Discussion:
Did "Ruby" have a large object under his left arm in the garage?
Add Reply
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-03 13:32:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
It appears that he did, and you can see it here.

"Ruby" in the garage, the one wearing sunglasses, appears to have a large
object under his left arm. I provide several images of it. I can't imagine
any alternative. But, the "Ruby" who rushed Oswald didn't have it. So,
what happened to it? Did he drop it? Then, why wasn't it found? And why
haven't we been talking about it for 53 years?

Better take a look at this because it proves that Ruby#1 was not the same
man as Ruby#2, and neither one was Jack Ruby, who was not in the garage
during the televised spectacle.

What is that object?

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/does-sunglasses-ruby-have-something.html
bpete1969
2017-06-03 22:21:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
It appears that he did, and you can see it here.
"Ruby" in the garage, the one wearing sunglasses, appears to have a large
object under his left arm. I provide several images of it. I can't imagine
any alternative. But, the "Ruby" who rushed Oswald didn't have it. So,
what happened to it? Did he drop it? Then, why wasn't it found? And why
haven't we been talking about it for 53 years?
Better take a look at this because it proves that Ruby#1 was not the same
man as Ruby#2, and neither one was Jack Ruby, who was not in the garage
during the televised spectacle.
What is that object?
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/does-sunglasses-ruby-have-something.html
No, he didn't.

The object you're looking at is coming from the right pocket of the person
in the foreground.

Try again.
Jason Burke
2017-06-04 01:04:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
It appears that he did, and you can see it here.
"Ruby" in the garage, the one wearing sunglasses, appears to have a large
object under his left arm. I provide several images of it. I can't imagine
Ralph, it just amazes me that you can't imagine, well, anything, Ralph.
Post by Ralph Cinque
any alternative. But, the "Ruby" who rushed Oswald didn't have it. So,
what happened to it? Did he drop it? Then, why wasn't it found? And why
haven't we been talking about it for 53 years?
Better take a look at this because it proves that Ruby#1 was not the same
man as Ruby#2, and neither one was Jack Ruby, who was not in the garage
during the televised spectacle.
What is that object?
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/does-sunglasses-ruby-have-something.html
InsideSparta
2017-06-04 01:16:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
It appears that he did, and you can see it here.
"Ruby" in the garage, the one wearing sunglasses, appears to have a large
object under his left arm. I provide several images of it. I can't imagine
any alternative. But, the "Ruby" who rushed Oswald didn't have it. So,
what happened to it? Did he drop it? Then, why wasn't it found? And why
haven't we been talking about it for 53 years?
Better take a look at this because it proves that Ruby#1 was not the same
man as Ruby#2, and neither one was Jack Ruby, who was not in the garage
during the televised spectacle.
What is that object?
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/does-sunglasses-ruby-have-something.html
More foolishness. What you're seeing in the image isn't under Ruby's left
arm, it's under the right arm of the reporter to his left, standing
between Ruby and the camera. You can see that person, the Asian reporter,
carrying what appears to be notebooks and/or newspapers under his right
armpit at the 10:47 mark of this KRLD live footage as he takes his spot
moments before Oswald appears.



It took me 10 minutes to figure that out. You appear to be so desperate to
find evidence of chicanery in the shooting of Oswald, you don't even vet
your own silly theories.
bpete1969
2017-06-05 01:06:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by InsideSparta
Post by Ralph Cinque
It appears that he did, and you can see it here.
"Ruby" in the garage, the one wearing sunglasses, appears to have a large
object under his left arm. I provide several images of it. I can't imagine
any alternative. But, the "Ruby" who rushed Oswald didn't have it. So,
what happened to it? Did he drop it? Then, why wasn't it found? And why
haven't we been talking about it for 53 years?
Better take a look at this because it proves that Ruby#1 was not the same
man as Ruby#2, and neither one was Jack Ruby, who was not in the garage
during the televised spectacle.
What is that object?
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/does-sunglasses-ruby-have-something.html
More foolishness. What you're seeing in the image isn't under Ruby's left
arm, it's under the right arm of the reporter to his left, standing
between Ruby and the camera. You can see that person, the Asian reporter,
carrying what appears to be notebooks and/or newspapers under his right
armpit at the 10:47 mark of this KRLD live footage as he takes his spot
moments before Oswald appears.
http://youtu.be/m5khMFFKslw
It took me 10 minutes to figure that out. You appear to be so desperate to
find evidence of chicanery in the shooting of Oswald, you don't even vet
your own silly theories.
You're correct. I was going by Raff*'s still shot. The footage shows
you're correct.
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-05 01:11:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Unresolved, Sparta. The image is here:

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-japanese-photographer-had-both.html

The Japanese photographer had both hands raised to eye level to support
his camera, as you can see here. We can't see his right arm, but we know
he is using two hands. He couldn't possibly be holding the camera and
operating it with just his left hand. So, his right hand had to be up
there too. He did have folders with him, but were they still under his arm
at that time? It is unresolved.

But, what is totally and completely resolved is that Jack Ruby did not
shoot Oswald. There is NO IMAGE of Jack Ruby in that garage. Any frame you
want to proffer from the films or photos can be quickly and easily
disqualified because of conflicts with Ruby's looks: such as, discrepancy
in height, discrepancy in features, and most especially, a discrepancy in
the state of the back of his neck in which the real Ruby had scruffy hair
growth while the Garage Shooter was cleanly razored. There is simply NO
IMAGE of Jack Ruby in that garage. And then when we consider the fact that
the most famous photo of the shooting, the Bob Jackson photo, is a
photographic monstrosity, that was not only altered but freakishly so,
such as the left hand of Oswald slapped to his chest having a right thumb
(and a huge one at that which was certainly not Oswald's) and only 3
fingers besides it. It is simply not a real hand. And the same is true of
Jim Leavelle's hand in Oswald's pants: his whole forearm is fake, and it
isn't even anatomical.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/what-is-totally-and-completely-resolved.html

Hey Sparta, if you or anyone else wants to do battle over this, I say
great, and I'm ready. But, we've got to discuss the particulars.
Generalized spewing and smearing doesn't cut it; it doesn't count for
chit.
InsideSparta
2017-06-06 18:57:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-japanese-photographer-had-both.html
The Japanese photographer had both hands raised to eye level to support
his camera, as you can see here. We can't see his right arm, but we know
he is using two hands. He couldn't possibly be holding the camera and
operating it with just his left hand. So, his right hand had to be up
there too. He did have folders with him, but were they still under his arm
at that time? It is unresolved.
Now you're just being obtuse. Of course the man could have taken the photo
using both hands with the notebooks tucked under his right arm. That's
exactly what he did. He had the notebooks under his right arm
approximately one minute before the shooting, and he moved into the exact
position where the man in your photo is standing. Check the same KRLD
video, at the 16:36 mark, and you'll see that the Asian man is still
holding the notebooks in his right hand approximately 3 minutes after the
shooting.

You're the one making claims that Ruby had something under his left arm.
I've clearly proven that the objects shown in your photo were held by
someone else. Your making the claim it was Ruby, now show me a clear image
that he really did have anything tucked under his left arm. The burden of
proof for your wild theories is on you. And when you're proven wrong, you
need to just man-up, admit your error and move on.
Post by Ralph Cinque
But, what is totally and completely resolved is that Jack Ruby did not
shoot Oswald. There is NO IMAGE of Jack Ruby in that garage. Any frame you
want to proffer from the films or photos can be quickly and easily
disqualified because of conflicts with Ruby's looks: such as, discrepancy
in height, discrepancy in features, and most especially, a discrepancy in
the state of the back of his neck in which the real Ruby had scruffy hair
growth while the Garage Shooter was cleanly razored. There is simply NO
IMAGE of Jack Ruby in that garage.
Ralph, there is also NO IMAGE of James Bookhout shooting Oswald as you claim. What there is are the testimonies of the eyewitnesses that saw Ruby shoot Oswald in person, and the film of a handcuffed Ruby being taken away from the jail office; the gun that belonged to Ruby and the ballistic evidence that it was his gun did the shooting.
Post by Ralph Cinque
And then when we consider the fact that
the most famous photo of the shooting, the Bob Jackson photo, is a
photographic monstrosity, that was not only altered but freakishly so,
such as the left hand of Oswald slapped to his chest having a right thumb
(and a huge one at that which was certainly not Oswald's) and only 3
fingers besides it. It is simply not a real hand. And the same is true of
Jim Leavelle's hand in Oswald's pants: his whole forearm is fake, and it
isn't even anatomical.
Photographer Bob Jackson went straight from City Hall to the Dallas
Morning News, where he developed the roll of film and made a wet print of
his famous photo himself; and that photo went out on the news wires
immediately thereafter. When exactly could it have ever been tampered with
or faked? The answer is never. There's absolutely no question whatsoever
of that photograph's authenticity. If you know of some credible expert
scientific analysis that has determined otherwise, then provide that to
us. Otherwise, you're just blowing more smoke.

I have nothing against Conspiracy Theorists as a whole. Some are quite
bright, and are respectable individuals. However, I have little patience
for those few that continually toss kooky theories against the wall hoping
one of them might stick someday. This one fell to the floor with a loud
thud. If .you don't like people casting aspersions upon your credibility,
stop coming up with nonsense like this. To quote Jim Rome, "Have a take,
and don't suck."
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-07 00:50:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Sparta, there is visual evidence of Jack Ruby in that garage. And when we
look at the specific details of the Garage Shooter, those details conflict
with him being Jack Ruby. Examples are: the hair on the back of his neck
(vastly different from Ruby's) and his height(which is too short).
Therefore, the ONLY thing you can base the Ruby claim on are those
eyewitnesses. But, one of those eyewitnesses was James Leavelle, and we
know he lied. He said he saw Ruby in advance, recognized him as Jack Ruby,
and saw the gun, yet the films show that he was looking the other way
until the shot went off. He also claimed that he poked on Ruby's shoulder
and jerked Oswald around, but he didn't do either of those things. He just
plain lied, and it's obvious that he lied. So, knowing that he lied, what
basis is there to put any stock in his claim of recognizing Ruby? Doesn't
it make more sense to conclude that that is just another lie?

Now, as far the film of a handcuffed Jack Ruby being led through the jail
office, forget it; you got nothing; you got worse than nothing. You can't
even explain why he was in just a shirt after having just been brought in.
What happened to his jacket?

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/david-von-pein-553-pm-3-hours-ago-show.html

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/i-think-i-figured-it-out.html

And Bob Jackson did NOT go straight to the DMN and develop his film. He
admits to a 2 hour delay. And regardless, his photo is a photographic
monstrosity. Just read my article on VT. You can't ignore the things that
i point out. It's not Oswald's left thumb slapped to his chest. It's not
even a left thumb; it's a right thumb. That photo is a monstrosity; it is
an abomination.


http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/06/02/lee-harvey-oswald-why-he-had-to-die/comment-page-1/#comment-683224

There is absolutely no question of the photo's corruption.

Spara, here's why you and yours are doomed: I went to the dentist
yesterday, and I brought with me a collage of Jack Ruby and one of the
Ruby impostors from the garage, the taller one. And I asked to say whether
they are the same man. His response was: "This is a trick question, right?
Of course, they're different men."

That's why you're doomed, Sparta, because outside of JFkland, that is, in
the real world, people have no trouble seeing what I see.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/i-just-had-funny-experience.html
David Von Pein
2017-06-07 19:14:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Sparta, there is visual evidence of Jack Ruby in that garage. And when we
look at the specific details of the Garage Shooter, those details conflict
with him being Jack Ruby. Examples are: the hair on the back of his neck
(vastly different from Ruby's) and his height(which is too short).
Therefore, the ONLY thing you can base the Ruby claim on are those
eyewitnesses. But, one of those eyewitnesses was James Leavelle, and we
know he lied. He said he saw Ruby in advance, recognized him as Jack Ruby,
and saw the gun, yet the films show that he was looking the other way
until the shot went off. He also claimed that he poked on Ruby's shoulder
and jerked Oswald around, but he didn't do either of those things. He just
plain lied, and it's obvious that he lied. So, knowing that he lied, what
basis is there to put any stock in his claim of recognizing Ruby? Doesn't
it make more sense to conclude that that is just another lie?
Now, as far the film of a handcuffed Jack Ruby being led through the jail
office, forget it; you got nothing; you got worse than nothing. You can't
even explain why he was in just a shirt after having just been brought in.
What happened to his jacket?
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/david-von-pein-553-pm-3-hours-ago-show.html
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/i-think-i-figured-it-out.html
And Bob Jackson did NOT go straight to the DMN and develop his film. He
admits to a 2 hour delay. And regardless, his photo is a photographic
monstrosity. Just read my article on VT. You can't ignore the things that
i point out. It's not Oswald's left thumb slapped to his chest. It's not
even a left thumb; it's a right thumb. That photo is a monstrosity; it is
an abomination.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/06/02/lee-harvey-oswald-why-he-had-to-die/comment-page-1/#comment-683224
There is absolutely no question of the photo's corruption.
Spara, here's why you and yours are doomed: I went to the dentist
yesterday, and I brought with me a collage of Jack Ruby and one of the
Ruby impostors from the garage, the taller one. And I asked to say whether
they are the same man. His response was: "This is a trick question, right?
Of course, they're different men."
That's why you're doomed, Sparta, because outside of JFkland, that is, in
the real world, people have no trouble seeing what I see.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/i-just-had-funny-experience.html
That's funny, all of these people look like the same man to me. And, of
course, they ARE all the same person---Jack Ruby:

Loading Image...
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-08 14:37:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In that case, David, you are not a good photo analyst, and finer details
escape you.

Now, how could Ruby be out of his jacket so soon after being brought in
when it conflicts with the testimonies of two detectives who brought him
in? And how could he suddenly be back in his jacket 5 seconds later when
he reaches the elevator? You need to account for this.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/why-havent-my-enemies-responded-to-this.html
Jason Burke
2017-06-09 02:48:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
In that case, David, you are not a good photo analyst, and finer details
escape you.
Now, how could Ruby be out of his jacket so soon after being brought in
when it conflicts with the testimonies of two detectives who brought him
in? And how could he suddenly be back in his jacket 5 seconds later when
he reaches the elevator? You need to account for this.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/why-havent-my-enemies-responded-to-this.html
Ralph, Ralph, Ralph.
WHEN will you learn that no one needs to account for your crap?
InsideSparta
2017-06-07 21:11:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Sparta, there is visual evidence of Jack Ruby in that garage. And when we
look at the specific details of the Garage Shooter, those details conflict
with him being Jack Ruby. Examples are: the hair on the back of his neck
(vastly different from Ruby's) and his height(which is too short).
Therefore, the ONLY thing you can base the Ruby claim on are those
eyewitnesses. But, one of those eyewitnesses was James Leavelle, and we
know he lied. He said he saw Ruby in advance, recognized him as Jack Ruby,
and saw the gun, yet the films show that he was looking the other way
until the shot went off. He also claimed that he poked on Ruby's shoulder
and jerked Oswald around, but he didn't do either of those things. He just
plain lied, and it's obvious that he lied. So, knowing that he lied, what
basis is there to put any stock in his claim of recognizing R) uby? Doesn't
it make more sense to conclude that that is just another lie?
Hold on there Babalouie. This thread was about whether or not Ruby was
holding something in his left hand prior to shooting Oswald. Now that
you've been proven wrong (again) you want to change to topic of the thread
to a discussion about neck hair? Deflect much?
Post by Ralph Cinque
Now, as far the film of a handcuffed Jack Ruby being led through the jail
office, forget it; you got nothing; you got worse than nothing. You can't
even explain why he was in just a shirt after having just been brought in.
What happened to his jacket?
In the type of scuffle Ruby was involved in after shooting Oswald, it's no
surprise his jacket was pulled off of him. Look at Oswald when he was
brought into the Dallas Police station after the scuffle and arrest in the
Texas Theatre. His long sleeve shirt is pulled down to his waist. I
believe you will find Ruby's jacket on display in the 6th Floor Museum.
Post by Ralph Cinque
And Bob Jackson did NOT go straight to the DMN and develop his film. He
admits to a 2 hour delay. And regardless, his photo is a photographic
monstrosity. Just read my article on VT. You can't ignore the things that
i point out. It's not Oswald's left thumb slapped to his chest. It's not
even a left thumb; it's a right thumb. That photo is a monstrosity; it is
an abomination
I asked you to provide a credible scientific analysis of the Jackson photo
that came to the conclusion it was altered. You provided NOTHING except
your own opinion/belief that the photo has been altered. Ralph, that ain't
good enough. Two hours isn't nearly enough time for someone to have
manipulated Jackson's photo. And do you really believe Jackson was going
to hand over his film to ANYONE on that day. Do you believe in Santa Claus
too?
Post by Ralph Cinque
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/06/02/lee-harvey-oswald-why-he-had-to-die/comment-page-1/#comment-683224
There is absolutely no question of the photo's corruption.
Prove it. Don't just say it. Prove it.
Post by Ralph Cinque
Spara, here's why you and yours are doomed: I went to the dentist
yesterday, and I brought with me a collage of Jack Ruby and one of the
Ruby impostors from the garage, the taller one. And I asked to say whether
they are the same man. His response was: "This is a trick question, right?
Of course, they're different men."
OMG. Did you really subject your poor dentist to this crap? Did you
promise to make him famous too?
Post by Ralph Cinque
That's why you're doomed, Sparta, because outside of JFkland, that is, in
the real world, people have no trouble seeing what I see.
I doubt you'd recognize the "real world" if it fell on top of you.
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-08 19:21:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
What????? How dare you? What type of scuffle do you think it was? And how,
during it could his arms come out of the sleeves of his jacket?


Seriously, Sparta: how dare you say that? When in the entire history of
police work has that ever happened? And considering how important this is,
and what is at stake, do you not feel any obligation to test the claim
before stating it? If that were me in the middle of that scuffle, I'd be
willing to be that they couldn't get my arms out of the sleeves of that
jacket even if they were trying. But wait! THEY WEREN'T TRYING! So, the
idea that it just happened spontaneously is PREPOSTEROUS. It is outlandish
to the extreme. And the only thing you accomplish by making such
statements is to make a complete fool of yourself. You could at least
start by putting your jacket on and think about the forces that would be
necessary for someone to get your arms out of the jacket. It would not be
easy. And to claim that it just happened spontaneously is just plain
ridiculous. But ultimately, that is what you and your kind do, isn't it?
Ultimately, it just comes down to denial. It doesn't have to be
reasonable. It doesn't have to make sense. It only has to be stated
dogmatically.

So, my response to you is: "Prove it, Sparta. Don't just say it. Prove it."

And, your comparison to Oswald's shirt being tussled in the theater is not
valid. Oswald's shirt was MUCH LIGHTER than a jacket. It was also much
looser fitting. It also had no buttons except for two at the bottom, and
it's not sure if they were secured.

Here is the famous picture of Oswald at the Texas Theater. Keep in mind
that they were already posing for a picture. Detective Paul Bentley has
already started smoking his cigar to celebrate Oswald's capture. And he
looks happy; he looks delighted.


You can't tell me that Oswald is fighting them. They are restraining him
for the picture, but afterwards, he was immediately handcuffed. And notice
that his arm is still in the sleeve of the shirt.


There is no reason to think that Oswald's arm got pulled out of the
sleeve. And whatever further dislodging of the shirt that took place after
that was done deliberately and not part of the altercation. You can't
assume that Oswald was resisting and fighting them at that point- if he
ever was.

So no, you're wrong about that too. Oswald's shirt was a long sleeve
shirt, and it is ridiculous to claim that arms would come out of long
sleeves by fighting. And there is no evidence for any such thing with
Ruby. This is a purported to be an image of Ruby making his way into the
jail office. As you can see, his jacket is still on him, and no one is
doing anything to dislodge it.


And how can you claim that Ruby's jacket came off during the struggle if
none of the cops reported that it did? What gives you the right?

Sparta, you exposed a lot, about yourself, and about the whole mindset of
people like you. You failed miserably. And your next attempt isn't going
to be any better. Your case is hopeless, and you demonstrated it- in
spades.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/insidesparta-in-type-of-scuffle-ruby.html
Mark OBLAZNEY
2017-06-09 02:54:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
What????? How dare you? What type of scuffle do you think it was? And how,
during it could his arms come out of the sleeves of his jacket?
Seriously, Sparta: how dare you say that? When in the entire history of
police work has that ever happened? And considering how important this is,
and what is at stake, do you not feel any obligation to test the claim
before stating it? If that were me in the middle of that scuffle, I'd be
willing to be that they couldn't get my arms out of the sleeves of that
jacket even if they were trying. But wait! THEY WEREN'T TRYING! So, the
idea that it just happened spontaneously is PREPOSTEROUS. It is outlandish
to the extreme. And the only thing you accomplish by making such
statements is to make a complete fool of yourself. You could at least
start by putting your jacket on and think about the forces that would be
necessary for someone to get your arms out of the jacket. It would not be
easy. And to claim that it just happened spontaneously is just plain
ridiculous. But ultimately, that is what you and your kind do, isn't it?
Ultimately, it just comes down to denial. It doesn't have to be
reasonable. It doesn't have to make sense. It only has to be stated
dogmatically.
So, my response to you is: "Prove it, Sparta. Don't just say it. Prove it."
And, your comparison to Oswald's shirt being tussled in the theater is not
valid. Oswald's shirt was MUCH LIGHTER than a jacket. It was also much
looser fitting. It also had no buttons except for two at the bottom, and
it's not sure if they were secured.
Here is the famous picture of Oswald at the Texas Theater. Keep in mind
that they were already posing for a picture. Detective Paul Bentley has
already started smoking his cigar to celebrate Oswald's capture. And he
looks happy; he looks delighted.
You can't tell me that Oswald is fighting them. They are restraining him
for the picture, but afterwards, he was immediately handcuffed. And notice
that his arm is still in the sleeve of the shirt.
There is no reason to think that Oswald's arm got pulled out of the
sleeve. And whatever further dislodging of the shirt that took place after
that was done deliberately and not part of the altercation. You can't
assume that Oswald was resisting and fighting them at that point- if he
ever was.
So no, you're wrong about that too. Oswald's shirt was a long sleeve
shirt, and it is ridiculous to claim that arms would come out of long
sleeves by fighting. And there is no evidence for any such thing with
Ruby. This is a purported to be an image of Ruby making his way into the
jail office. As you can see, his jacket is still on him, and no one is
doing anything to dislodge it.
And how can you claim that Ruby's jacket came off during the struggle if
none of the cops reported that it did? What gives you the right?
Sparta, you exposed a lot, about yourself, and about the whole mindset of
people like you. You failed miserably. And your next attempt isn't going
to be any better. Your case is hopeless, and you demonstrated it- in
spades.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/insidesparta-in-type-of-scuffle-ruby.html
Ralph, you're still my Tiny Tot.
Jason Burke
2017-06-09 13:35:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
What????? How dare you? What type of scuffle do you think it was? And how,
during it could his arms come out of the sleeves of his jacket?
Seriously, Sparta: how dare you say that? When in the entire history of
police work has that ever happened? And considering how important this is,
and what is at stake, do you not feel any obligation to test the claim
before stating it? If that were me in the middle of that scuffle, I'd be
willing to be that they couldn't get my arms out of the sleeves of that
jacket even if they were trying. But wait! THEY WEREN'T TRYING! So, the
idea that it just happened spontaneously is PREPOSTEROUS. It is outlandish
to the extreme. And the only thing you accomplish by making such
statements is to make a complete fool of yourself. You could at least
start by putting your jacket on and think about the forces that would be
necessary for someone to get your arms out of the jacket. It would not be
easy. And to claim that it just happened spontaneously is just plain
ridiculous. But ultimately, that is what you and your kind do, isn't it?
Ultimately, it just comes down to denial. It doesn't have to be
reasonable. It doesn't have to make sense. It only has to be stated
dogmatically.
So, my response to you is: "Prove it, Sparta. Don't just say it. Prove it."
And, your comparison to Oswald's shirt being tussled in the theater is not
valid. Oswald's shirt was MUCH LIGHTER than a jacket. It was also much
looser fitting. It also had no buttons except for two at the bottom, and
it's not sure if they were secured.
Here is the famous picture of Oswald at the Texas Theater. Keep in mind
that they were already posing for a picture. Detective Paul Bentley has
already started smoking his cigar to celebrate Oswald's capture. And he
looks happy; he looks delighted.
You can't tell me that Oswald is fighting them. They are restraining him
for the picture, but afterwards, he was immediately handcuffed. And notice
that his arm is still in the sleeve of the shirt.
There is no reason to think that Oswald's arm got pulled out of the
sleeve. And whatever further dislodging of the shirt that took place after
that was done deliberately and not part of the altercation. You can't
assume that Oswald was resisting and fighting them at that point- if he
ever was.
So no, you're wrong about that too. Oswald's shirt was a long sleeve
shirt, and it is ridiculous to claim that arms would come out of long
sleeves by fighting. And there is no evidence for any such thing with
Ruby. This is a purported to be an image of Ruby making his way into the
jail office. As you can see, his jacket is still on him, and no one is
doing anything to dislodge it.
And how can you claim that Ruby's jacket came off during the struggle if
none of the cops reported that it did? What gives you the right?
Sparta, you exposed a lot, about yourself, and about the whole mindset of
people like you. You failed miserably. And your next attempt isn't going
to be any better. Your case is hopeless, and you demonstrated it- in
spades.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/insidesparta-in-type-of-scuffle-ruby.html
Ralph, Ralph, Ralph.
How difficult is it to quote, Ralph?

See, it's much funnier when you put in the original post, Ralph. Your
way makes it harder to figure out how much to laugh, Ralph.
Jason Burke
2017-06-08 02:28:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Sparta, there is visual evidence of Jack Ruby in that garage. And when we
look at the specific details of the Garage Shooter, those details conflict
with him being Jack Ruby. Examples are: the hair on the back of his neck
(vastly different from Ruby's) and his height(which is too short).
Therefore, the ONLY thing you can base the Ruby claim on are those
eyewitnesses. But, one of those eyewitnesses was James Leavelle, and we
know he lied. He said he saw Ruby in advance, recognized him as Jack Ruby,
and saw the gun, yet the films show that he was looking the other way
until the shot went off. He also claimed that he poked on Ruby's shoulder
and jerked Oswald around, but he didn't do either of those things. He just
plain lied, and it's obvious that he lied. So, knowing that he lied, what
basis is there to put any stock in his claim of recognizing Ruby? Doesn't
it make more sense to conclude that that is just another lie?
Now, as far the film of a handcuffed Jack Ruby being led through the jail
office, forget it; you got nothing; you got worse than nothing. You can't
even explain why he was in just a shirt after having just been brought in.
What happened to his jacket?
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/david-von-pein-553-pm-3-hours-ago-show.html
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/i-think-i-figured-it-out.html
And Bob Jackson did NOT go straight to the DMN and develop his film. He
admits to a 2 hour delay. And regardless, his photo is a photographic
monstrosity. Just read my article on VT. You can't ignore the things that
i point out. It's not Oswald's left thumb slapped to his chest. It's not
even a left thumb; it's a right thumb. That photo is a monstrosity; it is
an abomination.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/06/02/lee-harvey-oswald-why-he-had-to-die/comment-page-1/#comment-683224
There is absolutely no question of the photo's corruption.
Spara, here's why you and yours are doomed: I went to the dentist
yesterday, and I brought with me a collage of Jack Ruby and one of the
Ruby impostors from the garage, the taller one. And I asked to say whether
they are the same man. His response was: "This is a trick question, right?
Of course, they're different men."
That's why you're doomed, Sparta, because outside of JFkland, that is, in
the real world, people have no trouble seeing what I see.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/i-just-had-funny-experience.html
Why are you still here, Ralph?
No one is buying (or even renting for just a tic,) your bullshit, Ralph.
Jason Burke
2017-06-05 01:12:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by InsideSparta
Post by Ralph Cinque
It appears that he did, and you can see it here.
"Ruby" in the garage, the one wearing sunglasses, appears to have a large
object under his left arm. I provide several images of it. I can't imagine
any alternative. But, the "Ruby" who rushed Oswald didn't have it. So,
what happened to it? Did he drop it? Then, why wasn't it found? And why
haven't we been talking about it for 53 years?
Better take a look at this because it proves that Ruby#1 was not the same
man as Ruby#2, and neither one was Jack Ruby, who was not in the garage
during the televised spectacle.
What is that object?
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/does-sunglasses-ruby-have-something.html
More foolishness. What you're seeing in the image isn't under Ruby's left
arm, it's under the right arm of the reporter to his left, standing
between Ruby and the camera. You can see that person, the Asian reporter,
carrying what appears to be notebooks and/or newspapers under his right
armpit at the 10:47 mark of this KRLD live footage as he takes his spot
moments before Oswald appears.
http://youtu.be/m5khMFFKslw
It took me 10 minutes to figure that out. You appear to be so desperate to
find evidence of chicanery in the shooting of Oswald, you don't even vet
your own silly theories.
Why the hell would Ralph want to vet his nonsense? It would interfere
with him becoming famous.
BOZ
2017-06-05 01:05:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
It appears that he did, and you can see it here.
"Ruby" in the garage, the one wearing sunglasses, appears to have a large
object under his left arm. I provide several images of it. I can't imagine
any alternative. But, the "Ruby" who rushed Oswald didn't have it. So,
what happened to it? Did he drop it? Then, why wasn't it found? And why
haven't we been talking about it for 53 years?
Better take a look at this because it proves that Ruby#1 was not the same
man as Ruby#2, and neither one was Jack Ruby, who was not in the garage
during the televised spectacle.
What is that object?
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/does-sunglasses-ruby-have-something.html
Sheba????
Amy Joyce
2017-06-08 19:24:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
It appears that he did, and you can see it here.
"Ruby" in the garage, the one wearing sunglasses, appears to have a large
object under his left arm. I provide several images of it. I can't imagine
any alternative. But, the "Ruby" who rushed Oswald didn't have it. So,
what happened to it? Did he drop it? Then, why wasn't it found? And why
haven't we been talking about it for 53 years?
Better take a look at this because it proves that Ruby#1 was not the same
man as Ruby#2, and neither one was Jack Ruby, who was not in the garage
during the televised spectacle.
What is that object?
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/does-sunglasses-ruby-have-something.html
I'm not ashamed to admit that the man with the sunglasses doesn't look
like Jack Ruby at all - to me. Also, the man in a white shirt standing up
straight in the room and looking toward the camera doesn't look like Jack
Ruby either (to me).

That noted, I just assume that it has been verified that the man wearing
sunglasses was indeed the shooter. It looks like it should be, but I
don't know about an official claim. Same goes for the man in the white
shirt in the room.
David Von Pein
2017-06-09 13:13:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Ralph Cinque
It appears that he did, and you can see it here.
"Ruby" in the garage, the one wearing sunglasses, appears to have a large
object under his left arm. I provide several images of it. I can't imagine
any alternative. But, the "Ruby" who rushed Oswald didn't have it. So,
what happened to it? Did he drop it? Then, why wasn't it found? And why
haven't we been talking about it for 53 years?
Better take a look at this because it proves that Ruby#1 was not the same
man as Ruby#2, and neither one was Jack Ruby, who was not in the garage
during the televised spectacle.
What is that object?
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/does-sunglasses-ruby-have-something.html
I'm not ashamed to admit that the man with the sunglasses doesn't look
like Jack Ruby at all - to me. Also, the man in a white shirt standing up
straight in the room and looking toward the camera doesn't look like Jack
Ruby either (to me).
That noted, I just assume that it has been verified that the man wearing
sunglasses was indeed the shooter. It looks like it should be, but I
don't know about an official claim. Same goes for the man in the white
shirt in the room.
There are no sunglasses, Amy. It's just a shadow. Don't let yourself be
hoodwinked by Mr. Cinque.
Amy Joyce
2017-06-11 21:11:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Ralph Cinque
It appears that he did, and you can see it here.
"Ruby" in the garage, the one wearing sunglasses, appears to have a large
object under his left arm. I provide several images of it. I can't imagine
any alternative. But, the "Ruby" who rushed Oswald didn't have it. So,
what happened to it? Did he drop it? Then, why wasn't it found? And why
haven't we been talking about it for 53 years?
Better take a look at this because it proves that Ruby#1 was not the same
man as Ruby#2, and neither one was Jack Ruby, who was not in the garage
during the televised spectacle.
What is that object?
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/does-sunglasses-ruby-have-something.html
I'm not ashamed to admit that the man with the sunglasses doesn't look
like Jack Ruby at all - to me. Also, the man in a white shirt standing up
straight in the room and looking toward the camera doesn't look like Jack
Ruby either (to me).
That noted, I just assume that it has been verified that the man wearing
sunglasses was indeed the shooter. It looks like it should be, but I
don't know about an official claim. Same goes for the man in the white
shirt in the room.
There are no sunglasses, Amy. It's just a shadow. Don't let yourself be
hoodwinked by Mr. Cinque.
Whomever it is (sunglasses or not), it doesn't look like Ruby to me. I'm
not saying it isn't him though.

Was that Ruby/the shooter?

Btw, David. I love your website! I haven't even gotten through it all yet
but have spent hours looking through pictures, etc.
David Von Pein
2017-06-12 20:44:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Ralph Cinque
It appears that he did, and you can see it here.
"Ruby" in the garage, the one wearing sunglasses, appears to have a large
object under his left arm. I provide several images of it. I can't imagine
any alternative. But, the "Ruby" who rushed Oswald didn't have it. So,
what happened to it? Did he drop it? Then, why wasn't it found? And why
haven't we been talking about it for 53 years?
Better take a look at this because it proves that Ruby#1 was not the same
man as Ruby#2, and neither one was Jack Ruby, who was not in the garage
during the televised spectacle.
What is that object?
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/does-sunglasses-ruby-have-something.html
I'm not ashamed to admit that the man with the sunglasses doesn't look
like Jack Ruby at all - to me. Also, the man in a white shirt standing up
straight in the room and looking toward the camera doesn't look like Jack
Ruby either (to me).
That noted, I just assume that it has been verified that the man wearing
sunglasses was indeed the shooter. It looks like it should be, but I
don't know about an official claim. Same goes for the man in the white
shirt in the room.
There are no sunglasses, Amy. It's just a shadow. Don't let yourself be
hoodwinked by Mr. Cinque.
Whomever it is (sunglasses or not), it doesn't look like Ruby to me. I'm
not saying it isn't him though.
It looks exactly like Ruby. I can't even imagine how anyone can convince
themselves the third picture from the left *isn't* Jack Ruby. It looks
exactly like him (even though it's a blurry image)....

Loading Image...
Post by Amy Joyce
Was that Ruby/the shooter?
Yes. Ralph thinks the shadow around Ruby's eyes is a pair of sunglasses.
Of course, it's not sunglasses at all.
Post by Amy Joyce
Btw, David. I love your website! I haven't even gotten through it all yet
but have spent hours looking through pictures, etc.
Thank you, Amy!

FYI, here's my "Quick Find Site Guide":

https://www.blogger.com/profile/12501570830179992520
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-13 14:02:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In that case, you must be visually impaired, and/or impaired otherwise,
David. Look at it again. And this time, look at specifics. Look at the
distance between the sideburn and the ear, and compare to Ruby. And ignore
the first image on the left because I dispute that one two. So, use 2 and
4, from left to right. Can you see the difference. Now, look at the
vertical creases in the face of Sunglasses Ruby which you don't see on
Ruby. Then look at his nose. His nose was much more Roman than Ruby's,
meaning that it sloped down more. Ruby's nose had a higher pitch.

And regarding the shadows claim, it is ridiculous. An inky black disc
covering his entire eye? There is no object that could cast such a shadow.
It's fake. They put it in there. Nobody could duplicate that image.

Look, we have all been taking and looking at photographs our entire lives.
Has anyone ever had a photo taken in which his eye was completely
blackened out, like a blot of black ink? You know very well that has never
happened to you. So, why should we accept that it happened to Jack Ruby?

It is a monstrosity of an image is what it is, and there is none other
like it in the entire world of photography. And you need not cite any
image in which there is some shadow around the eye but of a far lesser
magnitude. The magnitude counts. The magnitude is the issue. Posit one
that is truly comparable to it in magnitude. I dare you to try to find
one.
Amy Joyce
2017-06-14 00:16:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Ralph Cinque
It appears that he did, and you can see it here.
"Ruby" in the garage, the one wearing sunglasses, appears to have a large
object under his left arm. I provide several images of it. I can't imagine
any alternative. But, the "Ruby" who rushed Oswald didn't have it. So,
what happened to it? Did he drop it? Then, why wasn't it found? And why
haven't we been talking about it for 53 years?
Better take a look at this because it proves that Ruby#1 was not the same
man as Ruby#2, and neither one was Jack Ruby, who was not in the garage
during the televised spectacle.
What is that object?
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/does-sunglasses-ruby-have-something.html
I'm not ashamed to admit that the man with the sunglasses doesn't look
like Jack Ruby at all - to me. Also, the man in a white shirt standing up
straight in the room and looking toward the camera doesn't look like Jack
Ruby either (to me).
That noted, I just assume that it has been verified that the man wearing
sunglasses was indeed the shooter. It looks like it should be, but I
don't know about an official claim. Same goes for the man in the white
shirt in the room.
There are no sunglasses, Amy. It's just a shadow. Don't let yourself be
hoodwinked by Mr. Cinque.
Whomever it is (sunglasses or not), it doesn't look like Ruby to me. I'm
not saying it isn't him though.
It looks exactly like Ruby. I can't even imagine how anyone can convince
themselves the third picture from the left *isn't* Jack Ruby. It looks
exactly like him (even though it's a blurry image)....
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BfvRL0X5yqM/WRi7JlTwE-I/AAAAAAABLxo/_JVwkix5Z1AE6YsC-mzCfkYhTrljuQ1UQCLcB/s1600/Jack-Ruby.png
Post by Amy Joyce
Was that Ruby/the shooter?
Yes. Ralph thinks the shadow around Ruby's eyes is a pair of sunglasses.
Of course, it's not sunglasses at all.
Post by Amy Joyce
Btw, David. I love your website! I haven't even gotten through it all yet
but have spent hours looking through pictures, etc.
Thank you, Amy!
https://www.blogger.com/profile/12501570830179992520
Comparing Ruby's mugshot with the man to his right (sunglasses or not):
Ruby's ear is different - it's rounder compared to the other's being more
rectangular. What strikes me as most different is the lack of hair next
to the other's ear.

In comparison, there is no gap of missing hair between Ruby's ear and his
sideburn. Also, Ruby's face is less drawn out and rounder; he looks
younger than the other man.

As far as sunglasses go, in the picture of the actual shooting I can see
what appears to be a pair of sunglasses in the shooter's jacket pocket.

Loading Image...

That's why I was asking if the man (with or without sunglasses) had been
officially verified as the shooter or not. It could be that he was
wearing sunglasses and stuffed them in his pocket just before the lunge
and shooting.

It's an odd situation. Many say that those weren't sunglasses but that he
had shadows around his eyes. Ralph said that they were sunglasses but that
he isn't the shooter anyway...right?

I think he could have been wearing sunglasses, and that he took them off
and then shot Oswald - if it's the same man. As far as I've seen on
videos, the camera moves and we can't tell FOR SURE that it was that man
doing the shooting. It seems odd that it wouldn't be, since they are
wearing the same hat.

I also compared "Ruby's shoes" that went on auction with the shooter's
shoes. They look the same to me.

Loading Image...

I don't agree with people just to be on one side or the other. I say what
I see. I could be wrong of course....we could all be wrong about various
things.
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-14 18:56:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Amy, the glasses of the shooter as seen in the Beers photo are no
sunglasses; they are clear-lens glasses. But otherwise, I agree with your
observations.

I maintain that sunglasses are the only reasonable explanation for what we
see on "Sunglasses Ruby" if what we're seeing is real. But, I believe it
isn't real, that the image was altered and made to look like that. Why?
Because the guy wasn't Jack Ruby. You noticed the gap between his sideburn
and his ear. That isn't even anatomical. Which is to say: nobody is built
like that. Try to find another image like it. I bet you can't. And look
how deformed his ear looks. It is a highly altered image. Not just altered
but highly altered. That guy was definitely not Jack Ruby, and he was
definitely not the Garage Shooter, who was James Bookhout.
Jason Burke
2017-06-15 02:59:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Amy, the glasses of the shooter as seen in the Beers photo are no
sunglasses; they are clear-lens glasses. But otherwise, I agree with your
observations.
I maintain that sunglasses are the only reasonable explanation for what we
see on "Sunglasses Ruby" if what we're seeing is real. But, I believe it
isn't real, that the image was altered and made to look like that.
THen why bring up the sunglasses at all, Ralph?
Post by Ralph Cinque
Why?
Because the guy wasn't Jack Ruby. You noticed the gap between his sideburn
and his ear. That isn't even anatomical. Which is to say: nobody is built
like that. Try to find another image like it. I bet you can't. And look
how deformed his ear looks. It is a highly altered image. Not just altered
but highly altered. That guy was definitely not Jack Ruby, and he was
definitely not the Garage Shooter, who was James Bookhout.
I can't believe even, uh, "Amy" is buying this crap.
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-09 20:20:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Amy, your instincts are right; neither one of them are Jack Ruby. And
please keep in mind that, according to the others here, those sunglasses
weren't sunglasses; it was just shadow. But, if you ask them what could
cast such a shadow, they don't know. Imagine if a picture was taken of
you, and it came out that way: with big black spheres over your eyes. And
somebody tried to tell you it was shadow. What would you tell them? You
might tell them: "I've had photos taken my whole life under all kinds of
conditions, and never before have such shadows occurred in a photo."

The guy in the white shirt with Detectives Boyd, Sims, and Hall was the
Garage Shooter. And nobody disputes that. In the garage, his face was
never seen, but there he is by the elevator with the three detectives
looking right at the camera. He is the garage shooter, but he is not Jack
Ruby. He is James Bookhout. He has James Bookhout's short height; James
Bookhout's short neck; James Bookhout's round face; and James Bookhout's
thick chest. We have compared that image to James Bookhout's yearbook
photos, and he is a spot-on match; just older. And I hope you'll keep
reading my blog because more comparisons are coming.
bpete1969
2017-06-10 12:49:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Amy, your instincts are right; neither one of them are Jack Ruby. And
please keep in mind that, according to the others here, those sunglasses
weren't sunglasses; it was just shadow. But, if you ask them what could
cast such a shadow, they don't know. Imagine if a picture was taken of
you, and it came out that way: with big black spheres over your eyes. And
somebody tried to tell you it was shadow. What would you tell them? You
might tell them: "I've had photos taken my whole life under all kinds of
conditions, and never before have such shadows occurred in a photo."
The guy in the white shirt with Detectives Boyd, Sims, and Hall was the
Garage Shooter. And nobody disputes that. In the garage, his face was
never seen, but there he is by the elevator with the three detectives
looking right at the camera. He is the garage shooter, but he is not Jack
Ruby. He is James Bookhout. He has James Bookhout's short height; James
Bookhout's short neck; James Bookhout's round face; and James Bookhout's
thick chest. We have compared that image to James Bookhout's yearbook
photos, and he is a spot-on match; just older. And I hope you'll keep
reading my blog because more comparisons are coming.
Amy. Raff* has had more theories shot down and debunked than anyone on
this thread. He first claimed that Oswald was in the doorway and that was
shot full of holes. he then claimed that the Altgens 6 photo was altered
and that was shot full of holes. He then claimed that nary Moorman didn't
take her famous photo and that was shot full of holes. He's now claiming
that Ruby didn't shoot Oswald, that Oswald wasn't shot in the garage
basement and that was shot full of more holes that Oswald.

I'm sure his next move is to offer you a senior membership in his little
box of wing nuts.
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-11 04:34:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Amy, don't listen to bpete. There is a lot I could tell you about him, and
I will if you write to me at ***@yahoo.com.

I wrote this article for people like you, that is, people with open eyes
and open minds.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/im-very-interested-in-talking-to-2-and.html

And by the way: Oswald most certainly WAS in the doorway. We can see him.
We can see his very distinctive clothing. And it has been proven beyond
the slightest doubt. And, the Altgens photo is one of the most altered
political photos of all time, and it may be the most altered. And Mary
Moorman did not take the photo known as the Moorman photo. And ask
youself: are you going to accept that the FBI "accidentally" got a white
thumbprint on the photo weeks after the assassination? The angle of the
photo is not right for Mary to have taken it. It was taken at a diagonal
angle from behind- the exact angle that Babushka Lady was to the limo. All
of that had been confirmed by a physics professor who has a specialty in
Optics.

Jack Ruby definitely did not shoot Oswald. Ruby wasn't even in the garage
at the time. The man who rushed Oswald and fired was FBI Agent James
Bookhout. Please read the article.
David Von Pein
2017-06-11 21:19:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Amy, don't listen to bpete. There is a lot I could tell you about him, and
I wrote this article for people like you, that is, people with open eyes
and open minds.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/im-very-interested-in-talking-to-2-and.html
And by the way: Oswald most certainly WAS in the doorway. We can see him.
We can see his very distinctive clothing. And it has been proven beyond
the slightest doubt. And, the Altgens photo is one of the most altered
political photos of all time, and it may be the most altered. And Mary
Moorman did not take the photo known as the Moorman photo. And ask
youself: are you going to accept that the FBI "accidentally" got a white
thumbprint on the photo weeks after the assassination? The angle of the
photo is not right for Mary to have taken it. It was taken at a diagonal
angle from behind- the exact angle that Babushka Lady was to the limo. All
of that had been confirmed by a physics professor who has a specialty in
Optics.
Jack Ruby definitely did not shoot Oswald. Ruby wasn't even in the garage
at the time. The man who rushed Oswald and fired was FBI Agent James
Bookhout. Please read the article.
Amy should read these items instead. Reality is much more convincing than
fantasy....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1247.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Ralph+Cinque
Jason Burke
2017-06-12 14:25:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Ralph Cinque
Amy, don't listen to bpete. There is a lot I could tell you about him, and
I wrote this article for people like you, that is, people with open eyes
and open minds.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/im-very-interested-in-talking-to-2-and.html
And by the way: Oswald most certainly WAS in the doorway. We can see him.
We can see his very distinctive clothing. And it has been proven beyond
the slightest doubt. And, the Altgens photo is one of the most altered
political photos of all time, and it may be the most altered. And Mary
Moorman did not take the photo known as the Moorman photo. And ask
youself: are you going to accept that the FBI "accidentally" got a white
thumbprint on the photo weeks after the assassination? The angle of the
photo is not right for Mary to have taken it. It was taken at a diagonal
angle from behind- the exact angle that Babushka Lady was to the limo. All
of that had been confirmed by a physics professor who has a specialty in
Optics.
Jack Ruby definitely did not shoot Oswald. Ruby wasn't even in the garage
at the time. The man who rushed Oswald and fired was FBI Agent James
Bookhout. Please read the article.
Amy should read these items instead. Reality is much more convincing than
fantasy....
But to some folks, not as much fun.
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1247.html
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Ralph+Cinque
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-11 04:37:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bpete1969
Post by Ralph Cinque
Amy, your instincts are right; neither one of them are Jack Ruby. And
please keep in mind that, according to the others here, those sunglasses
weren't sunglasses; it was just shadow. But, if you ask them what could
cast such a shadow, they don't know. Imagine if a picture was taken of
you, and it came out that way: with big black spheres over your eyes. And
somebody tried to tell you it was shadow. What would you tell them? You
might tell them: "I've had photos taken my whole life under all kinds of
conditions, and never before have such shadows occurred in a photo."
The guy in the white shirt with Detectives Boyd, Sims, and Hall was the
Garage Shooter. And nobody disputes that. In the garage, his face was
never seen, but there he is by the elevator with the three detectives
looking right at the camera. He is the garage shooter, but he is not Jack
Ruby. He is James Bookhout. He has James Bookhout's short height; James
Bookhout's short neck; James Bookhout's round face; and James Bookhout's
thick chest. We have compared that image to James Bookhout's yearbook
photos, and he is a spot-on match; just older. And I hope you'll keep
reading my blog because more comparisons are coming.
Amy. Raff* has had more theories shot down and debunked than anyone on
this thread. He first claimed that Oswald was in the doorway and that was
shot full of holes. he then claimed that the Altgens 6 photo was altered
and that was shot full of holes. He then claimed that nary Moorman didn't
take her famous photo and that was shot full of holes. He's now claiming
that Ruby didn't shoot Oswald, that Oswald wasn't shot in the garage
basement and that was shot full of more holes that Oswald.
That's nothing unusual for this place. Every time we shoot down the SBT
someone makes a new one. It's like Wackamole.
Post by bpete1969
I'm sure his next move is to offer you a senior membership in his little
box of wing nuts.
InsideSparta
2017-06-10 17:07:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Amy, your instincts are right; neither one of them are Jack Ruby. And
please keep in mind that, according to the others here, those sunglasses
weren't sunglasses; it was just shadow. But, if you ask them what could
cast such a shadow, they don't know. Imagine if a picture was taken of
you, and it came out that way: with big black spheres over your eyes. And
somebody tried to tell you it was shadow. What would you tell them? You
might tell them: "I've had photos taken my whole life under all kinds of
conditions, and never before have such shadows occurred in a photo."
The guy in the white shirt with Detectives Boyd, Sims, and Hall was the
Garage Shooter. And nobody disputes that. In the garage, his face was
never seen, but there he is by the elevator with the three detectives
looking right at the camera. He is the garage shooter, but he is not Jack
Ruby. He is James Bookhout. He has James Bookhout's short height; James
Bookhout's short neck; James Bookhout's round face; and James Bookhout's
thick chest. We have compared that image to James Bookhout's yearbook
photos, and he is a spot-on match; just older. And I hope you'll keep
reading my blog because more comparisons are coming.
Ralph, You claim that Ruby was already in the custody of the Dallas Police
at the time Oswald was shot, and that he was brought down and paraded as
the killer in the jail office after Bookhout was snuck out. So, if Ruby
was actually already in custody, how did he know that officer Sam Rio
Pierce had driven out of the garage basement in a police car one minute
before the shooting, through the entrance on Main Street, and stopped
outside the entrance to speak with the officer that was supposed to be
keeping anyone from entering the basement from Main Street? Only someone
that was actually there, outside the Main Street entrance, would know it
was Sam Rio Pierce, and that he had briefly stopped and spoken with the
other officer. How could Ruby have know that if he was already in custody?

Ruby explains his access into the basement, and that it was Sam Rio Pierce
in the car, during this interview at the 1:50 mark on this video....


You can see Sam Rio Pierce driving the car out of the garage via the Main
Street access, at the 12:10 mark of the KRLD video, (1 minute before the
shooting) on this link....
http://youtu.be/m5khMFFKslw

Explanation please.
InsideSparta
2017-06-11 23:38:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by InsideSparta
Post by Ralph Cinque
Amy, your instincts are right; neither one of them are Jack Ruby. And
please keep in mind that, according to the others here, those sunglasses
weren't sunglasses; it was just shadow. But, if you ask them what could
cast such a shadow, they don't know. Imagine if a picture was taken of
you, and it came out that way: with big black spheres over your eyes. And
somebody tried to tell you it was shadow. What would you tell them? You
might tell them: "I've had photos taken my whole life under all kinds of
conditions, and never before have such shadows occurred in a photo."
The guy in the white shirt with Detectives Boyd, Sims, and Hall was the
Garage Shooter. And nobody disputes that. In the garage, his face was
never seen, but there he is by the elevator with the three detectives
looking right at the camera. He is the garage shooter, but he is not Jack
Ruby. He is James Bookhout. He has James Bookhout's short height; James
Bookhout's short neck; James Bookhout's round face; and James Bookhout's
thick chest. We have compared that image to James Bookhout's yearbook
photos, and he is a spot-on match; just older. And I hope you'll keep
reading my blog because more comparisons are coming.
Ralph, You claim that Ruby was already in the custody of the Dallas Police
at the time Oswald was shot, and that he was brought down and paraded as
the killer in the jail office after Bookhout was snuck out. So, if Ruby
was actually already in custody, how did he know that officer Sam Rio
Pierce had driven out of the garage basement in a police car one minute
before the shooting, through the entrance on Main Street, and stopped
outside the entrance to speak with the officer that was supposed to be
keeping anyone from entering the basement from Main Street? Only someone
that was actually there, outside the Main Street entrance, would know it
was Sam Rio Pierce, and that he had briefly stopped and spoken with the
other officer. How could Ruby have know that if he was already in custody?
Ruby explains his access into the basement, and that it was Sam Rio Pierce
in the car, during this interview at the 1:50 mark on this video....
http://youtu.be/3mOyyPKMMHY
You can see Sam Rio Pierce driving the car out of the garage via the Main
Street access, at the 12:10 mark of the KRLD video, (1 minute before the
shooting) on this link....
http://youtu.be/m5khMFFKslw
Explanation please.
Crickets from Cirque du Cinque.

I guess if he doesn't have an answer, then his tactic is to ignore the
question entirely.
Jason Burke
2017-06-12 14:27:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by InsideSparta
Post by InsideSparta
Post by Ralph Cinque
Amy, your instincts are right; neither one of them are Jack Ruby. And
please keep in mind that, according to the others here, those sunglasses
weren't sunglasses; it was just shadow. But, if you ask them what could
cast such a shadow, they don't know. Imagine if a picture was taken of
you, and it came out that way: with big black spheres over your eyes. And
somebody tried to tell you it was shadow. What would you tell them? You
might tell them: "I've had photos taken my whole life under all kinds of
conditions, and never before have such shadows occurred in a photo."
The guy in the white shirt with Detectives Boyd, Sims, and Hall was the
Garage Shooter. And nobody disputes that. In the garage, his face was
never seen, but there he is by the elevator with the three detectives
looking right at the camera. He is the garage shooter, but he is not Jack
Ruby. He is James Bookhout. He has James Bookhout's short height; James
Bookhout's short neck; James Bookhout's round face; and James Bookhout's
thick chest. We have compared that image to James Bookhout's yearbook
photos, and he is a spot-on match; just older. And I hope you'll keep
reading my blog because more comparisons are coming.
Ralph, You claim that Ruby was already in the custody of the Dallas Police
at the time Oswald was shot, and that he was brought down and paraded as
the killer in the jail office after Bookhout was snuck out. So, if Ruby
was actually already in custody, how did he know that officer Sam Rio
Pierce had driven out of the garage basement in a police car one minute
before the shooting, through the entrance on Main Street, and stopped
outside the entrance to speak with the officer that was supposed to be
keeping anyone from entering the basement from Main Street? Only someone
that was actually there, outside the Main Street entrance, would know it
was Sam Rio Pierce, and that he had briefly stopped and spoken with the
other officer. How could Ruby have know that if he was already in custody?
Ruby explains his access into the basement, and that it was Sam Rio Pierce
in the car, during this interview at the 1:50 mark on this video....
http://youtu.be/3mOyyPKMMHY
You can see Sam Rio Pierce driving the car out of the garage via the Main
Street access, at the 12:10 mark of the KRLD video, (1 minute before the
shooting) on this link....
http://youtu.be/m5khMFFKslw
Explanation please.
Crickets from Cirque du Cinque.
I guess if he doesn't have an answer, then his tactic is to ignore the
question entirely.
Nah. Usually Ralph's tactic is to double down on silliness.
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-12 16:48:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
What are yous talking about? I have never disputed that. On the contrary,
I have always said that Ruby must have been telling the truth when he said
that he reached the garage through the Main Street ramp because he
identified Sam Pierce.

But, IT WAS EARLIER that it happened! In his testimony to the Warren
Commission, Ruby said that he was at the WU office at 10:15. He was
quickly corrected by a Secret Service agent, and he didn't dispute it, but
even so. That's what happened; Ruby was correct, although I can't be sure
of the exact time.

So, there was a separate incident with Ruby in the garage, earlier, with
no cameras present, and probably a completely different group of people
because Ruby didn't recognize anyone. They pounced upon him, dragged him
away, and told him that he shot Oswald. They took him up to the 5th floor,
and that is where he was when they got everything ready for the televised
spectacle. And after it, they had Ruby at hand in the jail office, ready
to be filmed in the aftermath. That was the "switch" in the bait and
switch when they inserted him into the story- for the first time. They
just made the mistake of leaving his jacket upstairs when he should have
been wearing it.
Jason Burke
2017-06-13 01:34:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
What are yous talking about? I have never disputed that. On the contrary,
I have always said that Ruby must have been telling the truth when he said
that he reached the garage through the Main Street ramp because he
identified Sam Pierce.
But, IT WAS EARLIER that it happened! In his testimony to the Warren
Commission, Ruby said that he was at the WU office at 10:15. He was
quickly corrected by a Secret Service agent, and he didn't dispute it, but
even so. That's what happened; Ruby was correct, although I can't be sure
of the exact time.
So, there was a separate incident with Ruby in the garage, earlier, with
no cameras present, and probably a completely different group of people
because Ruby didn't recognize anyone. They pounced upon him, dragged him
away, and told him that he shot Oswald. They took him up to the 5th floor,
and that is where he was when they got everything ready for the televised
spectacle. And after it, they had Ruby at hand in the jail office, ready
to be filmed in the aftermath. That was the "switch" in the bait and
switch when they inserted him into the story- for the first time. They
just made the mistake of leaving his jacket upstairs when he should have
been wearing it.
What the hell are you talking about, Ralph?
Do *you* even know any more, Ralph?
InsideSparta
2017-06-13 18:41:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
What are yous talking about? I have never disputed that. On the contrary,
I have always said that Ruby must have been telling the truth when he said
that he reached the garage through the Main Street ramp because he
identified Sam Pierce.
But, IT WAS EARLIER that it happened! In his testimony to the Warren
Commission, Ruby said that he was at the WU office at 10:15. He was
quickly corrected by a Secret Service agent, and he didn't dispute it, but
even so. That's what happened; Ruby was correct, although I can't be sure
of the exact time.
So, there was a separate incident with Ruby in the garage, earlier, with
no cameras present, and probably a completely different group of people
because Ruby didn't recognize anyone. They pounced upon him, dragged him
away, and told him that he shot Oswald. They took him up to the 5th floor,
and that is where he was when they got everything ready for the televised
spectacle. And after it, they had Ruby at hand in the jail office, ready
to be filmed in the aftermath. That was the "switch" in the bait and
switch when they inserted him into the story- for the first time. They
just made the mistake of leaving his jacket upstairs when he should have
been wearing it.
Ralph, You've just painted yourself in a corner. Lieutenant Pierce only
drove out via the Main Street ramp one time, and that was one minute
before Oswald was shot. Officer Roy Vaughan, who was guarding the Main
Street ramp for nearly two hours prior to the shooting stated that Pierce
drove out via that ramp one time, and he testified that it was less that
three minutes before the shooting. This is corroborated by the KRLD video,
which shows Pierce driving out one minute before Oswald was shot.
Additionally, it would have been extremely unlikely for anyone to exit the
basement garage via Main Street an hour before the shooting, because the
Main Street ramp was the entrance ramp. The exit ramp for the basement was
via Commerce Street, on the opposite side. The only reason Lieutenant
Pierce exited via the Main Street ramp was because the normal exit ramp,
via Commerce, was blocked by the armored vehicle. The armored vehicle had
only been placed in front of the Commerce Street exit 15 minutes before
the shooting, which is also corroborated by the KRLD video. Anyone leaving
the garage prior to 11:00 AM would have exited via the Commerce ramp, not
via the entrance ramp on Main. Your entire theory of Ruby entering the
garage an hour earlier is a bunch of hooey, and falls completely apart
when the real evidence is compared to your fairy tale. Time to cut your
loss on this one, and find another fable to champion.
Mark OBLAZNEY
2017-06-14 00:20:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by InsideSparta
Post by Ralph Cinque
What are yous talking about? I have never disputed that. On the contrary,
I have always said that Ruby must have been telling the truth when he said
that he reached the garage through the Main Street ramp because he
identified Sam Pierce.
But, IT WAS EARLIER that it happened! In his testimony to the Warren
Commission, Ruby said that he was at the WU office at 10:15. He was
quickly corrected by a Secret Service agent, and he didn't dispute it, but
even so. That's what happened; Ruby was correct, although I can't be sure
of the exact time.
So, there was a separate incident with Ruby in the garage, earlier, with
no cameras present, and probably a completely different group of people
because Ruby didn't recognize anyone. They pounced upon him, dragged him
away, and told him that he shot Oswald. They took him up to the 5th floor,
and that is where he was when they got everything ready for the televised
spectacle. And after it, they had Ruby at hand in the jail office, ready
to be filmed in the aftermath. That was the "switch" in the bait and
switch when they inserted him into the story- for the first time. They
just made the mistake of leaving his jacket upstairs when he should have
been wearing it.
Ralph, You've just painted yourself in a corner. Lieutenant Pierce only
drove out via the Main Street ramp one time, and that was one minute
before Oswald was shot. Officer Roy Vaughan, who was guarding the Main
Street ramp for nearly two hours prior to the shooting stated that Pierce
drove out via that ramp one time, and he testified that it was less that
three minutes before the shooting. This is corroborated by the KRLD video,
which shows Pierce driving out one minute before Oswald was shot.
Additionally, it would have been extremely unlikely for anyone to exit the
basement garage via Main Street an hour before the shooting, because the
Main Street ramp was the entrance ramp. The exit ramp for the basement was
via Commerce Street, on the opposite side. The only reason Lieutenant
Pierce exited via the Main Street ramp was because the normal exit ramp,
via Commerce, was blocked by the armored vehicle. The armored vehicle had
only been placed in front of the Commerce Street exit 15 minutes before
the shooting, which is also corroborated by the KRLD video. Anyone leaving
the garage prior to 11:00 AM would have exited via the Commerce ramp, not
via the entrance ramp on Main. Your entire theory of Ruby entering the
garage an hour earlier is a bunch of hooey, and falls completely apart
when the real evidence is compared to your fairy tale. Time to cut your
loss on this one, and find another fable to champion.
Time to find another hobby, Ralph. I'll take over the reins for you,
though, while you're looking.
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-14 14:37:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
The singing and piano playing are my hobby. This is now my vocation.
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-14 02:57:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Sparta, Let's start with the Main Street ramp being Entrance only.
Therefore, why were there people milling around there? Were they waiting
to watch someone pull in? It wasn't going to be Oswald. So who? The fact
is: they had no reason to be there; no purpose at all. Yet, Ruby cited
them as the reason he went there. He said he saw the crowd gathered there,
and it raised his curiosity.

So, you figure that Ruby went there; saw Vaughan (didn't know his name but
saw him) and saw Pierce, but they didn't see him? Even though this was a
day of extremely high security, that despite all the preparations, that
just as luck would have it, Ruby walked by two policemen who just didn't
see him. Drat. Of all the luck. But, these things happen. What can you do?

It would have been no more unlikely for someone to exit the Main Street
ramp an hour before. Why?

You do understand, don't you, that I accuse the Dallas PD of killing
Oswald, framing Ruby, and lying about everything. And you also understand,
that I have already caught Dallas PD cops in multiple lies. Leavelle lied
his head off- on the day it happened, at Ruby's trial, and ever since in
the cottage industry he has going. He even made it that they came out
through the double doors. Graves lied in saying that Oswald's hands were
cuffed together. Check the Jackson photo because it proves otherwise. And
Combest lied in being the only one to claim that Oswald communicated
inside the jail office, that he nodded his head yes and no to respond to
questions. Everyone else testified that Oswald was absolutely unconscious
and unresponsive, as you would expect someone with a blown-out aorta to
be. So, that's 3 lying cops right there. And it's unequivocal that they
lied. Therefore, why should I believe anything that Vaughan and Pierce
said? I think they deliberately let Ruby into the garage. And what you
call real evidence is concocted evidence. This was a scheme of the Dallas
PD and the FBI to kill Oswald and make Ruby the patsy for it. I repeat,
Sparta: Ruby showed up early, probably the better part of an hour early,
and he had his excitement in the garage then. He recognized no one down
there. He was supposedly standing right next to Blackie Harrison but
didn't recognize him? He had given his business card to Ike Pappas on
Friday night, and he didn't recognize him. He had had 3 encounters with
Hugh Aynesworth that very weekend, and he didn't recognize him. Pierce was
the only one he recognized. So, those others must have not been there when
Ruby went there and had his altercation with police. Ruby's drama came
first; he was taken up to the 5th floor; then came the big televised
spectacle with James Bookhout filling in for him. Then, they made sure to
have Ruby down in the jail office for the post shooting wrap-up, where
they made it look like he was being brought in for the first time. Except:
they forgot about his jacket, which they left up on the 5th floor. And
that's why we see him in just a shirt. There is no other plausible
explanation, despite David Von Pein's sorry and pathetic attempts to
produce one.
InsideSparta
2017-06-14 19:00:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Sparta, Let's start with the Main Street ramp being Entrance only.
Therefore, why were there people milling around there? Were they waiting
to watch someone pull in? It wasn't going to be Oswald. So who? The fact
is: they had no reason to be there; no purpose at all. Yet, Ruby cited
them as the reason he went there. He said he saw the crowd gathered there,
and it raised his curiosity.
So, you figure that Ruby went there; saw Vaughan (didn't know his name but
saw him) and saw Pierce, but they didn't see him? Even though this was a
day of extremely high security, that despite all the preparations, that
just as luck would have it, Ruby walked by two policemen who just didn't
see him. Drat. Of all the luck. But, these things happen. What can you do?
It would have been no more unlikely for someone to exit the Main Street
ramp an hour before. Why?
You do understand, don't you, that I accuse the Dallas PD of killing
Oswald, framing Ruby, and lying about everything. And you also understand,
that I have already caught Dallas PD cops in multiple lies. Leavelle lied
his head off- on the day it happened, at Ruby's trial, and ever since in
the cottage industry he has going. He even made it that they came out
through the double doors. Graves lied in saying that Oswald's hands were
cuffed together. Check the Jackson photo because it proves otherwise. And
Combest lied in being the only one to claim that Oswald communicated
inside the jail office, that he nodded his head yes and no to respond to
questions. Everyone else testified that Oswald was absolutely unconscious
and unresponsive, as you would expect someone with a blown-out aorta to
be. So, that's 3 lying cops right there. And it's unequivocal that they
lied. Therefore, why should I believe anything that Vaughan and Pierce
said? I think they deliberately let Ruby into the garage. And what you
call real evidence is concocted evidence. This was a scheme of the Dallas
PD and the FBI to kill Oswald and make Ruby the patsy for it. I repeat,
Sparta: Ruby showed up early, probably the better part of an hour early,
and he had his excitement in the garage then. He recognized no one down
there. He was supposedly standing right next to Blackie Harrison but
didn't recognize him? He had given his business card to Ike Pappas on
Friday night, and he didn't recognize him. He had had 3 encounters with
Hugh Aynesworth that very weekend, and he didn't recognize him. Pierce was
the only one he recognized. So, those others must have not been there when
Ruby went there and had his altercation with police. Ruby's drama came
first; he was taken up to the 5th floor; then came the big televised
spectacle with James Bookhout filling in for him. Then, they made sure to
have Ruby down in the jail office for the post shooting wrap-up, where
they forgot about his jacket, which they left up on the 5th floor. And
that's why we see him in just a shirt. There is no other plausible
explanation, despite David Von Pein's sorry and pathetic attempts to
produce one.
And here's where you fantasy falls apart. There's no evidence whatsoever
that Ruby showed up at the garage an hour earlier. In fact, the time stamp
on the Western Union $25 money order he sent to Karen Carlin (aka Little
Lynn) in Ft. Worth that morning was time stamped at 11:17 AM 11/24//63. By
your theory, Ruby was already in custody, yet the physical evidence and
witness testimony proves he was in the Western Union office at 11:17. You
desperately want to believe that Officer Vaughan and Lieutenant Pierce
lied about when Pierce drove out of the garage via the Main Street ramp,
but the video evidence corroborates their testimony that Pierce drove out
one minute before the shooting, not an hour before it. If Vaughan, as you
say, lied in his testimony, why was he reprimanded by the Dallas Police
Department immediately after 11/24/63. After all, if he purposely let Ruby
into the garage, he would have been doing exactly what his superiors
wanted. You "think they (Pierce and Vaughan) deliberately let Ruby into
the garage", but you have absolutely evidence whatsoever to back that
claim up. You think James Bookhout shot Oswald, but you have no credible
evidence to back that theory up. I'm sorry, but neck hair images and
questions about how his jacket managed to get pulled off in the scuffle is
not credible evidence. Heck, you can't even prove what James Bookhout's
real height was. I'm not trying to be mean, but you're the worst kind of
Conspiracy Theorist there is. You take blurry images, misstatements, and
poor recollections and try and twist them into real evidence of
conspiracy. Your theories are so far off the mark from reality you give
CT's a bad name. When presented with real physical evidence and
corroborating eyewitness sworn testimony, you throw it all out as forgery
and lies, because it doesn't support your twisted narrative; this despite
having no credible scientific analysis that has concluded photos and films
were forged, and no credible evidence whatsoever that the Dallas PD
conspired to murder Oswald. You're whole Bookhout shot Oswald theory just
got blown apart because you admitted that Ruby entered the garage via Main
Street, and the evidence clearly shows he did so one minute before the
shooting, which means he couldn't have been, as you've stated, already in
custody, up on the 5th floor. All this malarkey about Ruby's jacket, and a
90+ Jim Leavelle's mistake about the double doors being in place on
11/24/63 is now just deflection and grasping for straws on your part
because it's been proven in this thread and others that the Bookhout
theory is a load of baloney, dreamt up by someone that likes to draw
attention on themselves by making the most outlandish accusations. You
know exactly who that someone is. The Bookhout theory is DOA.
Jason Burke
2017-06-15 02:59:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by InsideSparta
Post by Ralph Cinque
Sparta, Let's start with the Main Street ramp being Entrance only.
Therefore, why were there people milling around there? Were they waiting
to watch someone pull in? It wasn't going to be Oswald. So who? The fact
is: they had no reason to be there; no purpose at all. Yet, Ruby cited
them as the reason he went there. He said he saw the crowd gathered there,
and it raised his curiosity.
So, you figure that Ruby went there; saw Vaughan (didn't know his name but
saw him) and saw Pierce, but they didn't see him? Even though this was a
day of extremely high security, that despite all the preparations, that
just as luck would have it, Ruby walked by two policemen who just didn't
see him. Drat. Of all the luck. But, these things happen. What can you do?
It would have been no more unlikely for someone to exit the Main Street
ramp an hour before. Why?
You do understand, don't you, that I accuse the Dallas PD of killing
Oswald, framing Ruby, and lying about everything. And you also understand,
that I have already caught Dallas PD cops in multiple lies. Leavelle lied
his head off- on the day it happened, at Ruby's trial, and ever since in
the cottage industry he has going. He even made it that they came out
through the double doors. Graves lied in saying that Oswald's hands were
cuffed together. Check the Jackson photo because it proves otherwise. And
Combest lied in being the only one to claim that Oswald communicated
inside the jail office, that he nodded his head yes and no to respond to
questions. Everyone else testified that Oswald was absolutely unconscious
and unresponsive, as you would expect someone with a blown-out aorta to
be. So, that's 3 lying cops right there. And it's unequivocal that they
lied. Therefore, why should I believe anything that Vaughan and Pierce
said? I think they deliberately let Ruby into the garage. And what you
call real evidence is concocted evidence. This was a scheme of the Dallas
PD and the FBI to kill Oswald and make Ruby the patsy for it. I repeat,
Sparta: Ruby showed up early, probably the better part of an hour early,
and he had his excitement in the garage then. He recognized no one down
there. He was supposedly standing right next to Blackie Harrison but
didn't recognize him? He had given his business card to Ike Pappas on
Friday night, and he didn't recognize him. He had had 3 encounters with
Hugh Aynesworth that very weekend, and he didn't recognize him. Pierce was
the only one he recognized. So, those others must have not been there when
Ruby went there and had his altercation with police. Ruby's drama came
first; he was taken up to the 5th floor; then came the big televised
spectacle with James Bookhout filling in for him. Then, they made sure to
have Ruby down in the jail office for the post shooting wrap-up, where
they forgot about his jacket, which they left up on the 5th floor. And
that's why we see him in just a shirt. There is no other plausible
explanation, despite David Von Pein's sorry and pathetic attempts to
produce one.
And here's where you fantasy falls apart. There's no evidence whatsoever
that Ruby showed up at the garage an hour earlier. In fact, the time stamp
on the Western Union $25 money order he sent to Karen Carlin (aka Little
Lynn) in Ft. Worth that morning was time stamped at 11:17 AM 11/24//63. By
your theory, Ruby was already in custody, yet the physical evidence and
witness testimony proves he was in the Western Union office at 11:17. You
desperately want to believe that Officer Vaughan and Lieutenant Pierce
lied about when Pierce drove out of the garage via the Main Street ramp,
but the video evidence corroborates their testimony that Pierce drove out
one minute before the shooting, not an hour before it. If Vaughan, as you
say, lied in his testimony, why was he reprimanded by the Dallas Police
Department immediately after 11/24/63. After all, if he purposely let Ruby
into the garage, he would have been doing exactly what his superiors
wanted. You "think they (Pierce and Vaughan) deliberately let Ruby into
the garage", but you have absolutely evidence whatsoever to back that
claim up. You think James Bookhout shot Oswald, but you have no credible
evidence to back that theory up. I'm sorry, but neck hair images and
questions about how his jacket managed to get pulled off in the scuffle is
not credible evidence. Heck, you can't even prove what James Bookhout's
real height was. I'm not trying to be mean, but you're the worst kind of
Conspiracy Theorist there is. You take blurry images, misstatements, and
poor recollections and try and twist them into real evidence of
conspiracy. Your theories are so far off the mark from reality you give
CT's a bad name. When presented with real physical evidence and
corroborating eyewitness sworn testimony, you throw it all out as forgery
and lies, because it doesn't support your twisted narrative; this despite
having no credible scientific analysis that has concluded photos and films
were forged, and no credible evidence whatsoever that the Dallas PD
conspired to murder Oswald. You're whole Bookhout shot Oswald theory just
got blown apart because you admitted that Ruby entered the garage via Main
Street, and the evidence clearly shows he did so one minute before the
shooting, which means he couldn't have been, as you've stated, already in
custody, up on the 5th floor. All this malarkey about Ruby's jacket, and a
90+ Jim Leavelle's mistake about the double doors being in place on
11/24/63 is now just deflection and grasping for straws on your part
because it's been proven in this thread and others that the Bookhout
theory is a load of baloney, dreamt up by someone that likes to draw
attention on themselves by making the most outlandish accusations. You
know exactly who that someone is. The Bookhout theory is DOA.
Pretty much *everything* Ralph's ever said on this matter has been DOA.
In fact, dead within a second of Ralph making it up.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-15 16:42:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by InsideSparta
Post by Ralph Cinque
Sparta, Let's start with the Main Street ramp being Entrance only.
Therefore, why were there people milling around there? Were they waiting
to watch someone pull in? It wasn't going to be Oswald. So who? The fact
is: they had no reason to be there; no purpose at all. Yet, Ruby cited
them as the reason he went there. He said he saw the crowd gathered there,
and it raised his curiosity.
So, you figure that Ruby went there; saw Vaughan (didn't know his name but
saw him) and saw Pierce, but they didn't see him? Even though this was a
day of extremely high security, that despite all the preparations, that
just as luck would have it, Ruby walked by two policemen who just didn't
see him. Drat. Of all the luck. But, these things happen. What can you do?
It would have been no more unlikely for someone to exit the Main Street
ramp an hour before. Why?
You do understand, don't you, that I accuse the Dallas PD of killing
Oswald, framing Ruby, and lying about everything. And you also understand,
that I have already caught Dallas PD cops in multiple lies. Leavelle lied
his head off- on the day it happened, at Ruby's trial, and ever since in
the cottage industry he has going. He even made it that they came out
through the double doors. Graves lied in saying that Oswald's hands were
cuffed together. Check the Jackson photo because it proves otherwise. And
Combest lied in being the only one to claim that Oswald communicated
inside the jail office, that he nodded his head yes and no to respond to
questions. Everyone else testified that Oswald was absolutely unconscious
and unresponsive, as you would expect someone with a blown-out aorta to
be. So, that's 3 lying cops right there. And it's unequivocal that they
lied. Therefore, why should I believe anything that Vaughan and Pierce
said? I think they deliberately let Ruby into the garage. And what you
call real evidence is concocted evidence. This was a scheme of the Dallas
PD and the FBI to kill Oswald and make Ruby the patsy for it. I repeat,
Sparta: Ruby showed up early, probably the better part of an hour early,
and he had his excitement in the garage then. He recognized no one down
there. He was supposedly standing right next to Blackie Harrison but
didn't recognize him? He had given his business card to Ike Pappas on
Friday night, and he didn't recognize him. He had had 3 encounters with
Hugh Aynesworth that very weekend, and he didn't recognize him. Pierce was
the only one he recognized. So, those others must have not been there when
Ruby went there and had his altercation with police. Ruby's drama came
first; he was taken up to the 5th floor; then came the big televised
spectacle with James Bookhout filling in for him. Then, they made sure to
have Ruby down in the jail office for the post shooting wrap-up, where
they forgot about his jacket, which they left up on the 5th floor. And
that's why we see him in just a shirt. There is no other plausible
explanation, despite David Von Pein's sorry and pathetic attempts to
produce one.
And here's where you fantasy falls apart. There's no evidence whatsoever
that Ruby showed up at the garage an hour earlier. In fact, the time stamp
on the Western Union $25 money order he sent to Karen Carlin (aka Little
Lynn) in Ft. Worth that morning was time stamped at 11:17 AM 11/24//63. By
your theory, Ruby was already in custody, yet the physical evidence and
OK, just for fun, prove that the time stamp was 100% accurate. Did they
set their clock by the Atomic Clock. The clock in our building is always
3 minutes fast.
Post by InsideSparta
witness testimony proves he was in the Western Union office at 11:17. You
desperately want to believe that Officer Vaughan and Lieutenant Pierce
lied about when Pierce drove out of the garage via the Main Street ramp,
but the video evidence corroborates their testimony that Pierce drove out
one minute before the shooting, not an hour before it. If Vaughan, as you
say, lied in his testimony, why was he reprimanded by the Dallas Police
Department immediately after 11/24/63. After all, if he purposely let Ruby
into the garage, he would have been doing exactly what his superiors
wanted. You "think they (Pierce and Vaughan) deliberately let Ruby into
the garage", but you have absolutely evidence whatsoever to back that
claim up. You think James Bookhout shot Oswald, but you have no credible
evidence to back that theory up. I'm sorry, but neck hair images and
questions about how his jacket managed to get pulled off in the scuffle is
not credible evidence. Heck, you can't even prove what James Bookhout's
real height was. I'm not trying to be mean, but you're the worst kind of
Conspiracy Theorist there is. You take blurry images, misstatements, and
poor recollections and try and twist them into real evidence of
conspiracy. Your theories are so far off the mark from reality you give
CT's a bad name. When presented with real physical evidence and
corroborating eyewitness sworn testimony, you throw it all out as forgery
and lies, because it doesn't support your twisted narrative; this despite
having no credible scientific analysis that has concluded photos and films
were forged, and no credible evidence whatsoever that the Dallas PD
conspired to murder Oswald. You're whole Bookhout shot Oswald theory just
got blown apart because you admitted that Ruby entered the garage via Main
Street, and the evidence clearly shows he did so one minute before the
shooting, which means he couldn't have been, as you've stated, already in
custody, up on the 5th floor. All this malarkey about Ruby's jacket, and a
90+ Jim Leavelle's mistake about the double doors being in place on
11/24/63 is now just deflection and grasping for straws on your part
because it's been proven in this thread and others that the Bookhout
theory is a load of baloney, dreamt up by someone that likes to draw
attention on themselves by making the most outlandish accusations. You
know exactly who that someone is. The Bookhout theory is DOA.
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-15 16:47:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Images for the following are here:

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/insidesparta-200-pm-1-hour-ago-show.html

You want to talk time stamps, do you? Ruby's receipt got stamped before
the wire was even sent. The time of the wire transfer was in the minute
after the time of the receipt. And that is ridiculous. Of course the
receipt would be the last thing issued and stamped. Phony
pKvMKkwvmc&t=251s


And I don't doubt that Pierce drove out a minute before the shooting, but
it was his second trip. He was also there when Ruby showed up, which was
earlier.

This is the space occupied by two cops and a police car, and they didn't
notice Ruby go in.


Again: two cops and a squad car in the space, and Ruby got past them. And
he said, incidentally, that he did not try to be evasive. He didn't sneak
in.

And what about the other spectators who were here? Why didn't they say
anything, such as to Ruby, "Hey, Buddy, you can't go down there." Or to
Vaughan, 'Hey, Officer, that guy is going down there."

No civic-minded people there, huh?

The fact is that there was a cop there assigned to keep people out, and
then another cop showed up in a cop car, and Jack Ruby was able to enter.
Perhaps you are content to just call it incompetence. But, I think an 80
year old WalMart greeter could have kept anyone from entering that
ramp.

And neck hair images count as much as anything else. If a physical
feature, any physical feature, is different, then it rules out the two
images being of the same man. It's what I call a deal-breaker. And the
neck hair difference is a deal-breaker.


That is a night and day difference, and if you're willing to shrug your
shoulders at it, it reveal a lot- about you.

Sworn testimony? You figure people don't lie when they're sworn in, do
you? Above, look at the distance between his sideburn and his ear on the
left. Now look at the Ruby on the right. That's another deal-breaker, and
keep in mind that only one is required.

Ruby definitely was already in custody up on the 5th floor during the
televised spectacle. And that's why his jacket is missing because they
left it up there. It's the only place it could have been. They did not
start disrobing him in the jail office. Repeat: they did NOT start to
undress him in the jail office. And the sworn testimony supports that.

Ruby arrived earlier and was disposed of quickly, rushing him up to the
5th floor. Then they brought him back down to walk in front of the camera.
It was his first appearance before the camera.



James Bookhout was most certainly short, and his own testimony supports
it. And it's one of those things that is a matter of fact. Do you think
that if his son Jim Bookhout was sworn in on the witness stand, and
opposing counsel asked him, "how tall was your father?" that he's going to
lie about it? And not everybody is a good liar.

This scenario, that Ruby got there early, was arrested early and was up on
the 5th floor at the time of the shooting, is supported by the objective
evidence, such as the image above. And you have cited nothing to disprove
it. Paperwork it the easiest thing in the world to fake.

And regarding Leavelle and his lies, he lied on Day 1, the day it happened.
You can listen to him lie here. He stated that he saw Ruby in advance, ID'd
him as Ruby, saw his pistol, jerked Oswald and turned him, and shoved at
Ruby. All lies. Leavelle did not react in any way until after the shot.



How far are you going to go with that Oblazney? How long are you going to
keep it up?
InsideSparta
2017-06-16 23:27:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/insidesparta-200-pm-1-hour-ago-show.html
You want to talk time stamps, do you? Ruby's receipt got stamped before
the wire was even sent. The time of the wire transfer was in the minute
after the time of the receipt. And that is ridiculous. Of course the
receipt would be the last thing issued and stamped. Phony
pKvMKkwvmc&t=251s
The fact remains, there was money wire transfer made from the Main Street
Western Union office at approximately 11:15 that morning to Karen Carlin
in Ft Worth, after Carlin had requested Ruby to send it to her both the
night before and earlier that morning. Ruby was identified as the person
who wired the money, and he had the receipt on him when arrested. Hard to
get better evidence than that.
Post by Ralph Cinque
And I don't doubt that Pierce drove out a minute before the shooting, but
it was his second trip. He was also there when Ruby showed up, which was
earlier.
Explain why Pierce would have been driving out of the garage via the
entrance ramp an hour before the shooting when he was given the assignment
to secure the garage. Where would he have been going to? Why would he have
left via the entrance ramp. Better yet, please provide your evidence that
Pierce left in a car an hour before the shooting.
Post by Ralph Cinque
This is the space occupied by two cops and a police car, and they didn't
notice Ruby go in.
Officer Vaughan testified that he walked out to the sidewalk. He certainly
wasn't standing in the entrance doorway while the police car was leaving.
Post by Ralph Cinque
Again: two cops and a squad car in the space, and Ruby got past them. And
he said, incidentally, that he did not try to be evasive. He didn't sneak
in.
And what about the other spectators who were here? Why didn't they say
anything, such as to Ruby, "Hey, Buddy, you can't go down there." Or to
Vaughan, 'Hey, Officer, that guy is going down there."
It any of the other people standing outside the Main Street entrance
noticed Ruby entering, they very likely would have assumed he was a
detective, which is what the reporters down in the basement thought when
he got down there.
Post by Ralph Cinque
No civic-minded people there, huh?
The fact is that there was a cop there assigned to keep people out, and
then another cop showed up in a cop car, and Jack Ruby was able to enter.
Perhaps you are content to just call it incompetence. But, I think an 80
year old WalMart greeter could have kept anyone from entering that
ramp.
And neck hair images count as much as anything else. If a physical
feature, any physical feature, is different, then it rules out the two
images being of the same man. It's what I call a deal-breaker. And the
neck hair difference is a deal-breaker.
Neck hair images do not count as much as the sworn testimony of
eyewitnesses, the video and film footage, the ballistic evidence, and the
admission of guilt on the part of Ruby. So many of the facts in this case
corroborate the testimony of the eyewitnesses. You're literately grasping
at hairs to support your theory.
Post by Ralph Cinque
That is a night and day difference, and if you're willing to shrug your
shoulders at it, it reveal a lot- about you.
And you ignoring the actual facts and evidence in the case says a lot
about you.
Post by Ralph Cinque
Sworn testimony? You figure people don't lie when they're sworn in, do
you? Above, look at the distance between his sideburn and his ear on the
left. Now look at the Ruby on the right. That's another deal-breaker, and
keep in mind that only one is required.
So you contend that Lieutenant Pierce and Officer Vaughan both lied during
their sworn testimonies to the WC. What evidence do you have that they
lied? What history do either of them have in which anyone could therefore
come to the conclusion that they lied to WC. Any perjury charges or
convictions? Nope. The fact is you call them liars not because you have
any evidence that they lied; but because their testimony doesn't fit the
narrative you've dreamed up. And please explain why the DPD reprimanded
Vaughan for not better securing the Main Street entrance to the garage. In
your fairytale his superiors at the DPD wanted him to let Ruby in the
garage, and then lie about it. If he followed those orders, why was he
reprimanded?
Post by Ralph Cinque
Ruby definitely was already in custody up on the 5th floor during the
televised spectacle. And that's why his jacket is missing because they
left it up there. It's the only place it could have been. They did not
start disrobing him in the jail office. Repeat: they did NOT start to
undress him in the jail office. And the sworn testimony supports that.
Ruby arrived earlier and was disposed of quickly, rushing him up to the
5th floor. Then they brought him back down to walk in front of the camera.
It was his first appearance before the camera.
Again, you have absolutely no credible evidence that Jack Ruby entered the
garage before 11:20 AM that morning. None. Zero. Zippo. In reality, all of
the evidence supports the fact that he entered one minute before the
shooting.

You're just a modern day muckraker; one that likes to draw attention to
himself by making outlandish claims without any real evidence to back them
up. You're even willing to call public servants liars and cold blooded
murderers without any evidence to back that up. That's not only sick, it's
pathetic.
Post by Ralph Cinque
James Bookhout was most certainly short, and his own testimony supports
it. And it's one of those things that is a matter of fact. Do you think
that if his son Jim Bookhout was sworn in on the witness stand, and
opposing counsel asked him, "how tall was your father?" that he's going to
lie about it? And not everybody is a good liar.
This scenario, that Ruby got there early, was arrested early and was up on
the 5th floor at the time of the shooting, is supported by the objective
evidence, such as the image above. And you have cited nothing to disprove
it. Paperwork it the easiest thing in the world to fake.
And regarding Leavelle and his lies, he lied on Day 1, the day it happened.
You can listen to him lie here. He stated that he saw Ruby in advance, ID'd
him as Ruby, saw his pistol, jerked Oswald and turned him, and shoved at
Ruby. All lies. Leavelle did not react in any way until after the shot.
http://youtu.be/
How far are you going to go with that Oblazney? How long are you going to
keep it up?
Come back to this subject when you have some real evidence.
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-20 01:49:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by InsideSparta
The fact remains, there was money wire transfer made from the Main Street
Western Union office at approximately 11:15 that morning to Karen Carlin
in Ft Worth, after Carlin had requested Ruby to send it to her both the
night before and earlier that morning. Ruby was identified as the person
who wired the money, and he had the receipt on him when arrested. Hard to
get better evidence than that.
Considering the magnitude of the scheme I'm saying it was- that FBI Agent
James Bookhout was impersonating Ruby for cameras in a staged spectacle-
phonying up the paperwork at WU would have been the easiest thing in the
world. I do NOT recognize the legitimacy of that phony evidence, and I do
not have to. Furthermore, the whole case is filled with phony evidence.
The invoice from Klein's Sporting Goods? Fake. The Backyard photos? Fake.
It is the most Machiavellian plot of all time.
Post by InsideSparta
Explain why Pierce would have been driving out of the garage via the
entrance ramp an hour before the shooting when he was given the assignment
to secure the garage.
Ruby was framed, and they were all in on it, including Pierce. His driving
out via the entrance some time before, and probably the better part of an
hour, was the pretext for Vaughan to be distracted. Talk about securing
the job. Two policemen couldn't secure a narrow ramp? We're supposed to
believe that, are we? And you believe it yourself, do you? And none of the
other curiosity seekers thought of calling back Ruby or notifying the cop
who was right there? It was a ramp going down, and Ruby said he just
walked at a normal pace. So, how when Vaughan turned around did he not see
Ruby? Ruby just slipped in, did he? That is a foul thought.




Where would he have been going to? Why would he have
Post by InsideSparta
left via the entrance ramp. Better yet, please provide your evidence that
Pierce left in a car an hour before the shooting.
Post by Ralph Cinque
This is the space occupied by two cops and a police car, and they didn't
notice Ruby go in.
Officer Vaughan testified that he walked out to the sidewalk. He certainly
wasn't standing in the entrance doorway while the police car was leaving.
It any of the other people standing outside the Main Street entrance
noticed Ruby entering, they very likely would have assumed he was a
detective, which is what the reporters down in the basement thought when
he got down there.
Just help yourself! Just spin and weave to your heart's content. They
thought Ruby was a detective, did they? You really think you have grounds
to assume that? You're sure that isn't a biased, self-serving assumption?

And neck hair images count more than ANY testimony. It's a physical
feature, and when physical features differ, that means different persons.
anyone with the maturity and intelligence of a middle-schooler should know
that.

And you think it's a problem to call "public servants" liars?

The story that despite department-wide intensity to secure the garage,
Jack Ruby, with no cunning or subterfuge whatsoever was able to waltz
right in, and it's just an unfortunate happenstance- that is a revolting
thought. And the discordance between the neck of Jack Ruby and that of the
Garage Shooter blows it out of the water. You don't grasp what trumps what
because you don't know how to think. You don't know how to analyze. And
you don't know how to be objective.

You should read this because it's sound reasoning.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/i-offer-scenario-of-what-happened-and.html
Ace Kefford
2017-06-22 19:47:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Post by InsideSparta
The fact remains, there was money wire transfer made from the Main Street
Western Union office at approximately 11:15 that morning to Karen Carlin
in Ft Worth, after Carlin had requested Ruby to send it to her both the
night before and earlier that morning. Ruby was identified as the person
who wired the money, and he had the receipt on him when arrested. Hard to
get better evidence than that.
Considering the magnitude of the scheme I'm saying it was- that FBI Agent
James Bookhout was impersonating Ruby for cameras in a staged spectacle-
phonying up the paperwork at WU would have been the easiest thing in the
world. I do NOT recognize the legitimacy of that phony evidence, and I do
not have to. Furthermore, the whole case is filled with phony evidence.
The invoice from Klein's Sporting Goods? Fake. The Backyard photos? Fake.
It is the most Machiavellian plot of all time.
Post by InsideSparta
Explain why Pierce would have been driving out of the garage via the
entrance ramp an hour before the shooting when he was given the assignment
to secure the garage.
Ruby was framed, and they were all in on it, including Pierce. His driving
out via the entrance some time before, and probably the better part of an
hour, was the pretext for Vaughan to be distracted. Talk about securing
the job. Two policemen couldn't secure a narrow ramp? We're supposed to
believe that, are we? And you believe it yourself, do you? And none of the
other curiosity seekers thought of calling back Ruby or notifying the cop
who was right there? It was a ramp going down, and Ruby said he just
walked at a normal pace. So, how when Vaughan turned around did he not see
Ruby? Ruby just slipped in, did he? That is a foul thought.
Where would he have been going to? Why would he have
Post by InsideSparta
left via the entrance ramp. Better yet, please provide your evidence that
Pierce left in a car an hour before the shooting.
Post by Ralph Cinque
This is the space occupied by two cops and a police car, and they didn't
notice Ruby go in.
Officer Vaughan testified that he walked out to the sidewalk. He certainly
wasn't standing in the entrance doorway while the police car was leaving.
It any of the other people standing outside the Main Street entrance
noticed Ruby entering, they very likely would have assumed he was a
detective, which is what the reporters down in the basement thought when
he got down there.
Just help yourself! Just spin and weave to your heart's content. They
thought Ruby was a detective, did they? You really think you have grounds
to assume that? You're sure that isn't a biased, self-serving assumption?
And neck hair images count more than ANY testimony. It's a physical
feature, and when physical features differ, that means different persons.
anyone with the maturity and intelligence of a middle-schooler should know
that.
And you think it's a problem to call "public servants" liars?
The story that despite department-wide intensity to secure the garage,
Jack Ruby, with no cunning or subterfuge whatsoever was able to waltz
right in, and it's just an unfortunate happenstance- that is a revolting
thought. And the discordance between the neck of Jack Ruby and that of the
Garage Shooter blows it out of the water. You don't grasp what trumps what
because you don't know how to think. You don't know how to analyze. And
you don't know how to be objective.
You should read this because it's sound reasoning.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/i-offer-scenario-of-what-happened-and.html
What is your evidence that Ruby had a large package?

Mark OBLAZNEY
2017-06-14 19:11:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Sparta, Let's start with the Main Street ramp being Entrance only.
Therefore, why were there people milling around there? Were they waiting
to watch someone pull in? It wasn't going to be Oswald. So who? The fact
is: they had no reason to be there; no purpose at all. Yet, Ruby cited
them as the reason he went there. He said he saw the crowd gathered there,
and it raised his curiosity.
So, you figure that Ruby went there; saw Vaughan (didn't know his name but
saw him) and saw Pierce, but they didn't see him? Even though this was a
day of extremely high security, that despite all the preparations, that
just as luck would have it, Ruby walked by two policemen who just didn't
see him. Drat. Of all the luck. But, these things happen. What can you do?
It would have been no more unlikely for someone to exit the Main Street
ramp an hour before. Why?
You do understand, don't you, that I accuse the Dallas PD of killing
Oswald, framing Ruby, and lying about everything. And you also understand,
that I have already caught Dallas PD cops in multiple lies. Leavelle lied
his head off- on the day it happened, at Ruby's trial, and ever since in
the cottage industry he has going. He even made it that they came out
through the double doors. Graves lied in saying that Oswald's hands were
cuffed together. Check the Jackson photo because it proves otherwise. And
Combest lied in being the only one to claim that Oswald communicated
inside the jail office, that he nodded his head yes and no to respond to
questions. Everyone else testified that Oswald was absolutely unconscious
and unresponsive, as you would expect someone with a blown-out aorta to
be. So, that's 3 lying cops right there. And it's unequivocal that they
lied. Therefore, why should I believe anything that Vaughan and Pierce
said? I think they deliberately let Ruby into the garage. And what you
call real evidence is concocted evidence. This was a scheme of the Dallas
PD and the FBI to kill Oswald and make Ruby the patsy for it. I repeat,
Sparta: Ruby showed up early, probably the better part of an hour early,
and he had his excitement in the garage then. He recognized no one down
there. He was supposedly standing right next to Blackie Harrison but
didn't recognize him? He had given his business card to Ike Pappas on
Friday night, and he didn't recognize him. He had had 3 encounters with
Hugh Aynesworth that very weekend, and he didn't recognize him. Pierce was
the only one he recognized. So, those others must have not been there when
Ruby went there and had his altercation with police. Ruby's drama came
first; he was taken up to the 5th floor; then came the big televised
spectacle with James Bookhout filling in for him. Then, they made sure to
have Ruby down in the jail office for the post shooting wrap-up, where
they forgot about his jacket, which they left up on the 5th floor. And
that's why we see him in just a shirt. There is no other plausible
explanation, despite David Von Pein's sorry and pathetic attempts to
produce one.
Have you run this by, uh, "Amy", Ralph? She might have something to add
to this.

You won't have to go far to ask her…………
right, Ralph ???
Jason Burke
2017-06-15 02:58:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark OBLAZNEY
Post by Ralph Cinque
Sparta, Let's start with the Main Street ramp being Entrance only.
Therefore, why were there people milling around there? Were they waiting
to watch someone pull in? It wasn't going to be Oswald. So who? The fact
is: they had no reason to be there; no purpose at all. Yet, Ruby cited
them as the reason he went there. He said he saw the crowd gathered there,
and it raised his curiosity.
So, you figure that Ruby went there; saw Vaughan (didn't know his name but
saw him) and saw Pierce, but they didn't see him? Even though this was a
day of extremely high security, that despite all the preparations, that
just as luck would have it, Ruby walked by two policemen who just didn't
see him. Drat. Of all the luck. But, these things happen. What can you do?
It would have been no more unlikely for someone to exit the Main Street
ramp an hour before. Why?
You do understand, don't you, that I accuse the Dallas PD of killing
Oswald, framing Ruby, and lying about everything. And you also understand,
that I have already caught Dallas PD cops in multiple lies. Leavelle lied
his head off- on the day it happened, at Ruby's trial, and ever since in
the cottage industry he has going. He even made it that they came out
through the double doors. Graves lied in saying that Oswald's hands were
cuffed together. Check the Jackson photo because it proves otherwise. And
Combest lied in being the only one to claim that Oswald communicated
inside the jail office, that he nodded his head yes and no to respond to
questions. Everyone else testified that Oswald was absolutely unconscious
and unresponsive, as you would expect someone with a blown-out aorta to
be. So, that's 3 lying cops right there. And it's unequivocal that they
lied. Therefore, why should I believe anything that Vaughan and Pierce
said? I think they deliberately let Ruby into the garage. And what you
call real evidence is concocted evidence. This was a scheme of the Dallas
PD and the FBI to kill Oswald and make Ruby the patsy for it. I repeat,
Sparta: Ruby showed up early, probably the better part of an hour early,
and he had his excitement in the garage then. He recognized no one down
there. He was supposedly standing right next to Blackie Harrison but
didn't recognize him? He had given his business card to Ike Pappas on
Friday night, and he didn't recognize him. He had had 3 encounters with
Hugh Aynesworth that very weekend, and he didn't recognize him. Pierce was
the only one he recognized. So, those others must have not been there when
Ruby went there and had his altercation with police. Ruby's drama came
first; he was taken up to the 5th floor; then came the big televised
spectacle with James Bookhout filling in for him. Then, they made sure to
have Ruby down in the jail office for the post shooting wrap-up, where
they forgot about his jacket, which they left up on the 5th floor. And
that's why we see him in just a shirt. There is no other plausible
explanation, despite David Von Pein's sorry and pathetic attempts to
produce one.
Have you run this by, uh, "Amy", Ralph? She might have something to add
to this.
You won't have to go far to ask her????????????
right, Ralph ???
We're not supposed to know that.
Besides, Amy has a husband.
Ohhh... I get it.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-15 17:34:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Sparta, Let's start with the Main Street ramp being Entrance only.
Therefore, why were there people milling around there? Were they waiting
to watch someone pull in? It wasn't going to be Oswald. So who? The fact
Silly. They were waiting to see Oswald driven away. Police do not have
to obey signs.
Post by Ralph Cinque
is: they had no reason to be there; no purpose at all. Yet, Ruby cited
them as the reason he went there. He said he saw the crowd gathered there,
and it raised his curiosity.
Sure, sure. Any story to let your guy off the hook.
Post by Ralph Cinque
So, you figure that Ruby went there; saw Vaughan (didn't know his name but
saw him) and saw Pierce, but they didn't see him? Even though this was a
day of extremely high security, that despite all the preparations, that
just as luck would have it, Ruby walked by two policemen who just didn't
see him. Drat. Of all the luck. But, these things happen. What can you do?
It would have been no more unlikely for someone to exit the Main Street
ramp an hour before. Why?
You do understand, don't you, that I accuse the Dallas PD of killing
Oswald, framing Ruby, and lying about everything. And you also understand,
that I have already caught Dallas PD cops in multiple lies. Leavelle lied
his head off- on the day it happened, at Ruby's trial, and ever since in
the cottage industry he has going. He even made it that they came out
through the double doors. Graves lied in saying that Oswald's hands were
cuffed together. Check the Jackson photo because it proves otherwise. And
Combest lied in being the only one to claim that Oswald communicated
inside the jail office, that he nodded his head yes and no to respond to
questions. Everyone else testified that Oswald was absolutely unconscious
and unresponsive, as you would expect someone with a blown-out aorta to
be. So, that's 3 lying cops right there. And it's unequivocal that they
lied. Therefore, why should I believe anything that Vaughan and Pierce
said? I think they deliberately let Ruby into the garage. And what you
call real evidence is concocted evidence. This was a scheme of the Dallas
PD and the FBI to kill Oswald and make Ruby the patsy for it. I repeat,
Sparta: Ruby showed up early, probably the better part of an hour early,
and he had his excitement in the garage then. He recognized no one down
there. He was supposedly standing right next to Blackie Harrison but
didn't recognize him? He had given his business card to Ike Pappas on
Friday night, and he didn't recognize him. He had had 3 encounters with
Hugh Aynesworth that very weekend, and he didn't recognize him. Pierce was
the only one he recognized. So, those others must have not been there when
Ruby went there and had his altercation with police. Ruby's drama came
first; he was taken up to the 5th floor; then came the big televised
spectacle with James Bookhout filling in for him. Then, they made sure to
have Ruby down in the jail office for the post shooting wrap-up, where
they forgot about his jacket, which they left up on the 5th floor. And
that's why we see him in just a shirt. There is no other plausible
explanation, despite David Von Pein's sorry and pathetic attempts to
produce one.
Mark OBLAZNEY
2017-06-12 23:59:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by InsideSparta
Post by InsideSparta
Post by Ralph Cinque
Amy, your instincts are right; neither one of them are Jack Ruby. And
please keep in mind that, according to the others here, those sunglasses
weren't sunglasses; it was just shadow. But, if you ask them what could
cast such a shadow, they don't know. Imagine if a picture was taken of
you, and it came out that way: with big black spheres over your eyes. And
somebody tried to tell you it was shadow. What would you tell them? You
might tell them: "I've had photos taken my whole life under all kinds of
conditions, and never before have such shadows occurred in a photo."
The guy in the white shirt with Detectives Boyd, Sims, and Hall was the
Garage Shooter. And nobody disputes that. In the garage, his face was
never seen, but there he is by the elevator with the three detectives
looking right at the camera. He is the garage shooter, but he is not Jack
Ruby. He is James Bookhout. He has James Bookhout's short height; James
Bookhout's short neck; James Bookhout's round face; and James Bookhout's
thick chest. We have compared that image to James Bookhout's yearbook
photos, and he is a spot-on match; just older. And I hope you'll keep
reading my blog because more comparisons are coming.
Ralph, You claim that Ruby was already in the custody of the Dallas Police
at the time Oswald was shot, and that he was brought down and paraded as
the killer in the jail office after Bookhout was snuck out. So, if Ruby
was actually already in custody, how did he know that officer Sam Rio
Pierce had driven out of the garage basement in a police car one minute
before the shooting, through the entrance on Main Street, and stopped
outside the entrance to speak with the officer that was supposed to be
keeping anyone from entering the basement from Main Street? Only someone
that was actually there, outside the Main Street entrance, would know it
was Sam Rio Pierce, and that he had briefly stopped and spoken with the
other officer. How could Ruby have know that if he was already in custody?
Ruby explains his access into the basement, and that it was Sam Rio Pierce
in the car, during this interview at the 1:50 mark on this video....
http://youtu.be/3mOyyPKMMHY
You can see Sam Rio Pierce driving the car out of the garage via the Main
Street access, at the 12:10 mark of the KRLD video, (1 minute before the
shooting) on this link....
http://youtu.be/m5khMFFKslw
Explanation please.
Crickets from Cirque du Cinque.
I guess if he doesn't have an answer, then his tactic is to ignore the
question entirely.
Ralph had a large object under his left arm in the garage. It was a big
water bottle. Coincidence?
Amy Joyce
2017-06-11 21:11:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Amy, your instincts are right; neither one of them are Jack Ruby. And
please keep in mind that, according to the others here, those sunglasses
weren't sunglasses; it was just shadow. But, if you ask them what could
cast such a shadow, they don't know. Imagine if a picture was taken of
you, and it came out that way: with big black spheres over your eyes. And
somebody tried to tell you it was shadow. What would you tell them? You
might tell them: "I've had photos taken my whole life under all kinds of
conditions, and never before have such shadows occurred in a photo."
The guy in the white shirt with Detectives Boyd, Sims, and Hall was the
Garage Shooter. And nobody disputes that. In the garage, his face was
never seen, but there he is by the elevator with the three detectives
looking right at the camera. He is the garage shooter, but he is not Jack
Ruby. He is James Bookhout. He has James Bookhout's short height; James
Bookhout's short neck; James Bookhout's round face; and James Bookhout's
thick chest. We have compared that image to James Bookhout's yearbook
photos, and he is a spot-on match; just older. And I hope you'll keep
reading my blog because more comparisons are coming.
They don't like Ruby to me.

Anyway, the shooter wasn't wearing sunglasses, right?
Betty Drew
2017-06-11 04:38:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Amy, Ralph will make you famous.
Ace Kefford
2017-06-19 22:07:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
It appears that he did, and you can see it here.
"Ruby" in the garage, the one wearing sunglasses, appears to have a large
object under his left arm. I provide several images of it. I can't imagine
any alternative. But, the "Ruby" who rushed Oswald didn't have it. So,
what happened to it? Did he drop it? Then, why wasn't it found? And why
haven't we been talking about it for 53 years?
Better take a look at this because it proves that Ruby#1 was not the same
man as Ruby#2, and neither one was Jack Ruby, who was not in the garage
during the televised spectacle.
What is that object?
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/does-sunglasses-ruby-have-something.html
I have never heard that Ruby had a large package. Please supply testimony
or other evidence to back up this claim.
Loading...