and the WC, CIA doctor 'Jolly' West, and others. His statements that we know of, as well as his actions are more than sufficient, IMHO, to prove conspiracy and the official version a planned fiction - but his statements are NOT sufficient to conclude or even begin to think such things as 'LBJ was central' [which he was not]....however, LBJ had a substantial but minor role, by the end, in the plot, IMO. The most telling of Ruby's statements was, as Dawn mentioned, his statement of a 'whole new form of government' that was coming [due to the assassination]....that, to me, shows how much he did know - or (more likely) was able to logically piece together about the real motives and powers behind the event. He, as so many others involved or only a witness, was murdered to silence him from saying more about what he knew, and that his unbelievable cover story was just that - an unbelievable cover story. The real perpetrators behind the assassination never spent a day in prison - not a one of them.
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will" - Frederick Douglass
Posts: 2,131
Threads: 199
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Apr 2014
The problem with giving someone terminal cancer to "shut them up" is that it gives them plenty of time to think about dying, and spill your beans. Plus they have little to lose. I don't believe Ruby knew anything of value.
There are lots of other reasonable possibilities for Kilgallen's death that don't involve Ruby, besides the possibility that it was an accidental overdose.
"All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."
Posts: 3,905
Threads: 200
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
Drew Phipps Wrote:The problem with giving someone terminal cancer to "shut them up" is that it gives them plenty of time to think about dying, and spill your beans. Plus they have little to lose. I don't believe Ruby knew anything of value.
There are lots of other reasonable possibilities for Kilgallen's death that don't involve Ruby, besides the possibility that it was an accidental overdose. No way this was an "accidental overdose" Drew. Not a chance in hell. There was a good thread on this at the Ed forum many years back. I am too busy with work to try to find it now. Perhaps someone who is retired can try. John Simkin started the thread as I recall.
Dawn
|
