Who was Jack Ruby?

[Paul Brancato]

It was LBJ's idea to replace Whitten with Angleton? Nonsense - it was Angleton himself.

[Chris Newton]

That's a cheap shot, because of course anybody can blame the CIA of anything at all, and claimed that the CIA destroyed all the records. The CIA is required by Law to keep their actions secret. It's just a cheap shot.

Page 3 of the same document I linked to earlier.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=55405#relPageId=3&tab=page

I encourage you to read some actual source material from time to time.

[Paul Trejo]

That's a cheap shot, because of course anybody can blame the CIA of anything at all, and claimed that the CIA destroyed all the records. The CIA is required by Law to keep their actions secret. It's just a cheap shot.

Page 3 of the same document I linked to earlier.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=55405#relPageId=3&tab=page

I encourage you to read some actual source material from time to time.

Chris,

All you've done is double-down on the Fidel Castro assassination plot documentation, proving that the CIA burned most of it.

I already knew about this.

I'm talking about something very different, namely, the JFK assassination plot. Chief Justice Earl Warren assured reporters that these records were being preserved.

I'm not so cynical that I doubt Earl Warren. Earl Warren told us the Truth about why he had to lie to us -- National Security.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Chris Newton]

...proving that the CIA burned most of it.

I already knew about this.

Earl Warren told us the Truth about why he had to lie to us

Spinning out of control?

I get it that your pet "Walker did it" theory is threatened by the majority of researchers that suspect CIA responsibility. Your initial refusal to acknowledge that the CIA destroyed documents related to the assassination reveals the lengths that you'll go to "spin" any information that contradicts your fantasy.

No one reading this forum thread is fooled.

Edited October 16, 2016 by Chris Newton

[Paul Trejo]

...proving that the CIA burned most of it.

I already knew about this.

Earl Warren told us the Truth about why he had to lie to us

Spinning out of control?

I get it that your pet "Walker did it" theory is threatened by the majority of researchers that suspect CIA responsibility. Your initial refusal to acknowledge that the CIA destroyed documents related to the assassination reveals the lengths that you'll go to "spin" any information that contradicts your fantasy.

No one reading this forum thread is fooled.

Chris,

I'm not trying to fool anybody -- I'm well aware that I've been promoting a minority opinion for the past 5 years on this FORUM.

Until the new book by Jeff Caufield came out, namely, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy (2015), I was the only voice on this FORUM with this opinion, and Harry Dean was my only ally at one point.

I find it amusing that anybody would suspect me to trying to give the CIA a free pass in the JFK assassination. All I have really done is to demand material proof against the CIA -- and this never materializes. And it's been over 50 years.

The main problem with the CIA-did-it CT, even though it has been the majority opinion since Jim Garrison's time -- is that anybody can blame the CIA for anything, and never produce any material proofs, and then claim that the CIA burned them all.

Like I say-- it's just too pat. Too easy. No real work is involved.

The best work ever done on the CIA FOIA released files was done by Bill SImpich in 2014 with his free eBook, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City. Yet in that book, we learn that the CIA high-command was taken by surprise by the JFK plotters.

So -- the CIA-did-it CTers remain without proofs, and actually the records show that only two CIA Agents -- thus rogues -- confessed to any role in the JFK assassination, namely, Howard Hunt and David Morales.

Neither one was in the CIA high-command. Howard Hunt even admitted that his role "was on the sidelines" of the JFK plot Bill Simpich places David Morales in Mexico City after LHO left -- so his hands are dirty there, trying to frame LHO as a KGB operative.

But that's all the material evidence that anybody really has -- everything else is sheer speculation. Therefore -- by the evidence itself -- the JFK assassination was a Civilian plot.

As I say, the trouble with the CIA-did-it CT is that it tries to use its lack of evidence as its most important evidence.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 16, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Mark Knight]

And wasn't the Secret Service UNDER SUBPOENA from the AARB when they destroyed JFK-related records?

What makes you think the FBI, CIA, ONI, or any other agency hasn't "purged" any records that might suggest ANY smoking gun but Oswald's?

[Paul Trejo]

And wasn't the Secret Service UNDER SUBPOENA from the AARB when they destroyed JFK-related records?

What makes you think the FBI, CIA, ONI, or any other agency hasn't "purged" any records that might suggest ANY smoking gun but Oswald's?

Mark,

My only reasoning comes from my faith in Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren. He explicitly said that his records of the JFK assassination are being preserved.

It was because of National Security that this data had to be kept secret, he said. LBJ approved that message. Everybody in the US Government would back it up -- even if that meant drastic measures on particles that they had in their desk drawers.

But the specific JFK records held by Earl Warren were being preserved, he said, and now, thanks to former President GHW Bush, they now amount to just over 3,000 pages of material that will be released in October, 2017.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 17, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

On ‎10‎/‎13‎/‎2016 at 1:31 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

Jim,

You are suggesting that the CIA wanted there to be gun shipments to leftist rebels in Cuba. Why would they want that? I don't know anything about this topic, but just read on Wikipedia that the U.S. was supplying Batista with planes,ships, tanks, etc. during the Cuban Revolution, but then in 1958 quit doing so and placed an arms embargo on Cuba.

So was it the case that during Ruby's smuggling days the U.S. was formally backing Batista against the rebels, whereas the CIA was secretly arming the rebels?

Sandy,

The CIA played on both the Left and the Right side of Cuba.  They were hedging their bets.  Whoever won that battle, the CIA wanted to be on their side.

The CIA supported Fidel Castro in the early days, because Batista, our ally, was such a monster.  Mercenaries who fought alongside Fidel and Che Guevara included Frank Sturgis, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall, Larry Howard and even Harry Dean.

Then, when Fidel finally came out as a puppet for the USSR, all these people were shocked -- shocked -- and they switched sides and fled Cuba.  Loran Hall ended up in a Castro prison cell, next to Santos Trafficante.

The reason that Santos Trafficante was in Cuba was because he was hoping that Fidel Castro would make a deal, and allow the Mafia to keep the casinos in Havana.  That didn't work.  But the Mafia in the USA tried very hard to get Santos Trafficante out of Fidel's prison -- and they sent Jack Ruby to get the job done.

Yes, we have evidence that Jack Ruby was one of the many who were making profits by shipping arms to Fidel Castro during the Batista era, and making more profits by shipping arms to the Cuban Resistance in Miami during the Castro era.  This was a common cause between the Mafia and American Conservatives.

So, yes, Jack Ruby was in the Mafia, and yes, Ruby followed Mafia orders to run guns to Cuba,  and yes, Ruby followed Mafia orders to buy Santos Trafficante out of jail in Cuba.  Jack Ruby was part of the Cuban drama in the late 1950's and early 1960's.  That is another part of Ruby's legacy.

Yet it is a mistake, IMHO, to imagine that Jack Ruby was working for the CIA, just because the CIA was also running guns to Cuba during the same period.  That's one of the key mistakes of the CIA-did-it CT.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo  

Edited November 10, 2016 by Paul Trejo
grammar

[Guest]

Thanks to Malcolm Blunt

 

[Guest]

 

I have scanned and uploaded 33 PDFs with various Ruby and related matters from the Malcolm Blunt archives.

HERE.

[Ron Bulman]

On 6/8/2019 at 8:46 AM, Bart Kamp said:

 

I have scanned and uploaded 33 PDFs with various Ruby and related matters from the Malcolm Blunt archives.

HERE.

Thanks, Bart, and uncle Malcom.  There's  more to this story exposed in one I've read before.  As an official in the Waste Handlers Union Ruby was accused of offing the former president of it, arrested I believe, but charges dropped for lack of evidence?  Nice to see evidence of him affiliated with them.  Evidence he was involved with a mob controlled Union in Chicago at the time.  The heavy redaction is interesting.  Who were they protecting?

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1WyKEuHna_3CYy8JmWzUWYSLc3PmVpNK_

 

[Ron Bulman]

On 9/29/2016 at 1:31 PM, Ron Ecker said:

My own small contribution to the Jack Ruby mess is here:

http://www.ronaldecker.com/rubysdog.html

Hi Ron.  Since your on the site at the moment, a blast from the past.  Thanks for it!

[Ron Bulman]

On 10/2/2016 at 6:33 PM, Chris Newton said:

Roger Stone is a mountebank. Unkind or not it's the truth.

 

I miss Chris Newton.  Wish he still posted.  He encouraged me to do so with questions and comments.

I've seen Mark Lane interview's before but don't remember this one with the piano player or more especially the last 2-3 minutes with Nancy Hamilton.  Ruby's bar tender/manager.  Special stock for police... on the house … any official of Dallas or Tarrant County.  

[Joe Bauer]

41 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

I miss Chris Newton.  Wish he still posted.  He encouraged me to do so with questions and comments.

I've seen Mark Lane interview's before but don't remember this one with the piano player or more especially the last 2-3 minutes with Nancy Hamilton.  Ruby's bar tender/manager.  Special stock for police... on the house … any official of Dallas or Tarrant County.  

When Mark Lane asked Nancy Hamilton whether any officials had frequented Ruby's club she stated ... 
  "oh, such as your District Attorney Mr. Wade."

And Wade ACTED as if he didn't know Ruby in his news conference identifying Jack Ruby as the shooter of Oswald.

In fact he lied right to the national press is denying he knew Jack Ruby.

Did Dallas DA Henry Wade know Jack Ruby ? - YouTube

 

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

1.  

▶ 0:40

Sep 29, 2010 - Uploaded by JFK63Conspiracy

Dallas DA Henry Wade is asked point blank if he knew Jack Ruby. He denies it. But Nancy Hamilton, a ...

Edited June 16, 2019 by Joe Bauer

[Ron Bulman]

It's inconceivable to me that Wade didn't know who Ruby was.  I re read a couple of chapters of Kantor's The Ruby Cover-Up last night and this morning.  Ruby was arrested 9 time in 16 years in Dallas.  "But no serious charges ever stuck".  "The greatest penalty he had to pay was $35 for ignoring a traffic summons".  Doesn't the DA decide if charges will be pursued?

"One time Ruby used his gun to slug an off duty Dallas policeman over the head in a fight inside the Carousel.  No charges were brought against him.  In fact an investigating police captain assured Ruby that no apology would be necessary...".