Discussion:
Ruby: no jacket, then in a jacket 5 seconds later?
(too old to reply)
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-07 00:31:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
That's not possible in 5 seconds, and if you're in handcuffs, as Ruby
supposedly was, it's not possible at all. I don't know how David Von Pein
is going to spin this, but I'm sure he will come up with a doozey.

But, the truth is that this is more photographic flim-flam in a saga that
is replete with it. There is just no explaining this.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/i-think-i-figured-it-out.html
David Von Pein
2017-06-07 19:07:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
That's not possible in 5 seconds, and if you're in handcuffs, as Ruby
supposedly was, it's not possible at all. I don't know how David Von Pein
is going to spin this, but I'm sure he will come up with a doozey.
But, the truth is that this is more photographic flim-flam in a saga that
is replete with it. There is just no explaining this.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/i-think-i-figured-it-out.html
The answer is simple....

Jack Ruby is in the process of putting his jacket back on when we first
see him in the WFAA-TV footage in the jail office, and when we see his
back as he gets in the elevator, he's got his jacket back on....

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2oJmFGgfM3zSHhjd3pMYWcxOWM/view

So the police obviously did not handcuff Ruby at all prior to taking him
to the elevator.

Why are you insisting that the cops *must* have handcuffed Ruby
immediately? They obviously didn't do that, as we can see by examining
Ruby's movements in the WFAA footage.
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-08 14:39:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
WHAT??? Are you out of your mind? Both McMillon and Archer said, in their
testimonies, that they handcuffed Ruby as soon as they got him in the jail
office. They said that they pushed him down to the ground, and both of
them took out their cuffs. Archer asked McMillon if he wanted to use his
(Archer's), and McMillon responded that he would use his own.

And why don't you think about it logically. Ruby had just fought with a
whole police battalion in the garage, before which he fatally shot Oswald
and reportedly tried to shoot Leavelle. That's what Leavelle said, that if
not for Graves locking the barrel of the gun, keeping it from revolving,
that he'd be dead. So you think that after all that, they would not only
not cuff Ruby in the garage but not even cuff him inside the jail office?
But, regardless of what you think, I am telling you that it conflicts with
the men who were there who did it. They said they cuffed Ruby right away,
and that stands incontestable.

And there was only 5 seconds between these two: And for part of the 5
seconds, we continue to see Ruby walking along without putting on his
jacket. Here he is at 26:34, and note the time within the frame, lower
left.


It's 26 minutes and 34 seconds, and there has been no sign of him putting
his jacket on as he walked along.


So, you see it says 26:37, and he's got his jacket on, presumably, but how
could that happen in 3 seconds? And how could it happen at all when he was
handcuffed, and we have ever right to presume that he was since the cops
said that he was, and it makes perfect sense that they would. And what
about this? Isn't he supposed to be in cuffs?


You have no right to even suggest that he wasn't cuffed there. It is not a
card you are holding in your hand, so you can't play it. All of the
evidence points the other way: from the testimonies, from what we are
seeing, and from what we know to be normal police behavior in handling
violent offenders. How dare you assume otherwise? Everyone who has ever
looked at that, even without reading the testimonies, has concluded that
Ruby was in handcuffs. How, after 53 years, do you have the nerve, the
unmitigated gall, to just glibly say that Dallas Police did not handcuff
Ruby? You're just rewriting the history as you go, aren't you? To you,
this is just a script, which you revise at will.

Ruby was handcuffed. That is not in question; it is not in dispute. And
therefore, what we see in this footage, with the jacket first missing and
then mysteriously appearing on him is a sign of foul play- by the ones
telling the story. It is a lie. Ruby was innocent. James Bookhout was the
Garage Shooter. But, it was not his plot. He was just a cog in the wheel.
The plot went up to the top. The very top. Johnson and Hoover. "Oswald
must die!" That's what they told the Dallas Police, and the Dallas Police
obliged.

This is your second attempt to rationalize this. Your first was to suggest
that they "yanked his jacket off to search it for weapons." That was
ridiculous. And now you're "they didn't handcuff Ruby at all" argument is
equally as ridiculous. And you are showing your true colors, your
willingness to bend reality, anything to defend the official story. It is
truly pathetic, David, but very revealing.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/david-von-pein-207-pm-43-minutes-ago.html
David Von Pein
2017-06-09 02:53:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
WHAT??? Are you out of your mind? Both McMillon and Archer said, in their
testimonies, that they handcuffed Ruby as soon as they got him in the jail
office. They said that they pushed him down to the ground, and both of
them took out their cuffs. Archer asked McMillon if he wanted to use his
(Archer's), and McMillon responded that he would use his own.
And why don't you think about it logically. Ruby had just fought with a
whole police battalion in the garage, before which he fatally shot Oswald
and reportedly tried to shoot Leavelle. That's what Leavelle said, that if
not for Graves locking the barrel of the gun, keeping it from revolving,
that he'd be dead. So you think that after all that, they would not only
not cuff Ruby in the garage but not even cuff him inside the jail office?
But, regardless of what you think, I am telling you that it conflicts with
the men who were there who did it. They said they cuffed Ruby right away,
and that stands incontestable.
And there was only 5 seconds between these two: And for part of the 5
seconds, we continue to see Ruby walking along without putting on his
jacket. Here he is at 26:34, and note the time within the frame, lower
left.
It's 26 minutes and 34 seconds, and there has been no sign of him putting
his jacket on as he walked along.
So, you see it says 26:37, and he's got his jacket on, presumably, but how
could that happen in 3 seconds? And how could it happen at all when he was
handcuffed, and we have ever right to presume that he was since the cops
said that he was, and it makes perfect sense that they would. And what
about this? Isn't he supposed to be in cuffs?
You have no right to even suggest that he wasn't cuffed there. It is not a
card you are holding in your hand, so you can't play it. All of the
evidence points the other way: from the testimonies, from what we are
seeing, and from what we know to be normal police behavior in handling
violent offenders. How dare you assume otherwise? Everyone who has ever
looked at that, even without reading the testimonies, has concluded that
Ruby was in handcuffs. How, after 53 years, do you have the nerve, the
unmitigated gall, to just glibly say that Dallas Police did not handcuff
Ruby? You're just rewriting the history as you go, aren't you? To you,
this is just a script, which you revise at will.
Ruby was handcuffed. That is not in question; it is not in dispute. And
therefore, what we see in this footage, with the jacket first missing and
then mysteriously appearing on him is a sign of foul play- by the ones
telling the story. It is a lie. Ruby was innocent. James Bookhout was the
Garage Shooter. But, it was not his plot. He was just a cog in the wheel.
The plot went up to the top. The very top. Johnson and Hoover. "Oswald
must die!" That's what they told the Dallas Police, and the Dallas Police
obliged.
This is your second attempt to rationalize this. Your first was to suggest
that they "yanked his jacket off to search it for weapons." That was
ridiculous. And now you're "they didn't handcuff Ruby at all" argument is
equally as ridiculous. And you are showing your true colors, your
willingness to bend reality, anything to defend the official story. It is
truly pathetic, David, but very revealing.
LOL. I've now changed Ralph's middle name to "Irony". It fits like a
glove. (Or maybe "Pot/Kettle". That works nicely too.)
Post by Ralph Cinque
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/david-von-pein-207-pm-43-minutes-ago.html
Mark OBLAZNEY
2017-06-15 00:50:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Ralph Cinque
WHAT??? Are you out of your mind? Both McMillon and Archer said, in their
testimonies, that they handcuffed Ruby as soon as they got him in the jail
office. They said that they pushed him down to the ground, and both of
them took out their cuffs. Archer asked McMillon if he wanted to use his
(Archer's), and McMillon responded that he would use his own.
And why don't you think about it logically. Ruby had just fought with a
whole police battalion in the garage, before which he fatally shot Oswald
and reportedly tried to shoot Leavelle. That's what Leavelle said, that if
not for Graves locking the barrel of the gun, keeping it from revolving,
that he'd be dead. So you think that after all that, they would not only
not cuff Ruby in the garage but not even cuff him inside the jail office?
But, regardless of what you think, I am telling you that it conflicts with
the men who were there who did it. They said they cuffed Ruby right away,
and that stands incontestable.
And there was only 5 seconds between these two: And for part of the 5
seconds, we continue to see Ruby walking along without putting on his
jacket. Here he is at 26:34, and note the time within the frame, lower
left.
It's 26 minutes and 34 seconds, and there has been no sign of him putting
his jacket on as he walked along.
So, you see it says 26:37, and he's got his jacket on, presumably, but how
could that happen in 3 seconds? And how could it happen at all when he was
handcuffed, and we have ever right to presume that he was since the cops
said that he was, and it makes perfect sense that they would. And what
about this? Isn't he supposed to be in cuffs?
You have no right to even suggest that he wasn't cuffed there. It is not a
card you are holding in your hand, so you can't play it. All of the
evidence points the other way: from the testimonies, from what we are
seeing, and from what we know to be normal police behavior in handling
violent offenders. How dare you assume otherwise? Everyone who has ever
looked at that, even without reading the testimonies, has concluded that
Ruby was in handcuffs. How, after 53 years, do you have the nerve, the
unmitigated gall, to just glibly say that Dallas Police did not handcuff
Ruby? You're just rewriting the history as you go, aren't you? To you,
this is just a script, which you revise at will.
Ruby was handcuffed. That is not in question; it is not in dispute. And
therefore, what we see in this footage, with the jacket first missing and
then mysteriously appearing on him is a sign of foul play- by the ones
telling the story. It is a lie. Ruby was innocent. James Bookhout was the
Garage Shooter. But, it was not his plot. He was just a cog in the wheel.
The plot went up to the top. The very top. Johnson and Hoover. "Oswald
must die!" That's what they told the Dallas Police, and the Dallas Police
obliged.
This is your second attempt to rationalize this. Your first was to suggest
that they "yanked his jacket off to search it for weapons." That was
ridiculous. And now you're "they didn't handcuff Ruby at all" argument is
equally as ridiculous. And you are showing your true colors, your
willingness to bend reality, anything to defend the official story. It is
truly pathetic, David, but very revealing.
LOL. I've now changed Ralph's middle name to "Irony". It fits like a
glove. (Or maybe "Pot/Kettle". That works nicely too.)
Post by Ralph Cinque
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/david-von-pein-207-pm-43-minutes-ago.html
You remind me of a president I don't know, Ralph.

David Von Pein
2017-06-07 21:09:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1247.html
Loading...