Discussion:
Evidence that Ruby reached the garage substantially earlier than told
(too old to reply)
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-14 14:37:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I have put together a blogpost citing the evidence which supports my
contention that Jack Ruby reached the garage much earlier than 11:20, and
why it had to be a totally separate incident that he had with police, who
then took him up to the 5th floor, which is where he was when the
televised spectacle occurred.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/i-want-you-all-to-realize-that-this.html
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-15 16:47:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
I have put together a blogpost citing the evidence which supports my
contention that Jack Ruby reached the garage much earlier than 11:20, and
So what? He was loitering with the reporters and waiting for Oswald for
a couple of minutes before Oswald came down.
Post by Ralph Cinque
why it had to be a totally separate incident that he had with police, who
then took him up to the 5th floor, which is where he was when the
televised spectacle occurred.
SHOW me this incident. Cameras were rolling to be ready for Oswald to
come down. No reporter reported your magical incident? Because all
reporters were in on it? And the cameras knew too?
Post by Ralph Cinque
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/i-want-you-all-to-realize-that-this.html
InsideSparta
2017-06-17 03:29:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
I have put together a blogpost citing the evidence which supports my
contention that Jack Ruby reached the garage much earlier than 11:20, and
why it had to be a totally separate incident that he had with police, who
then took him up to the 5th floor, which is where he was when the
televised spectacle occurred.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/i-want-you-all-to-realize-that-this.html
To answer your question posed on blog as to where Sam Pierce was going
when he drove out of the garage one minute before the shooting; he drove
out in order to get around to the other side (Commerce Street) of City
Hall so that he could provide a police car escort to the car taking Oswald
to the County Jail. Pierce could not drive out of the garage via the
normal exit, the Commerce Street ramp, because that exit was blocked by
the armored vehicle that was going to be a decoy. Pierce was forced to
drive out via the entrance ramp (Main Street). had Pierce driven out of
the garage an hour earlier, he would have used the normal exit ramp
(Commerce) and not needed to exit via the entrance (Main). There's no
evidence he drove out of the garage any earlier than when he did so one
minute before the shooting. Officer Roy Vaughan, who was tasked with
guarding the Main Street entrance, testified under oath to the WC that in
the nearly two hours he stood in the Main Street entrance doorway prior to
the shooting, he only had to move from his spot one time, when Sam Pierce
drove out of the garage approximately one minute before the shooting.
There simply is no evidence that Pierce drove out of the garage earlier,
because it simply didn't happen.
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-17 17:53:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
You need to learn something, Sparta, and that is that I am not obliged by
official dogma. Of course, they are going to say that. Of course, they are
going to have pat answers. What I look at is the fact that Jack Ruby made
it clear that he made no effort to sneak in or evade being seen by the
police, and even though there were two police officers and a police car in
that narrow ramp, that Ruby managed to get by without being seen. You
think that's a darn shame, don't you? After all that dogged and diligent
preparation by Dallas Police to protect Oswald, Jack Ruby just got the
better of these two officers.

It's a shame, isn't it?

I asked you a question, Sparta. What were the people doing there hanging
around? Why were they hanging around there when it was an incoming ramp,
and there was no chance of seeing Oswald? It made no sense for them to be
there, Sparta. And it stinks. It stinks badly.
InsideSparta
2017-06-18 21:45:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
You need to learn something, Sparta, and that is that I am not obliged by
official dogma. Of course, they are going to say that. Of course, they are
going to have pat answers. What I look at is the fact that Jack Ruby made
it clear that he made no effort to sneak in or evade being seen by the
police, and even though there were two police officers and a police car in
that narrow ramp, that Ruby managed to get by without being seen. You
think that's a darn shame, don't you? After all that dogged and diligent
preparation by Dallas Police to protect Oswald, Jack Ruby just got the
better of these two officers
He definitely did. Ruby couldn't have known that Lieutenant Pierce drove
out of the Main Street entrance when he did (one minute before the
shooting), and pulled Vaughan out of his position in the entryway, unless
he was standing exactly where he said he was, outside that entrance.
You're unable to provide a single piece of credible evidence that he
entered the garage before then, nor can you provide any evidence to
impeach the sworn testimony given by Pierce and Vaughan, (or even the lie
detector test that Ruby took, for that matter).
Post by Ralph Cinque
It's a shame, isn't it?
It's a fact, and a shame.
Post by Ralph Cinque
I asked you a question, Sparta. What were the people doing there hanging
around? Why were they hanging around there when it was an incoming ramp,
and there was no chance of seeing Oswald? It made no sense for them to be
there, Sparta. And it stinks. It stinks badly.
The fact is, there were people hanging around both Commerce and Main. Even
more were hanging around the county jail. What? Do you think those that
were outside the Main Street entrance were all in on it? They might very
well not have known the Main Street side was the entrance not the exit.
All of them were curiosity seekers, as was Ruby initially. The only
difference was Ruby managed to slip into the garage with a gun that he
nearly always carried, and an unbalanced mental disposition.
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-19 23:20:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Sparta, you are just helping yourself to assumptions and conclusions to
which you are not entitled. You think the people gathered at that ramp
were unaware that it was an entrance? It had a big directional arrow. And
besides, wouldn't Vaughan have said something to them, such as, "This is
an entrance, and Oswald will be taken out the Commerce ramp." It's crazy
if he didn't. You say they were "curiosity seekers" but about what?
Curious about what? Ruby didn't "slip" in. He said he took action to slip
in, that he just walked right in. And why weren't those curiosity seekers
curious about him. He as the one and only thing they had to be curious
about. So, why didn't one of them alert Officer Vaughan? Or did Ruby slip
by them too?
InsideSparta
2017-06-21 02:24:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Sparta, you are just helping yourself to assumptions and conclusions to
which you are not entitled.
Oh the irony in you of all people accusing someone of helping themselves
to assumptions and conclusions to which they're not entitled.

My conclusions are based on the facts, and simple logic. Like it being
highly logical to assume that anyone driving out of the garage prior to
11:00 AM, (before the armored vehicle blocked the exit ramp on Commerce)
would have naturally driven out via that exit ramp. You, on the other
hand, have come to the conclusion that Lieutenant Pierce drove out the
entrance ramp on Main Street an hour before the shooting, without
providing any evidence to back it up, nor any logical reason why he would
have driven out via the entrance, instead of the exit. Nor have you
provided any logical reason why he would have driven out at 10:15 AM. Now,
when it comes to the known fact that he drove out via the Main Street
entrance one minute before the shooting, at 11:20 AM, I provided the
reason he did so was to get around to the other side of the building so as
to provide a police car escort to the county jail. This is what he
testified to the WC, and it makes total sense. You, on the other hand,
have come to the conclusion that he only drove out one minute before the
shooting so as to re-create his departure an hour earlier because he knew
Ruby would testify that he saw him leaving when he entered the garage.
What kind of nonsense is that?

You are clearly the one that makes wild assumptions and reaches crazy
conclusions without any regard to the facts and to logic. You've been on
the ropes in this discussion, and the Bookhout thread, and it's pretty
clear you've suffered a technical knockout. Time to come up with a
different crazy theory.
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-21 22:03:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I provide evidence: Jack Ruby. Jack Ruby said that he saw Pierce driving
out when he was there, and since I have established that Jack Ruby was
there earlier, then it follows from that that Pierce must have been there
earlier. That's Logic, something that you know little or nothing about.

And who says that the reason Pierce drove out at 10:15 was anything other
than baiting Ruby? I'm not saying that Pierce was actually going anywhere.
It was all about snaring Jack Ruby and providing a pretext for him getting
in. So, that's the reason he drove out at 10:15 (approximately): to bait
Ruby. No other reason; just that.

And what you call his "reason" for driving out at 11:15, it was really
just his false alibi for driving out then. Provide a police escort car to
the county jail? There was the Brinks truck which, reportedly, was going
to be driven empty. Then, Oswald was going to be in Fritz' car with
Dhority driving and carrying Leavelle and Graves and Oswald. And you're
saying that Pierce had to drive around to get in position? Well, the
Brinks truck was backed up into the Commerce Street ramp, so obviously it
was going to pull out that way, on Commerce. And Dhority was pulling in
with Fritz' car right when the shooting happened, and it was heading
towards Main Street. But, presumably, after Oswald and the others got in,
it was going to be turned around to follow the Brinks truck. That was the
plan, right? It wasn't going to drive out Main Street, was it? So, why
couldn't Pierce go out the same way? It's just a phony alibi. You have a
tendency to swallow bull chit whole.

You are practicing insanity, Sparta. That's because the photographic
evidence clearly and definitively shows that the Garage Shooter was NOT
Jack Ruby. And yet, you continue to say that he was in defiance of that
photographic evidence. And that is plucking insane.
Jason Burke
2017-06-22 19:39:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
I provide evidence: Jack Ruby. Jack Ruby said that he saw Pierce driving
out when he was there, and since I have established that Jack Ruby was
there earlier, then it follows from that that Pierce must have been there
earlier. That's Logic, something that you know little or nothing about.
And who says that the reason Pierce drove out at 10:15 was anything other
than baiting Ruby? I'm not saying that Pierce was actually going anywhere.
It was all about snaring Jack Ruby and providing a pretext for him getting
in. So, that's the reason he drove out at 10:15 (approximately): to bait
Ruby. No other reason; just that.
And what you call his "reason" for driving out at 11:15, it was really
just his false alibi for driving out then. Provide a police escort car to
the county jail? There was the Brinks truck which, reportedly, was going
to be driven empty. Then, Oswald was going to be in Fritz' car with
Dhority driving and carrying Leavelle and Graves and Oswald. And you're
saying that Pierce had to drive around to get in position? Well, the
Brinks truck was backed up into the Commerce Street ramp, so obviously it
was going to pull out that way, on Commerce. And Dhority was pulling in
with Fritz' car right when the shooting happened, and it was heading
towards Main Street. But, presumably, after Oswald and the others got in,
it was going to be turned around to follow the Brinks truck. That was the
plan, right? It wasn't going to drive out Main Street, was it? So, why
couldn't Pierce go out the same way? It's just a phony alibi. You have a
tendency to swallow bull chit whole.
You are practicing insanity, Sparta. That's because the photographic
evidence clearly and definitively shows that the Garage Shooter was NOT
Jack Ruby. And yet, you continue to say that he was in defiance of that
photographic evidence. And that is plucking insane.
There be something insane here.
And it ain't Sparta, or BigDog, or Viklund, or bpete, or Oblazney, or
Barber.


Say! Where'd "Amy" go?
InsideSparta
2017-06-22 19:41:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
I provide evidence: Jack Ruby. Jack Ruby said that he saw Pierce driving
out when he was there, and since I have established that Jack Ruby was
there earlier, then it follows from that that Pierce must have been there
earlier. That's Logic, something that you know little or nothing about.
I haven't seen you provide one piece of credible evidence that proves Ruby
entered the garage prior to 11:20 AM.
Post by Ralph Cinque
And who says that the reason Pierce drove out at 10:15 was anything other
than baiting Ruby? I'm not saying that Pierce was actually going anywhere.
It was all about snaring Jack Ruby and providing a pretext for him getting
in. So, that's the reason he drove out at 10:15 (approximately): to bait
Ruby. No other reason; just that.
The evidence, physical and eyewitness says proves that Ruby was in the
Western Union office at 11:17. You like to say the evidence was forged,
and the witnesses lied, but you have no evidence to back your theory
up.
Post by Ralph Cinque
And what you call his "reason" for driving out at 11:15, it was really
just his false alibi for driving out then. Provide a police escort car to
the county jail? There was the Brinks truck which, reportedly, was going
to be driven empty. Then, Oswald was going to be in Fritz' car with
Dhority driving and carrying Leavelle and Graves and Oswald. And you're
saying that Pierce had to drive around to get in position? Well, the
Brinks truck was backed up into the Commerce Street ramp, so obviously it
was going to pull out that way, on Commerce. And Dhority was pulling in
with Fritz' car right when the shooting happened, and it was heading
towards Main Street. But, presumably, after Oswald and the others got in,
it was going to be turned around to follow the Brinks truck. That was the
plan, right? It wasn't going to drive out Main Street, was it? So, why
couldn't Pierce go out the same way? It's just a phony alibi. You have a
tendency to swallow bull chit whole.
You have no evidence whatsoever that Pierce drove out of the garage prior
to 11:20. None. Fritz car was already in the garage, and was being backed
into place. It was facing the Commerce exit, and was to follow the armored
vehicle out onto that street. Don't believe me? Watch the film, and read
the testimony of Detective Dhority.
Post by Ralph Cinque
You are practicing insanity, Sparta. That's because the photographic
evidence clearly and definitively shows that the Garage Shooter was NOT
Jack Ruby. And yet, you continue to say that he was in defiance of that
photographic evidence. And that is plucking insane.
I'll tell you what's insane, your fairytale that Ruby didn't shoot Oswald, and your sticking to it even after it's been blown to smithereens by the folks on this board.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-23 15:53:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by InsideSparta
Post by Ralph Cinque
I provide evidence: Jack Ruby. Jack Ruby said that he saw Pierce driving
out when he was there, and since I have established that Jack Ruby was
there earlier, then it follows from that that Pierce must have been there
earlier. That's Logic, something that you know little or nothing about.
I haven't seen you provide one piece of credible evidence that proves Ruby
entered the garage prior to 11:20 AM.
Post by Ralph Cinque
And who says that the reason Pierce drove out at 10:15 was anything other
than baiting Ruby? I'm not saying that Pierce was actually going anywhere.
It was all about snaring Jack Ruby and providing a pretext for him getting
in. So, that's the reason he drove out at 10:15 (approximately): to bait
Ruby. No other reason; just that.
The evidence, physical and eyewitness says proves that Ruby was in the
Western Union office at 11:17. You like to say the evidence was forged,
You can't prove that Ruby was still in the Western Union office at
exactly 11:17:00. You don't know what the clock said. It might have said
11:17:45 and just stamped the current minute. The clock could have been
wrong. It might have been stamped after he had already paid and left,
just indicating when the telegram money order was sent.
You just don't know. So, STFU.
Post by InsideSparta
and the witnesses lied, but you have no evidence to back your theory
up.
Post by Ralph Cinque
And what you call his "reason" for driving out at 11:15, it was really
just his false alibi for driving out then. Provide a police escort car to
the county jail? There was the Brinks truck which, reportedly, was going
to be driven empty. Then, Oswald was going to be in Fritz' car with
Dhority driving and carrying Leavelle and Graves and Oswald. And you're
saying that Pierce had to drive around to get in position? Well, the
Brinks truck was backed up into the Commerce Street ramp, so obviously it
was going to pull out that way, on Commerce. And Dhority was pulling in
with Fritz' car right when the shooting happened, and it was heading
towards Main Street. But, presumably, after Oswald and the others got in,
it was going to be turned around to follow the Brinks truck. That was the
plan, right? It wasn't going to drive out Main Street, was it? So, why
couldn't Pierce go out the same way? It's just a phony alibi. You have a
tendency to swallow bull chit whole.
You have no evidence whatsoever that Pierce drove out of the garage prior
to 11:20. None. Fritz car was already in the garage, and was being backed
into place. It was facing the Commerce exit, and was to follow the armored
vehicle out onto that street. Don't believe me? Watch the film, and read
the testimony of Detective Dhority.
Post by Ralph Cinque
You are practicing insanity, Sparta. That's because the photographic
evidence clearly and definitively shows that the Garage Shooter was NOT
Jack Ruby. And yet, you continue to say that he was in defiance of that
photographic evidence. And that is plucking insane.
I'll tell you what's insane, your fairytale that Ruby didn't shoot Oswald, and your sticking to it even after it's been blown to smithereens by the folks on this board.
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-23 15:56:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Uh oh, Sparta. You just ate the royal pegoda. Dhority didn't back that car
up. He pulled it up. Watch the KRLD film. You see the headlights of his
car moving forward.



Alright, so you are wrong about that. Now, do you want to admit it, or do
you want to make like Joseph Backes and keep arguing and defending what
you said even though you have been shown to wrong?

But, you are right about something, Sparta: Dhority did testify to the
Warren Commission that he backed the car up.

Detective Dhority: Captain Fritz reached over to the door of the car and I
was turned around to see backing it up--still had the car moving it along
and I saw someone run across the end of the car real rapid like.

So, he lied then. Detective Dhority lied. Hmmm. This is quite big. I shall
write it up. And don't worry: you'll get credit for finding it. I'm going
to make you famous, Sparta.
bpete1969
2017-06-24 13:58:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Uh oh, Sparta. You just ate the royal pegoda. Dhority didn't back that car
up. He pulled it up. Watch the KRLD film. You see the headlights of his
car moving forward.
http://youtu.be/m5khMFFKslw
Alright, so you are wrong about that. Now, do you want to admit it, or do
you want to make like Joseph Backes and keep arguing and defending what
you said even though you have been shown to wrong?
But, you are right about something, Sparta: Dhority did testify to the
Warren Commission that he backed the car up.
Detective Dhority: Captain Fritz reached over to the door of the car and I
was turned around to see backing it up--still had the car moving it along
and I saw someone run across the end of the car real rapid like.
So, he lied then. Detective Dhority lied. Hmmm. This is quite big. I shall
write it up. And don't worry: you'll get credit for finding it. I'm going
to make you famous, Sparta.
You have to be as blind as Judyth Very Faker.

Your link proves you wrong. The car was backed up. You're seeing the trunk
and the rear bumper. The tail lights don't light up until he hits the
brakes. If you look closely, you can see the access door to the gas tank
fill centered in the rear panel above the bumper.

Quit while you're behind Raff*.
InsideSparta
2017-06-25 01:30:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bpete1969
Post by Ralph Cinque
Uh oh, Sparta. You just ate the royal pegoda. Dhority didn't back that car
up. He pulled it up. Watch the KRLD film. You see the headlights of his
car moving forward.
http://youtu.be/m5khMFFKslw
Alright, so you are wrong about that. Now, do you want to admit it, or do
you want to make like Joseph Backes and keep arguing and defending what
you said even though you have been shown to wrong?
But, you are right about something, Sparta: Dhority did testify to the
Warren Commission that he backed the car up.
Detective Dhority: Captain Fritz reached over to the door of the car and I
was turned around to see backing it up--still had the car moving it along
and I saw someone run across the end of the car real rapid like.
So, he lied then. Detective Dhority lied. Hmmm. This is quite big. I shall
write it up. And don't worry: you'll get credit for finding it. I'm going
to make you famous, Sparta.
You have to be as blind as Judyth Very Faker.
Your link proves you wrong. The car was backed up. You're seeing the trunk
and the rear bumper. The tail lights don't light up until he hits the
brakes. If you look closely, you can see the access door to the gas tank
fill centered in the rear panel above the bumper.
Quit while you're behind Raff*.
After making claims that the car that was being driven into place to take
Oswald to the county jail was being driven forward, so as to head out the
entrance on Main Street, and that Officer Dhority lied to the WC when he
testified that he was backing the car up (which means it would be facing
the Commerce Street exit), Cirque de Cinque has now done a 180 on this.
Cinque needed the car to be facing the Main Street entrance in order to
impeach the testimony of Lieutenant Pierce, when Pierce said the reason he
drove out the Main Street entrance one minute before the shooting was in
order to drive the car around to Commerce Street, so that he could provide
escort to the county jail. Cirque de Cinque claimed Pierce drove out when
he did in order to re-create the event that Ralph claims took place an
hour earlier, when Ralph claims Ruby entered the garage.

So now, after it was pointed out that the car was indeed being backed up,
and was facing Commerce Street, and was actually a Ford Galaxie 500 that
had large rear taillights, he has removed the post on this site in which
he claimed that Dhority lied to the WC about backing the car into place,
and he removed the blog entry from his own site that also made the same
false claims and replaced it with an entry admitting the car was being
backed into place and that the image of the car seen in the KRLD footage
is the rear of a Galaxie 500. So, instead of leaving the blog entry and
post on this site up, which show he was totally wrong, he has deleted them
entirely. He couldn't even man-up and admit he was dead wrong, and instead
has tried to hide is accusation of Dhority lying to the WC. But, what
would one expect. The revelation that Dhority was telling the truth, and
headed out the Commerce Street exit, supports Lieutenant Pierce's
testimony as to his reason for driving out the Main Street entrance when
he did, and that blows Ralph's theory that Pierce was driving out the Main
Street entrance so as to re-create a fictitious departure an hour earlier
to smithereens. And without any proof that Pierce left an hour earlier,
and that he only left one minute before the shooting, Ralph has no proof
whatsoever that Ruby saw Pierce leaving via the Main Street entrance at
any time other than at 11:20 AM, one minute before the shooting. So, since
Ruby is standing outside the Main Street entrance one minute before the
shooting, he couldn't, as Ralph claims, have already had been in custody
before the shooting took place. This all pretty much destroys the whole
"Bookhout shot Oswald" theory.
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-26 03:37:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
You don't know how to think, Sparta. First of all: the images rule. And
the images have determined that the Garage Shooter was not Jack Ruby. And
the fact is that there isn't a single "Jack Ruby feature" that you can
cite about the Garage Shooter. What about him makes him Jack Ruby? His
height? Even if he were the right height, it would hardly matter because
there would be lots of men that height. But, he's the wrong height. He's
too short to be Jack Ruby. His hair? It's too long to be Jack Ruby, and
worst of all, it's razored clean in back, which Ruby's wasn't at the time.
You have NOTHING to cite that marks that man as even possibly being Jack
Ruby, never mind definitely being him.

Then, it all works perfectly to match the guy to James Bookhout, who was
short, who was cleanly razored on the back of his neck, just like the
Garage Shooter. And, we even have a straight-on shot of the shooter's face
taken a couple minutes after the fracas that matches perfectly to
authorized pictures of James Bookhout.

So, the Garage Shoter was James Bookhout, and there is no doubt about
that. It is completely and totally confirmed and resolved.

Then, there is Pierce. It was a little less than 1 minute beforehand that
he made his way up the Main Street ramp. But, he had to go through Harwood
Street since Harwood went north to the next street whatever it is, turn
left there, then make another left on Commerce and then proceed down to
the ramp. Think about how many lights that was. One: the light at Main and
Harwood. Two: the light at Main and the next street. Three: the light at
Commerce and whatever street he took to get to it. Four: the light at
Commerce and Harwood. Who, in a situation like that, would allow just 1
minutes, a little less than a minute, to get situated? And what was he
waiting for? What did he have to do that he couldn't leave earlier? In
fact, doesn't it seem likely that getting the lead car in place would have
been done a lot earlier? Why not?

So, there is no credibility to Pierce waiting until the last minute. There
is no credibility to anyone being gathered at the Main Street ramp when it
was an incoming ramp. And yet, there was a crowd there. Why?

We have on record Jack Ruby stating that the time he sent his money wire
was 10:15. He was promptly corrected by a Secret Service Agent who was not
in Dallas or the state of Texas on November 24, and Ruby didn't question
it, but he never questioned anything he was told. He was very subservient
to law enforcement. But, the fact that his recollection was 10:15 still
stands, and it is riveting. And that's because we already know, beyond a
shadow of a doubt, that he was not in that garage at 11:20. There are no
images of him there. And, the images of the shooter not only conflict with
him, they also conflict with each other, where one was taller and thinner
and the other shorter and more squatty. There is not a single frame of the
Garage Shooter that can remotely be recognized and identified as Jack
Ruby. People only say he was Ruby because that's what they were told.

Sparta, Jack Ruby was framed. He did NOT shoot Oswald. He was set up. He
was mentally ill and strung out on drugs, and subject to blackouts, and
they knew he would believe whatever the told him.

We have undeniable proof that Dallas detectives lied, including Leavelle
and Graves. Leavelle described a whole scenario of what happened and what
he did that is in complete defiance with the film record.

And, the amount of photographic and film alteration connected with the
Oswald shooting is staggering, including the famous Jackson photo, which
is a monstrosity.

And where are you left? You're left trying to diminish stark photographic
evidence by playing the "blurry" card (where there aren't even issues of
blurriness). Ultimately, you are just the guy saying, "Pay no attention to
the man behind the curtain."

The killing of Oswald was a joint DPD/FBI plot, which was probably
authorized by both Lyndon Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover. I've have had 3
articles published on VT about Bookhout being the real Garage Shooter, and
I'm working on a 4th. This can't be stopped- not by you and not by
anybody.

We'll just see, won't we.
InsideSparta
2017-06-26 20:52:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
You don't know how to think, Sparta. First of all: the images rule. And
the images have determined that the Garage Shooter was not Jack Ruby. And
the fact is that there isn't a single "Jack Ruby feature" that you can
cite about the Garage Shooter. What about him makes him Jack Ruby? His
height? Even if he were the right height, it would hardly matter because
there would be lots of men that height. But, he's the wrong height. He's
too short to be Jack Ruby. His hair? It's too long to be Jack Ruby, and
worst of all, it's razored clean in back, which Ruby's wasn't at the time.
You have NOTHING to cite that marks that man as even possibly being Jack
Ruby, never mind definitely being him.
The "images" you cite are just your bizarre interpretation of them. You
completely disregard the FACT that there were dozens of reporters, from
all around the world, and an large number of policemen, several who
actually knew Ruby, that witnessed the shooting. You also conveniently
ignore the ballistic evidence that proved the bullet fired into LHO was
fired from the gun owned by Ruby. You also fail to explain why the DPD
would have LHO executed in front of live television cameras and any number
of press photographers that might have very well been in position to take
a photograph that clearly, and without a doubt, showed the face of the man
that shot Oswald. Of course, had that been the case, you simply would have
claimed the photos to be faked, without any scientific evidence to back
that claim up, because that's how you roll.
Post by Ralph Cinque
Then, it all works perfectly to match the guy to James Bookhout, who was
short, who was cleanly razored on the back of his neck, just like the
Garage Shooter. And, we even have a straight-on shot of the shooter's face
taken a couple minutes after the fracas that matches perfectly to
authorized pictures of James Bookhout.
Please proved a photo from late 1963 of the back of James Bookhout's neck
that proves it was "clean shaven". Otherwise, you're just making things up
as you go along.
Post by Ralph Cinque
So, the Garage Shoter was James Bookhout, and there is no doubt about
that. It is completely and totally confirmed and resolved.
"The Garage Shoter"? Do I see a spelling error on your part? Heaven forbid
one of us makes a spelling error.
Post by Ralph Cinque
Then, there is Pierce. It was a little less than 1 minute beforehand that
he made his way up the Main Street ramp. But, he had to go through Harwood
Street since Harwood went north to the next street whatever it is, turn
left there, then make another left on Commerce and then proceed down to
the ramp. Think about how many lights that was. One: the light at Main and
Harwood. Two: the light at Main and the next street. Three: the light at
Commerce and whatever street he took to get to it. Four: the light at
Commerce and Harwood. Who, in a situation like that, would allow just 1
minutes, a little less than a minute, to get situated? And what was he
waiting for? What did he have to do that he couldn't leave earlier? In
fact, doesn't it seem likely that getting the lead car in place would have
been done a lot earlier? Why not?
Guess what, when police officers in cars need to get somewhere quickly
they have these things call red flashing lights that allow them to get
wherever they need to go, and as quickly as they can get there. They can
even use a thing called sirens. Pierce left when he realized that the time
was getting close as to when Oswald was going to appear. Nobody really
knew the exact time because Harry Holmes decided at the last minute to
show up and ask questions, and even Oswald himself delayed his appearance
in the garage when he requested a sweater.
Post by Ralph Cinque
So, there is no credibility to Pierce waiting until the last minute. There
is no credibility to anyone being gathered at the Main Street ramp when it
was an incoming ramp. And yet, there was a crowd there. Why?
There were people on Main Street, and Commerce Street, and in front of city hall. What of it? Are you insinuating that the people that gathered near the Main Street exit where all in on your fairytale? What's your point in this?
Post by Ralph Cinque
We have on record Jack Ruby stating that the time he sent his money wire
was 10:15. He was promptly corrected by a Secret Service Agent who was not
in Dallas or the state of Texas on November 24, and Ruby didn't question
it, but he never questioned anything he was told. He was very subservient
to law enforcement. But, the fact that his recollection was 10:15 still
stands, and it is riveting. And that's because we already know, beyond a
shadow of a doubt, that he was not in that garage at 11:20. There are no
images of him there. And, the images of the shooter not only conflict with
him, they also conflict with each other, where one was taller and thinner
and the other shorter and more squatty. There is not a single frame of the
Garage Shooter that can remotely be recognized and identified as Jack
Ruby. People only say he was Ruby because that's what they were told.
The time stamp on the Western Union money order was 11:17. Not 10:15, or
10:30, or even 11:00. It was 11:17. Ruby knew that Pierce left the garage
one minute before the shooting, and he could only have known that if we
were indeed standing outside the Main Street entrance one minute before
the shooting took place.
Post by Ralph Cinque
Sparta, Jack Ruby was framed. He did NOT shoot Oswald. He was set up. He
was mentally ill and strung out on drugs, and subject to blackouts, and
they knew he would believe whatever the told him.
He not only admitted he shot Oswald, his lawyers (Melvin Belli and Joe
Tonahill) allowed him to plead not guilty by reason of insanity. They did
so because the evidence of his having shot Oswald was so overwhelming they
had no other choice. It's only in your weird world and imagination that
someone other than Jack Ruby shot Oswald.
Post by Ralph Cinque
We have undeniable proof that Dallas detectives lied, including Leavelle
and Graves. Leavelle described a whole scenario of what happened and what
he did that is in complete defiance with the film record.
And, the amount of photographic and film alteration connected with the
Oswald shooting is staggering, including the famous Jackson photo, which
is a monstrosity.
Again, please provide a credible scientific analysis that has come to the
conclusion that any photographic evidence of the shooting of Oswald were
faked. Anything.
Post by Ralph Cinque
And where are you left? You're left trying to diminish stark photographic
evidence by playing the "blurry" card (where there aren't even issues of
blurriness). Ultimately, you are just the guy saying, "Pay no attention to
the man behind the curtain."
And you're just a guy that says "Pay no attention to the real evidence,
eyewitness accounts, and pure and simple logic, and take it on faith that
my science fiction fairytale is the real truth, because I want to be a big
shot and be the guy that broke this case wide open. Please, please believe
me."
Post by Ralph Cinque
The killing of Oswald was a joint DPD/FBI plot, which was probably
authorized by both Lyndon Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover. I've have had 3
articles published on VT about Bookhout being the real Garage Shooter, and
I'm working on a 4th. This can't be stopped- not by you and not by
anybody.
We'll just see, won't we.
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-27 19:19:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I told you, Haydon, I mean Sparta, the cops were all in on it. Just today,
I listened to Elmer Boyd's interview in which he said he was eating lunch
at his mother-in-law's house that Sunday morning, and he watched it on
television, and he instantly recognized Jack Ruby. Instantly! THAT IS
IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE YOU NEVER SEE THE MAN'S FACE! All he saw was exactly
what we saw, and you know how poor the footage is. So, he's sitting back
eating a steak at his mother-in-law's table, and he sees the NBC footage
(that's the only live one) and there is no way anyone can claim there is
enough exposure of the shooter to identify him as Jack Ruby. Watch it
yourself, and you'll realize how preposterous it is to claim that Ruby can
be recognized:



Based on what? And you're wrong about the reporters. Hugh Aynesworth knew
Jack Ruby and interacted with him 3x that weekend, yet he didn't recognize
him and didn't find out that he was Ruby until the police announced it
later. Then the other was Ike Pappas who also interacted with Ruby that
weekend and took a business card from him, and he didn't realize he was
Ruby until he was told so by Police. And Pappas seemed to have a good
vantage point. Just look at the Beers photo.


So, it was just the lying cops who said they recognized Ruby in the
garage; no one else. And Boyd claimed to do it from his mother-in-law's
table, no less.

And they were very careful not to let the face of the shooter be exposed.
Why don't you reverse that question and ask yourself why, when there were
cameras pointed at him from multiple directions, that none captured his
face? Just worked out that way, eh? The reason why the shooter (Bookhout)
dove into the waiting arms of the cops is because they were his screen.
They were his blanket. They were NEVER fighting. "Ruby", as people
mistakenly call him, never did anything aggressive. Show me the frame in
which he is punching, kicking, flailing, spitting or doing anything
combative. He never resisted. There was NO REASON why that "fight" should
not have come to an end in that garage. The idea that it dragged on into
the jail office is absolutely preposterous. You hear me, Haydon? I mean
Sparta.

Yes, I have a photo of the back of James Bookhout's neck which compares
favorably with that of the Garage Shooter, unlike Jack Ruby. Click on the
link at the bottom.

And Shoter is a typo. I was typing fast, and the second o just didn't
land. What you did is mistake two completely different words: "brakes" and
"breaks". And I had never seen it before.

Now, you are completely losing it. There is no evidence that Pierce used
siren and flashing lights to run any lights to get to the front of the
building, and he never claimed that he did that. So, how dare you proffer
it?

And the delays you mentioned had the opposite effect. They delayed the
transfer, and if Pierce didn't know about them, then he would have
expected Oswald to appear even earlier, so he should have left even
earlier. You're just making excuses, and they're not even good ones.

The people on Commerce Street were gathered to watch Oswald being driven
away. They knew that he would be coming out there. But the Main Street
ramp was incoming. So, who were they waiting to see driving in? Now, if
you can't understand that difference, Haydon, I mean Sparta, I can't dumb
it down any more.

Ruby knew that Pierce left the garage 1 minute before HIS EVENT, a separate
event.
Jack Ruby was not at the televised garage shooting.
Jack Ruby was not at the televised garage shooting.
Jack Ruby was not at the televised garage shooting.
He was sequestered up on the 5th floor already at the time of the televised
garage shooting.

The WU paperwork is bogus, and they made the mistake of time-stamping the
receipt before they time-stamped the money transfer. Again, like getting
the cart before the horse.

Jack Ruby had no memory of shooting Oswald. All he remembered was going
down to the ramp, reaching the bottom, and then being pounced upon by
police. He said that all the rest was a "blur." And the fact is: it was
even so much as a blur. He had no memory of shooting Oswald, period. And
why don't you think about what his lawyer plead: that he had psychomotor
epilepsy and went through the action of shooting Oswald unconsciously,
like he was sleepwalking. It's ridiculous, but why would he claim such a
thing? It was because Ruby must have told him that he had absolutely no
memory of doing it.

I have already delineated the things in the Jackson photo that are false,
impossibly false, and it's more scientific than anything you have ever
done in your life. And nobody has ever addressed these findings with any
explanations or excuses whatsoever I'll give you an example: Oswald's left
hand slapped to his chest is un-anatomical, meaning that it is not
consistent in form with a human hand. It is also much too big to be
Oswald's hand. We have images of his hands, and they weren't that big. In
the Jackson photo, Oswald's hand is a monstrosity.

Now, let's see you find an Anatomist who disagrees with that. I dare you,
and I dare him.

Please? When have I ever said please to anybody on this forum? You've got
some nerve depicting me that way, Haydon. I mean Sparta.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/ralph-cinque-i-told-you-haydon-i-mean.html
Jason Burke
2017-06-28 15:13:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
I told you, Haydon, I mean Sparta, the cops were all in on it. Just today,
In your little fairy tale is there anyone that was in Dallas in late
November 1963 that *wasn't* in on it, Ralph?
Post by Ralph Cinque
I listened to Elmer Boyd's interview in which he said he was eating lunch
at his mother-in-law's house that Sunday morning, and he watched it on
television, and he instantly recognized Jack Ruby. Instantly! THAT IS
IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE YOU NEVER SEE THE MAN'S FACE! All he saw was exactly
what we saw, and you know how poor the footage is. So, he's sitting back
eating a steak at his mother-in-law's table, and he sees the NBC footage
(that's the only live one) and there is no way anyone can claim there is
enough exposure of the shooter to identify him as Jack Ruby. Watch it
yourself, and you'll realize how preposterous it is to claim that Ruby can
http://youtu.be/NQpoHclNwTk
Based on what? And you're wrong about the reporters. Hugh Aynesworth knew
Jack Ruby and interacted with him 3x that weekend, yet he didn't recognize
him and didn't find out that he was Ruby until the police announced it
later. Then the other was Ike Pappas who also interacted with Ruby that
weekend and took a business card from him, and he didn't realize he was
Ruby until he was told so by Police. And Pappas seemed to have a good
vantage point. Just look at the Beers photo.
So, it was just the lying cops who said they recognized Ruby in the
garage; no one else. And Boyd claimed to do it from his mother-in-law's
table, no less.
And they were very careful not to let the face of the shooter be exposed.
Why don't you reverse that question and ask yourself why, when there were
cameras pointed at him from multiple directions, that none captured his
face? Just worked out that way, eh? The reason why the shooter (Bookhout)
dove into the waiting arms of the cops is because they were his screen.
They were his blanket. They were NEVER fighting. "Ruby", as people
mistakenly call him, never did anything aggressive. Show me the frame in
which he is punching, kicking, flailing, spitting or doing anything
combative. He never resisted. There was NO REASON why that "fight" should
not have come to an end in that garage. The idea that it dragged on into
the jail office is absolutely preposterous. You hear me, Haydon? I mean
Sparta.
Yes, I have a photo of the back of James Bookhout's neck which compares
favorably with that of the Garage Shooter, unlike Jack Ruby. Click on the
link at the bottom.
And Shoter is a typo. I was typing fast, and the second o just didn't
land. What you did is mistake two completely different words: "brakes" and
"breaks". And I had never seen it before.
Now, you are completely losing it. There is no evidence that Pierce used
siren and flashing lights to run any lights to get to the front of the
building, and he never claimed that he did that. So, how dare you proffer
it?
And the delays you mentioned had the opposite effect. They delayed the
transfer, and if Pierce didn't know about them, then he would have
expected Oswald to appear even earlier, so he should have left even
earlier. You're just making excuses, and they're not even good ones.
The people on Commerce Street were gathered to watch Oswald being driven
away. They knew that he would be coming out there. But the Main Street
ramp was incoming. So, who were they waiting to see driving in? Now, if
you can't understand that difference, Haydon, I mean Sparta, I can't dumb
it down any more.
Ruby knew that Pierce left the garage 1 minute before HIS EVENT, a separate
event.
Jack Ruby was not at the televised garage shooting.
Jack Ruby was not at the televised garage shooting.
Jack Ruby was not at the televised garage shooting.
He was sequestered up on the 5th floor already at the time of the televised
garage shooting.
The WU paperwork is bogus, and they made the mistake of time-stamping the
receipt before they time-stamped the money transfer. Again, like getting
the cart before the horse.
Jack Ruby had no memory of shooting Oswald. All he remembered was going
down to the ramp, reaching the bottom, and then being pounced upon by
police. He said that all the rest was a "blur." And the fact is: it was
even so much as a blur. He had no memory of shooting Oswald, period. And
why don't you think about what his lawyer plead: that he had psychomotor
epilepsy and went through the action of shooting Oswald unconsciously,
like he was sleepwalking. It's ridiculous, but why would he claim such a
thing? It was because Ruby must have told him that he had absolutely no
memory of doing it.
I have already delineated the things in the Jackson photo that are false,
impossibly false, and it's more scientific than anything you have ever
done in your life. And nobody has ever addressed these findings with any
explanations or excuses whatsoever I'll give you an example: Oswald's left
hand slapped to his chest is un-anatomical, meaning that it is not
consistent in form with a human hand. It is also much too big to be
Oswald's hand. We have images of his hands, and they weren't that big. In
the Jackson photo, Oswald's hand is a monstrosity.
Now, let's see you find an Anatomist who disagrees with that. I dare you,
and I dare him.
Please? When have I ever said please to anybody on this forum? You've got
some nerve depicting me that way, Haydon. I mean Sparta.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/ralph-cinque-i-told-you-haydon-i-mean.html
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-28 23:17:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Marrion Baker wasn't in on it. And notice that he was in no way involved
with the Oswald shooting. You only have to watch the footage to recognize
that there is nothing real about any of it. Police don't actually do that,
struggle with a guy and keep struggling with him, even though it's plain
as day that they already have him completely dominated and controlled. And
yet, it goes on and on until they are filing into the jail office with
him. It is nonsense. Such a thing has never happened before; it has never
happened since; and it is unlikely to ever happen again. You really have
to be childish and obtuse not to see that the whole thing is fake, fake,
fake.
Jason Burke
2017-06-29 23:33:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Marrion Baker wasn't in on it. And notice that he was in no way involved
with the Oswald shooting. You only have to watch the footage to recognize
that there is nothing real about any of it. Police don't actually do that,
struggle with a guy and keep struggling with him, even though it's plain
as day that they already have him completely dominated and controlled. And
yet, it goes on and on until they are filing into the jail office with
him. It is nonsense. Such a thing has never happened before; it has never
happened since; and it is unlikely to ever happen again. You really have
to be childish and obtuse not to see that the whole thing is fake, fake,
fake.
You've nailed "childish" and "obtuse", Ralph.

Face it, Ralph. You're o-fer-5+ years on this matter.
InsideSparta
2017-06-28 19:37:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
I told you, Haydon, I mean Sparta, the cops were all in on it. Just today,
I listened to Elmer Boyd's interview in which he said he was eating lunch
at his mother-in-law's house that Sunday morning, and he watched it on
television, and he instantly recognized Jack Ruby. Instantly! THAT IS
IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE YOU NEVER SEE THE MAN'S FACE! All he saw was exactly
what we saw, and you know how poor the footage is. So, he's sitting back
eating a steak at his mother-in-law's table, and he sees the NBC footage
(that's the only live one) and there is no way anyone can claim there is
enough exposure of the shooter to identify him as Jack Ruby. Watch it
yourself, and you'll realize how preposterous it is to claim that Ruby can
http://youtu.be/NQpoHclNwTk
Based on what? And you're wrong about the reporters. Hugh Aynesworth knew
Jack Ruby and interacted with him 3x that weekend, yet he didn't recognize
him and didn't find out that he was Ruby until the police announced it
later. Then the other was Ike Pappas who also interacted with Ruby that
weekend and took a business card from him, and he didn't realize he was
Ruby until he was told so by Police. And Pappas seemed to have a good
vantage point. Just look at the Beers photo.
So, it was just the lying cops who said they recognized Ruby in the
garage; no one else. And Boyd claimed to do it from his mother-in-law's
table, no less.
And they were very careful not to let the face of the shooter be exposed.
Why don't you reverse that question and ask yourself why, when there were
cameras pointed at him from multiple directions, that none captured his
face? Just worked out that way, eh? The reason why the shooter (Bookhout)
dove into the waiting arms of the cops is because they were his screen.
They were his blanket. They were NEVER fighting. "Ruby", as people
mistakenly call him, never did anything aggressive. Show me the frame in
which he is punching, kicking, flailing, spitting or doing anything
combative. He never resisted. There was NO REASON why that "fight" should
not have come to an end in that garage. The idea that it dragged on into
the jail office is absolutely preposterous. You hear me, Haydon? I mean
Sparta.
Yes, I have a photo of the back of James Bookhout's neck which compares
favorably with that of the Garage Shooter, unlike Jack Ruby. Click on the
link at the bottom.
And Shoter is a typo. I was typing fast, and the second o just didn't
land. What you did is mistake two completely different words: "brakes" and
"breaks". And I had never seen it before.
Now, you are completely losing it. There is no evidence that Pierce used
siren and flashing lights to run any lights to get to the front of the
building, and he never claimed that he did that. So, how dare you proffer
it?
And the delays you mentioned had the opposite effect. They delayed the
transfer, and if Pierce didn't know about them, then he would have
expected Oswald to appear even earlier, so he should have left even
earlier. You're just making excuses, and they're not even good ones.
The people on Commerce Street were gathered to watch Oswald being driven
away. They knew that he would be coming out there. But the Main Street
ramp was incoming. So, who were they waiting to see driving in? Now, if
you can't understand that difference, Haydon, I mean Sparta, I can't dumb
it down any more.
Ruby knew that Pierce left the garage 1 minute before HIS EVENT, a separate
event.
Jack Ruby was not at the televised garage shooting.
Jack Ruby was not at the televised garage shooting.
Jack Ruby was not at the televised garage shooting.
He was sequestered up on the 5th floor already at the time of the televised
garage shooting.
The WU paperwork is bogus, and they made the mistake of time-stamping the
receipt before they time-stamped the money transfer. Again, like getting
the cart before the horse.
Jack Ruby had no memory of shooting Oswald. All he remembered was going
down to the ramp, reaching the bottom, and then being pounced upon by
police. He said that all the rest was a "blur." And the fact is: it was
even so much as a blur. He had no memory of shooting Oswald, period. And
why don't you think about what his lawyer plead: that he had psychomotor
epilepsy and went through the action of shooting Oswald unconsciously,
like he was sleepwalking. It's ridiculous, but why would he claim such a
thing? It was because Ruby must have told him that he had absolutely no
memory of doing it.
I have already delineated the things in the Jackson photo that are false,
impossibly false, and it's more scientific than anything you have ever
done in your life. And nobody has ever addressed these findings with any
explanations or excuses whatsoever I'll give you an example: Oswald's left
hand slapped to his chest is un-anatomical, meaning that it is not
consistent in form with a human hand. It is also much too big to be
Oswald's hand. We have images of his hands, and they weren't that big. In
the Jackson photo, Oswald's hand is a monstrosity.
Now, let's see you find an Anatomist who disagrees with that. I dare you,
and I dare him.
Please? When have I ever said please to anybody on this forum? You've got
some nerve depicting me that way, Haydon. I mean Sparta.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/ralph-cinque-i-told-you-haydon-i-mean.html
I had to Google Haydon and Uppercut to see just exactly who you were
accusing me of being, and I'm still not sure just who Haydon is.

So, in the 50+ years since the events took place, not a single Dallas
Police officer or detective has ever stepped forward and said that Oswald
was shot by FBI Agent James Bookhout, and that the whole Ruby shot Oswald
was a ruse. This would include the 20-25 reserve Dallas police officers
that were in and around city hall the entire morning that Oswald was
killed. Not a single person has come forward.

In the 50+ years since the events took place, not a single member of the
dozens of reporters that were in the basement that morning has ever come
forward and said that Ruby was not the man that shot Oswald. This despite
Ruby having briefly stood amongst them prior to the shooting. Not a single
member of the press, even those that were non-US citizens. And, OBTW, CBS
reporter Ike Pappas got down into the garage about 15 seconds prior to the
shooting. He was there even less than Ruby himself, so it's not surprising
if he didn't realize or recognize Ruby in the flash that Ruby darted out
and shot Oswald. Do you have any idea how many different people Ike Pappas
had met on that weekend?

The reason none of the cameras got a good image of Ruby was because they
were all positioned to get photos of Oswald being led to the car. When
Ruby darted out, his back was to all of the still photographers because
they were interested in getting photos of Oswald.

You continually state the DPD in attendance that morning were lying, yet
all of the corroborating evidence support their telling the truth. Case in
point, your jumping to the conclusion that Detective Dhority lied to the
WC when he said he was "backing" the car into place when the shooting took
place. As has been proven on this site, Dhority was telling the truth, and
your accusation that the car was moving forward has proven to be far from
the truth. So, who's really lying? It's you. And, once your lie is exposed
you try and cover it up by deleting posts on this site and entries on your
own blog.

You still have not given an explanation as to how Ruby could have known,
minutes after the shooting took place, that Pierce had exited the garage
one minute before the shooting. DPD Sgt. Patrick Dean, who knew Ruby,
testified that Ruby told him that he entered the garage shortly before he
shot Oswald from the Main Street ramp when the officer guarding the
entrance was distracted by Lieutenant Pierce's departure through that
entrance. You've failed to provide a single piece of evidence that Pierce
left any earlier than 11:20 and that Ruby entered any earlier than that.
Not a single piece of evidence.

You've failed to provide a single piece of evidence that proves or
indicates the Western Union receipt found on Ruby's possession was forged.
Phone records showed that Karen Carlin made the call to Ruby requesting
the money order around 10:00 to 10:15 that morning, to his apartment in
Oak Cliff, and he told her it would take awhile to get dressed and drive
downtown. This was the time frame that you say that Ruby was already
downtown, or heading in that direction. He couldn't have been driving
downtown, or already at city hall and also be talking to Carlin on the
phone from his apartment. The 11:17 time stamp corroborates not only
Ruby's testimony as to when he entered the garage, but also the testimony
and phone records of Carlin.

I don't for a minute believe that Ruby had no recollection of shooting
Oswald. The whole epileptic seizure story was merely a legal ploy made by
Melvin Belli to try and get his client acquitted in a first degree
homicide case. That doesn't really make Ruby a liar.

With regards to the Bob Jackson photo of Ruby shooting Oswald, you
interpretation and opinion of whether or not the image was faked is
inconsequential. You're not an expert on photographic analysis, and you've
already proven yourself to not being very adept and determining the front
end of a vehicle from the rear end when viewing video images. Nor were you
very adept and determining that an individual seen in the videotaped
footage was not actually CBS correspondent Dan Rather (it wasn't). What
really matters is what experts in photographic analysis say about Bob
Jackson't photo. I asked you to provide any studies performed by
photographic experts that have come to conclusion that any of the photos
or film taken in the garage that morning were forged, and you've failed to
provide any such proof. Your opinion on the photos doesn't really count
for anything, because 1) you're not an expert, and 2) you're opinion is
slanted by your own bias.

As for the image of what you say is the back of Agent Bookhout's neck.
There's no proof that the photo is of Bookhout at all. Are we to take your
word for it that it really is Bookhout? Based on your recently deleted
posts and blog entries this past week, I'd say your word really can't be
trusted.

Bottom line; you can make all the claims you wish about Bookhout shooting
Oswald, and Ruby being in custody an hour before the shooting took place,
even without having any solid evidence or eyewitness testimony to back it
up, nor any corroboration that any of it ever took place. Go ahead and
make those outrageous claims. But please don't cry or complain when people
on this site make fun of you for it. You reap what you sew. And when you
sew crap, people are going to give you crap.
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-29 23:32:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Not a single cop came forward? It was a DPD operation, so that would mean
coming forward on themselves. You don't get it: I'm not saying that James
Bookhout personally did this on his own initiative. I'm saying he was part
of an operation that included the DPD and the FBI, and his role was to
impersonate Bookhout. So, obviously, none of his cohorts were going to
come forward on him because that would mean coming forward on themselves.
Therefore, your objection means absolutely nothing. They were all
co-conspirators.

It was Bookhout, and that is visibly plain to see. If denying what is
plainly visible before you is something you want to do, you can, but not
without revealing your own utter corruption. And I'll tell you something
else: people have no trouble seeing it. Of course, here they do. But, this
isn't the real world. This is JFK-land. But outside of JFK-land, they have
no trouble seeing it, and that will be shown to you in due course.

And why is it so hard for you to get it into your head that no reporter
saw Ruby or even thought Ruby until the cops said it was Ruby? The
reporters found out it was Ruby the same way everyone at home did. NOT ONE
OF THEM SAW IT FOR THEMSELVES.

And you say that the reason that Ruby's face wasn't captured is because
his back was to the camera, but what about Jim Davidson's camera? And what
about after the ruckus began? How during a ruckus could his back always be
facing those cameras? No, the reason we never see his face in the garage
is because he was James Bookhout. And since you admit that his face wasn't
broadcast or even seen, how exactly could anyone recognize him as Jack
Ruby? Don't you have to see a person's face to recognize him?

And no, I didn't lie about Dhority. I was mistaken about him not backing
up, but that's not the same as lying. But, the fact is that there are
problems with what we see of him. Why did his brake light (if that's what
it was) keep beaming for many seconds after the car came to a stop? Was he
just sitting there holding his foot to the brake? And how come his backup
light didn't come on when he was backing up? And isn't it strange that
Dhority didn't get out of the car? He realized that a shot went off,
right? He wasn't deaf, was he? And he realized that a scuffle was going on
behind him. And he remains in the car? He doesn't get out to find out who
got shot? Very strange behavior.

So, bully for him that he backed up. But, it doesn't get him out of the
hot seat.

And what is the excuse for why this struggle wasn't brought to conclusion
IN THE GARAGE? The idea that it dragged on into the jail office is
preposterous. Was Ruby little Hercules? Why wasn't he cuffed in the
garage? And especially when it is painfully obvious that the shooter
wasn't resisting at all, that he never once took any hostile action- after
the shot.

And why are you citing culprits like Patrick Dean to me, and assuming that
I am obliged to accept their statements about Ruby's statements. Liars!
Look at how they lied in saying that Ruby was swearing and saying mean
things like, "I hope the son of a bitch dies." You only have to look at
the sheepish, obsequious Ruby to see that he wasn't behaving like that. He
was like a gentle lamb, for Christ's sake.

You're claiming that the Sunday morning timeline was confirmed by checking
phone records? Let's see the records. I've seen the claims, but I haven't
seen the records.

And I have already provided you with evidence that the WU paperwork was
forged, the fact that the receipt was time-stamped before the money order.
That is an "indication."

And besides, the whole idea of you demanding proof of this, proof of that,
when the whole force of law was in operation to conceal what really
happened. And here it is 53 years later, and you're saying I should have
proof? It's amazing as it is that I have uncovered the truth, that Ruby
was framed, that he did not kill Oswald, that he was not in the garage at
the time, and that he was already in custody. Now, as far as the exact
time that he had his little incident in the garage, I can't possibly know.
But, I do know from the testimony of Robert Jackson and from just watching
the films that the press did not get set up in the garage until shortly
before Oswald came out. They were still rolling big cameras out there just
a few minutes before- all to capture a man being walked 20 feet to a car
and driven away. The national press descended on that garage for that-
supposedly.

Ruby had no recollection of shooting Oswald, and he said so again at his
final interview, given two weeks before he died of a pulmonary embolism,
which could have been and probably was drug-induced.

And no, you're wrong about someone having to be a "photographic expert".
We have all been looking at photos our whole lives. And there are
anatomical issues involved, such as the anatomy of the hand, for which I
am, relatively speaking, an expert. For you to dismiss my claims on the
grounds that they were made by me is an outrage. And besides, in that
case, it should be easy enough for you to find a "photographic expert" to
defend the Jackson photo and refute my claims, one by one. I WOULD WELCOME
THAT. In fact, I dare some photographic expert to challenge me and
actually publicly defend the authenticity of that photo. That I would have
to see and hear, and I would record every word. So yes, absolutely, let us
bring in a photographic expert. But hey, you are the one trying to refute
me. So, if you can't do it yourself, then you bring in a photographic
expert.

And my posting about Dan Rather has gone back up on my blog, I said the
matter is unresolved, and I meant it. Plenty of people have staunchly
supported that that is Dan Rather. Again: you dwell in this bubble here,
but I don't.

And what people on this site think of me and my work is of not the
slightest interest to me. They are people I have no respect for and
nothing but contempt for, so why should I give a chit what they think?

Things are happening with this Bookhout story. Wheels are turning. It was
definitely him and not Ruby in the garage, and the photographic evidence
on it is conclusive. Not just strong but conclusive. And people have no
trouble seeing it.

You didn't say anything. Now, explain why that struggle wasn't resolved in
the garage? Explain how the cops knew that dragging "Ruby" into the jail
office was the plan. Explain how no camera caught an object as big as two
men carrying a third man through a narrow door. There is not a glimpse of
Oswald being brought into the jail office. Why?
InsideSparta
2017-06-30 18:50:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Not a single cop came forward? It was a DPD operation, so that would mean
coming forward on themselves. You don't get it: I'm not saying that James
Bookhout personally did this on his own initiative. I'm saying he was part
of an operation that included the DPD and the FBI, and his role was to
impersonate Bookhout. So, obviously, none of his cohorts were going to
come forward on him because that would mean coming forward on themselves.
Therefore, your objection means absolutely nothing. They were all
co-conspirators.
You obviously missed my point about the 20-25 reserve policemen who were
in and around the garage for about three hours before the shooting. Some
of them would have been privy to an "event" taking place within the garage
earlier in which Ruby was taken into custody (as you claim). Yet, in all
the years, not one of them has ever stepped forward and said any such
event ever took place. These were reserve officers. People that had other
jobs. Any one of them could have made a fortune coming forward and telling
a tale about the type of fakery taking place during the shooting of
Oswald. But, none of them did. Why? Because all of these shenanigans only
took place in your mind.
Post by Ralph Cinque
It was Bookhout, and that is visibly plain to see. If denying what is
plainly visible before you is something you want to do, you can, but not
without revealing your own utter corruption. And I'll tell you something
else: people have no trouble seeing it. Of course, here they do. But, this
isn't the real world. This is JFK-land. But outside of JFK-land, they have
no trouble seeing it, and that will be shown to you in due course.
"Visibly plain to see"? Please. Maybe it's plain to see for a bunch of
delusional CT's, but for someone like myself, that views things
realistically, it's without a doubt Jack Ruby shooting Lee Harvey Oswald.
All the eyewitness, video, photographic, and physical evidence supports
that. That doesn't make me "corrupt". It makes me realistic.
Post by Ralph Cinque
And why is it so hard for you to get it into your head that no reporter
saw Ruby or even thought Ruby until the cops said it was Ruby? The
reporters found out it was Ruby the same way everyone at home did. NOT ONE
OF THEM SAW IT FOR THEMSELVES.
And not one of them ever said or questioned the known fact that Ruby was
the person that shot Oswald. There were literally dozens of journalists
and photographers in that basement. Surely one of them would have stepped
forward and claimed that what they saw was not what was reported to have
happened. How many ever came forward with such a claim? None.
Post by Ralph Cinque
And you say that the reason that Ruby's face wasn't captured is because
his back was to the camera, but what about Jim Davidson's camera? And what
about after the ruckus began? How during a ruckus could his back always be
facing those cameras? No, the reason we never see his face in the garage
is because he was James Bookhout. And since you admit that his face wasn't
broadcast or even seen, how exactly could anyone recognize him as Jack
Ruby? Don't you have to see a person's face to recognize him?
There was the film footage taken from the jail office corridor, looking in
the opposite direction, which captured the face of the person that shot
Oswald. Guess what, he looks like Jack Ruby.
Post by Ralph Cinque
And no, I didn't lie about Dhority. I was mistaken about him not backing
up, but that's not the same as lying. But, the fact is that there are
problems with what we see of him. Why did his brake light (if that's what
it was) keep beaming for many seconds after the car came to a stop? Was he
just sitting there holding his foot to the brake? And how come his backup
light didn't come on when he was backing up? And isn't it strange that
Dhority didn't get out of the car? He realized that a shot went off,
right? He wasn't deaf, was he? And he realized that a scuffle was going on
behind him. And he remains in the car? He doesn't get out to find out who
got shot? Very strange behavior.
You went off half cocked and called Dhority a liar, without performing the
proper analysis of the visual evidence to determine whether or not what he
said was true. You stated that the car was moving forward, not backward.
So, you were either lying to try and prove your own point, or you were
grossly irresponsible in your accusations. Which was it?
Post by Ralph Cinque
So, bully for him that he backed up. But, it doesn't get him out of the
hot seat.
And what is the excuse for why this struggle wasn't brought to conclusion
IN THE GARAGE? The idea that it dragged on into the jail office is
preposterous. Was Ruby little Hercules? Why wasn't he cuffed in the
garage? And especially when it is painfully obvious that the shooter
wasn't resisting at all, that he never once took any hostile action- after
the shot.
If you look at film of similar situations, like President Reagan's
shooting, and the shooting of George Wallace, you see the suspect being
immediately surrounded and subdued by law enforcement, then very quickly
removed from the area, with virtually no opportunity for photographers and
videographers to get any clear shot of the suspect. That's what law
enforcement officers are trained to do.
Post by Ralph Cinque
And why are you citing culprits like Patrick Dean to me, and assuming that
I am obliged to accept their statements about Ruby's statements. Liars!
Look at how they lied in saying that Ruby was swearing and saying mean
things like, "I hope the son of a bitch dies." You only have to look at
the sheepish, obsequious Ruby to see that he wasn't behaving like that. He
was like a gentle lamb, for Christ's sake.
So, was Officer Patrick Dean a liar on the scale of Dhority. Ooops.
Dhority was prove to have told the truth after you called him a liar. What
evidence do you have that Dean lies about anything? Do you have evidence,
or are you just guessing he lied because what he said doesn't support your
narrative?
Post by Ralph Cinque
You're claiming that the Sunday morning timeline was confirmed by checking
phone records? Let's see the records. I've seen the claims, but I haven't
seen the records.
And I have already provided you with evidence that the WU paperwork was
forged, the fact that the receipt was time-stamped before the money order.
That is an "indication."
You haven't provided anything of the sort. You've provided your
opinipn/belief, which s far from providing evidence of forgery.
Post by Ralph Cinque
And besides, the whole idea of you demanding proof of this, proof of that,
when the whole force of law was in operation to conceal what really
happened. And here it is 53 years later, and you're saying I should have
proof? It's amazing as it is that I have uncovered the truth, that Ruby
was framed, that he did not kill Oswald, that he was not in the garage at
the time, and that he was already in custody. Now, as far as the exact
time that he had his little incident in the garage, I can't possibly know.
But, I do know from the testimony of Robert Jackson and from just watching
the films that the press did not get set up in the garage until shortly
before Oswald came out. They were still rolling big cameras out there just
a few minutes before- all to capture a man being walked 20 feet to a car
and driven away. The national press descended on that garage for that-
supposedly.
Shame on me for demanding proof of forgery, perjury, conspiracy, and
deception in the shooting of Oswald. I should take it all on your word?
Post by Ralph Cinque
Ruby had no recollection of shooting Oswald, and he said so again at his
final interview, given two weeks before he died of a pulmonary embolism,
which could have been and probably was drug-induced.
And no, you're wrong about someone having to be a "photographic expert".
We have all been looking at photos our whole lives. And there are
anatomical issues involved, such as the anatomy of the hand, for which I
am, relatively speaking, an expert. For you to dismiss my claims on the
grounds that they were made by me is an outrage. And besides, in that
case, it should be easy enough for you to find a "photographic exp. ert" to
defend the Jackson photo and refute my claims, one by one. I WOULD WELCOME
THAT. In fact, I dare some photographic expert to challenge me and
actually publicly defend the authenticity of that photo. That I would have
to see and hear, and I would record every word. So yes, absolutely, let us
bring in a photographic expert. But hey, you are the one trying to refute
me. So, if you can't do it yourself, then you bring in a photographic
expert.
And here's the real crux in your fairytale. You expect people to believe
that Bob Jackson allowed his film from 11/24/63 to be developed, and the
print manipulated, prior to it hitting the newswires in the mid-afternoon
that same day. You expect people to believe that someone in 1963 could
have made alterations to Bob Jackson's print of the shooting within an
hour, and that those alterations could have been so well done that 50+
years later no photographic expert could determine that there was
manipulation taking place? What freaking dream world do you live in? I'm
not the one claiming the photo was manipulated, you are. So, the impedance
is on you to provide evidence to back up your accusations. If you can't
provide that evidence, or provide any scientific analysis of the
photograph that supports your crazy theory, then you simply need to STFU
already.
Post by Ralph Cinque
And my posting about Dan Rather has gone back up on my blog, I said the
matter is unresolved, and I meant it. Plenty of people have staunchly
supported that that is Dan Rather. Again: you dwell in this bubble here,
but I don't.
And what people on this site think of me and my work is of not the
slightest interest to me. They are people I have no respect for and
nothing but contempt for, so why should I give a chit what they think?
Please. If you didn't care about what people on this site thought about
your "work" you wouldn't have replied to this thread a dozen times
already.
Post by Ralph Cinque
Things are happening with this Bookhout story. Wheels are turning. It was
definitely him and not Ruby in the garage, and the photographic evidence
on it is conclusive. Not just strong but conclusive. And people have no
trouble seeing it.
Only you and the other fringe loony CT's put any credence in your Bookhout
theory.
Post by Ralph Cinque
You didn't say anything. Now, explain why that struggle wasn't resolved in
the garage? Explain how the cops knew that dragging "Ruby" into the jail
office was the plan. Explain how no camera caught an object as big as two
men carrying a third man through a narrow door. There is not a glimpse of
Oswald being brought into the jail office. Why?
Um, we saw Oswald shot in the spot where he was. And we saw Oswald rolled
out on a stretcher, pale as can be and unconscious. We also see images of
his blood on the floor of the jail office. It's not beyond the imagination
that he was moved from the spot in which he fell, to the jail office. He
certainly didn't fly or walk there under his own power. So, you tell me
how he got from the spot of the shooting to the jail office?
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-30 23:47:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Sparta, you're just freakin' lip-flapper is all you are. If you really
believe that the images of the shooter visibly support him being Jack
Ruby, why don't you display images of the two side by side? But, you
don't. You just flap your lips and make your bold-faced claim. But, there
are people who may actually want to see images of the shooter side by side
with Jack Ruby, and they can.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/specimen-left.html

And it shows the stark contrast. You're just lucky that this forum doesn't
permit the displaying of images. If it did, you would be a laughing stock
in denying what I am saying.

And, you apparently don't understand how the fascist state works. When a
decree comes down, such as this one, there is no denying it, and certainly
not by any police officer, who works for the fascist state. And you're
wrong in saying they could have gotten rich by revealing it. They would
have gotten nothing but trouble revealing it. Which media outlet was going
to pay them for their story? The Dallas Morning News? The New York Times?
The Washington Post? And the reporters who worked for those outlets? Hugh
Aynesworth of the DMN? Ike Pappas of CBS? They were going to dispute what
police said that it was Jack Ruby? The point is that they didn't recognize
him. That they accepted it afterwards is perfectly predictable: it was an
operation of the fascist state for which complete total acceptance was
expected of everyone in any kind of position of influence. Reporters in
that situation, whether Dan Rather, Ike Pappas, Hugh Aynesworth, or
whomever, are really just indirect minions of the fascist state.

This was a military-style operation, with complete, total informational
control; information lockdown.

And you are no good at answering questions. I asked you why the "struggle"
dragged on into the jail office when there was no way for the cops
involved to know that they were doing that, and there was no way that
control over "Ruby" could not be exerted and established in the garage.
The whole seemingly spontaneous migration into the jail office is
complete, total, utter bull chit, Sparta. And it is your bull chit.

And how dare you? Since no photographic expert has ever examined the
Robert Jackson photo critically- looking for signs of alteration- how dare
you claim to know that they couldn't find them? Don't you have to look
before you can find anything? Maybe the question is: why haven't they
looked? And the answer is again: the fascist state, the fascist state, the
fascist state. Nobody stands up to the fascist state- except people like
me.

The signs of alteration (since impossible things are in it, such as an
impossible, non-anatomical hand on Oswald with only 4 fingers) are present
in the Jackson photo. Therefore, it means that the time and opportunity
existed to make the alterations. And there are lots of possibilities. We
never see the moment of the Jackson photo in any of the films. So, maybe
the photo was prepared ahead of time, and it simply replaced the one that
Jackson took. The photo is an abomination, and I would welcome having a
photographic expert and an Anatomy expert look at it. But, it's hard to
arrange when you're living in a fascist state. If they haven't looked at
it critically in 53 years, it's not likely they are going to be willing to
now.

And you really do have trouble staying on point. Obviously, by some means,
Oswald got from the floor of the garage to the jail office- although note
that we NEVER see him in the jail office. We don't see him again until he
is being wheeled out. So, was Oswald on the ground when all the cops were
milling about? Who knews? We don't. But, what we do know is that two men
carrying another man comprises a big object in a small space, and there is
no excuse for the fact that not one of the films caught so much as a
glimpse of it.

And it needs to be explained, Sparta. How was that missed? How was such a
big, important, crucial thing missed when all they had to do was point
their camera at it?

Let's do it all again, and set up the photographers. Let's see if any of
them manage to capture images of Oswald being carried in. It was captured
plain as day in the 1978 tv movie Ruby and Oswald, which starred Jim
Leavelle playing himself. So, why not in real life?

Why wasn't the moving of Oswald not captured on film? Why wasn't the
moving of Oswald not captured on film? Why wasn't the moving of Oswald not
captured on film? And don't try to play the chaos card. I ain't buying it.
bpete1969
2017-07-01 17:08:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Sparta, you're just freakin' lip-flapper is all you are. If you really
believe that the images of the shooter visibly support him being Jack
Ruby, why don't you display images of the two side by side? But, you
don't. You just flap your lips and make your bold-faced claim. But, there
are people who may actually want to see images of the shooter side by side
with Jack Ruby, and they can.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/specimen-left.html
And it shows the stark contrast. You're just lucky that this forum doesn't
permit the displaying of images. If it did, you would be a laughing stock
in denying what I am saying.
And, you apparently don't understand how the fascist state works. When a
decree comes down, such as this one, there is no denying it, and certainly
not by any police officer, who works for the fascist state. And you're
wrong in saying they could have gotten rich by revealing it. They would
have gotten nothing but trouble revealing it. Which media outlet was going
to pay them for their story? The Dallas Morning News? The New York Times?
The Washington Post? And the reporters who worked for those outlets? Hugh
Aynesworth of the DMN? Ike Pappas of CBS? They were going to dispute what
police said that it was Jack Ruby? The point is that they didn't recognize
him. That they accepted it afterwards is perfectly predictable: it was an
operation of the fascist state for which complete total acceptance was
expected of everyone in any kind of position of influence. Reporters in
that situation, whether Dan Rather, Ike Pappas, Hugh Aynesworth, or
whomever, are really just indirect minions of the fascist state.
This was a military-style operation, with complete, total informational
control; information lockdown.
And you are no good at answering questions. I asked you why the "struggle"
dragged on into the jail office when there was no way for the cops
involved to know that they were doing that, and there was no way that
control over "Ruby" could not be exerted and established in the garage.
The whole seemingly spontaneous migration into the jail office is
complete, total, utter bull chit, Sparta. And it is your bull chit.
And how dare you? Since no photographic expert has ever examined the
Robert Jackson photo critically- looking for signs of alteration- how dare
you claim to know that they couldn't find them? Don't you have to look
before you can find anything? Maybe the question is: why haven't they
looked? And the answer is again: the fascist state, the fascist state, the
fascist state. Nobody stands up to the fascist state- except people like
me.
The signs of alteration (since impossible things are in it, such as an
impossible, non-anatomical hand on Oswald with only 4 fingers) are present
in the Jackson photo. Therefore, it means that the time and opportunity
existed to make the alterations. And there are lots of possibilities. We
never see the moment of the Jackson photo in any of the films. So, maybe
the photo was prepared ahead of time, and it simply replaced the one that
Jackson took. The photo is an abomination, and I would welcome having a
photographic expert and an Anatomy expert look at it. But, it's hard to
arrange when you're living in a fascist state. If they haven't looked at
it critically in 53 years, it's not likely they are going to be willing to
now.
And you really do have trouble staying on point. Obviously, by some means,
Oswald got from the floor of the garage to the jail office- although note
that we NEVER see him in the jail office. We don't see him again until he
is being wheeled out. So, was Oswald on the ground when all the cops were
milling about? Who knews? We don't. But, what we do know is that two men
carrying another man comprises a big object in a small space, and there is
no excuse for the fact that not one of the films caught so much as a
glimpse of it.
And it needs to be explained, Sparta. How was that missed? How was such a
big, important, crucial thing missed when all they had to do was point
their camera at it?
Let's do it all again, and set up the photographers. Let's see if any of
them manage to capture images of Oswald being carried in. It was captured
plain as day in the 1978 tv movie Ruby and Oswald, which starred Jim
Leavelle playing himself. So, why not in real life?
Why wasn't the moving of Oswald not captured on film? Why wasn't the
moving of Oswald not captured on film? Why wasn't the moving of Oswald not
captured on film? And don't try to play the chaos card. I ain't buying it.
Hugh Aynesworth speaks directly to your claim.

“The only lucrative business from a reporting standpoint has been
conspiracy,” he said. “For every book that tells the exact
truth, or tries to, there are 25 conspiracy books.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10420732/Who-shot-JFK-Ask-the-man-who-was-there.html

He was there when Ruby shot Oswald and recognized him doing so.

You've failed Raff*. In every aspect of your wild eyed theories, you've
failed. You have yet to produce one piece of evidence to support any of
your claims. You have boatloads of misinterpretations, opinion based on
nothing and made up dialog as you play your conspiracy play out in your
mind.

Unfortunately, you're like the person that can't read to your self.
InsideSparta
2017-07-01 20:43:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Sparta, you're just freakin' lip-flapper is all you are. If you really
believe that the images of the shooter visibly support him being Jack
Ruby, why don't you display images of the two side by side? But, you
don't. You just flap your lips and make your bold-faced claim. But, there
are people who may actually want to see images of the shooter side by side
with Jack Ruby, and they can.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/specimen-left.html
And it shows the stark contrast. You're just lucky that this forum doesn't
permit the displaying of images. If it did, you would be a laughing stock
in denying what I am saying.
And, you apparently don't understand how the fascist state works. When a
decree comes down, such as this one, there is no denying it, and certainly
not by any police officer, who works for the fascist state. And you're
wrong in saying they could have gotten rich by revealing it. They would
have gotten nothing but trouble revealing it. Which media outlet was going
to pay them for their story? The Dallas Morning News? The New York Times?
The Washington Post? And the reporters who worked for those outlets? Hugh
Aynesworth of the DMN? Ike Pappas of CBS? They were going to dispute what
police said that it was Jack Ruby? The point is that they didn't recognize
him. That they accepted it afterwards is perfectly predictable: it was an
operation of the fascist state for which complete total acceptance was
expected of everyone in any kind of position of influence. Reporters in
that situation, whether Dan Rather, Ike Pappas, Hugh Aynesworth, or
whomever, are really just indirect minions of the fascist state.
This was a military-style operation, with complete, total informational
control; information lockdown.
And you are no good at answering questions. I asked you why the "struggle"
dragged on into the jail office when there was no way for the cops
involved to know that they were doing that, and there was no way that
control over "Ruby" could not be exerted and established in the garage.
The whole seemingly spontaneous migration into the jail office is
complete, total, utter bull chit, Sparta. And it is your bull chit.
And how dare you? Since no photographic expert has ever examined the
Robert Jackson photo critically- looking for signs of alteration- how dare
you claim to know that they couldn't find them? Don't you have to look
before you can find anything? Maybe the question is: why haven't they
looked? And the answer is again: the fascist state, the fascist state, the
fascist state. Nobody stands up to the fascist state- except people like
me.
The signs of alteration (since impossible things are in it, such as an
impossible, non-anatomical hand on Oswald with only 4 fingers) are present
in the Jackson photo. Therefore, it means that the time and opportunity
existed to make the alterations. And there are lots of possibilities. We
never see the moment of the Jackson photo in any of the films. So, maybe
the photo was prepared ahead of time, and it simply replaced the one that
Jackson took. The photo is an abomination, and I would welcome having a
photographic expert and an Anatomy expert look at it. But, it's hard to
arrange when you're living in a fascist state. If they haven't looked at
it critically in 53 years, it's not likely they are going to be willing to
now.
And you really do have trouble staying on point. Obviously, by some means,
Oswald got from the floor of the garage to the jail office- although note
that we NEVER see him in the jail office. We don't see him again until he
is being wheeled out. So, was Oswald on the ground when all the cops were
milling about? Who knews? We don't. But, what we do know is that two men
carrying another man comprises a big object in a small space, and there is
no excuse for the fact that not one of the films caught so much as a
glimpse of it.
And it needs to be explained, Sparta. How was that missed? How was such a
big, important, crucial thing missed when all they had to do was point
their camera at it?
Let's do it all again, and set up the photographers. Let's see if any of
them manage to capture images of Oswald being carried in. It was captured
plain as day in the 1978 tv movie Ruby and Oswald, which starred Jim
Leavelle playing himself. So, why not in real life?
Why wasn't the moving of Oswald not captured on film? Why wasn't the
moving of Oswald not captured on film? Why wasn't the moving of Oswald not
captured on film? And don't try to play the chaos card. I ain't buying it.
I'm a lip-flapper? The guy that has his own Oswald Is Innocent blog, post
videos with his crazy theories on Youtube, starts threads with those same
crazy theories on this site, then copies his rebuttals to the responses
people have left here back to his own blog site is calling someone else a
"lip-flapper". Let me just point out that more unsolicited diarrhea spews
from your lips and fingertips than anyone on this site.

I don't think Texans would agree with your statement that they reside in a
"fascist state". Please provide evidence of the "decree" you claim was
handed down to all members of the DPD, and its reserve officers. You love
to say there is the great conspiracy of silence in the DPD, yet you have
no real evidence to back that claim up. It's just another un-corroborated
claim coming from Cirque de Cinque.

I fail to see what the lack of anyone getting film of Oswald being taken
from where he was shot back to the jail office area has to do with the
price of tea in China. The fact is he was carried or dragged back there,
away from the cameras, and he bled on the jail office floor, and the blood
can be seen at the 27:37 mark on the video link below.



Why you find the lack of footage of Oswald being moved as somehow
nefarious, I have no idea. But, then again, you find the brightness of the
brake lights of the Galaxie 500 nefarious, so I guess you gotta find your
evil conspiracy clues wherever you can, no matter how trivial.

There's a reason why nobody has done any scientific analysis on Bob
Jackson's photo. It's because nobody except for conspiracy loons think
that there has been alterations made to it. Nobody but the most outer
fringe conspiracy theorist even bother with that sort of silliness. You're
the one making the claims of fakery; it's on you to provide the evidence
to back your claim up. Otherwise your just spewing more garbage
factoids.

If you think I have trouble staying on point, then you only have yourself
to blame. My responses are made to each point you make. So, if my
responses seem to ramble, it's because I'm responding to the ramblings of
someone like yourself.

This topic has certainly been scoured over pretty cleanly. In the over one
dozen posts you've made throughout this thread you still have not provided
any evidence whatsoever that Ruby entered the garage earlier than one
minute before the shooting. You made a lot of claims that certain things
happened, called a few people liars, have been proven wrong on several
points, and really haven't had anyone come to your defense. And what we're
left with is just your fairytale, with zero evidence to support or
corroborate the story you've made up.

No need to get angry with me. I'm just a guy that likes to be convinced of
something with real evidence.

Ralph Cinque
2017-06-28 02:04:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I am re-posting this response to InsideSparta because apparently, John
McAdams not only allows aliases, he also seeks to protect them.


I told you, H, I mean Sparta, the cops were all in on it. Just today, I listened to Elmer Boyd's interview in which he said he was eating lunch at his mother-in-law's house that Sunday morning, and he watched it on television, and he instantly recognized Jack Ruby. Instantly! THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE YOU NEVER SEE THE MAN'S FACE! All he saw was exactly what we saw, and you know how poor the footage is. So, he's sitting back eating a steak at his mother-in-law's table, and he sees the NBC footage (that's the only live one) and there is no way anyone can claim there is enough exposure of the shooter to identify him as Jack Ruby. Watch it yourself, and you'll realize how preposterous it is to claim that Ruby can be recognized:

http://youtu.be/NQpoHclNwTk

Based on what? And you're wrong about the reporters. Hugh Aynesworth knew Jack Ruby and interacted with him 3x that weekend, yet he didn't recognize him and didn't find out that he was Ruby until the police announced it later. Then the other was Ike Pappas who also interacted with Ruby that weekend and took a business card from him, and he didn't realize he was Ruby until he was told so by Police. And Pappas seemed to have a good vantage point. Just look at the Beers photo.


So, it was just the lying cops who said they recognized Ruby in the garage; no one else. And Boyd claimed to do it from his mother-in-law's table, no less.

And they were very careful not to let the face of the shooter be exposed. Why don't you reverse that question and ask yourself why, when there were cameras pointed at him from multiple directions, that none captured his face? Just worked out that way, eh? The reason why the shooter (Bookhout) dove into the waiting arms of the cops is because they were his screen. They were his blanket. They were NEVER fighting. "Ruby", as people mistakenly call him, never did anything aggressive. Show me the frame in which he is punching, kicking, flailing, spitting or doing anything combative. He never resisted. There was NO REASON why that "fight" should not have come to an end in that garage. The idea that it dragged on into the jail office is absolutely preposterous. You hear me, H? I mean Sparta.

Yes, I have a photo of the back of James Bookhout's neck which compares favorably with that of the Garage Shooter, unlike Jack Ruby. Click on the link at the bottom.


And Shoter is a typo. I was typing fast, and the second o just didn't land. What you did is mistake two completely different words: "brakes" and "breaks". And I had never seen it before.

Now, you are completely losing it. There is no evidence that Pierce used siren and flashing lights to run any lights to get to the front of the building, and he never claimed that he did that. So, how dare you proffer it?

And the delays you mentioned had the opposite effect. They delayed the transfer, and if Pierce didn't know about them, then he would have expected Oswald to appear even earlier, so he should have left even earlier. You're just making excuses, and they're not even good ones.

The people on Commerce Street were gathered to watch Oswald being driven away. They knew that he would be coming out there. But the Main Street ramp was incoming. So, who were they waiting to see driving in? Now, if you can't understand that difference, H, I mean Sparta, I can't dumb it down any more.

Ruby knew that Pierce left the garage 1 minute before HIS EVENT, a separate event.
Jack Ruby was not at the televised garage shooting.
Jack Ruby was not at the televised garage shooting.
Jack Ruby was not at the televised garage shooting.
He was sequestered up on the 5th floor already at the time of the televised garage shooting.

The WU paperwork is bogus, and they made the mistake of time-stamping the receipt before they time-stamped the money transfer. Again, like getting the cart before the horse.

Jack Ruby had no memory of shooting Oswald. All he remembered was going down to the ramp, reaching the bottom, and then being pounced upon by police. He said that all the rest was a "blur." And the fact is: it was even so much as a blur. He had no memory of shooting Oswald, period. And why don't you think about what his lawyer plead: that he had psychomotor epilepsy and went through the action of shooting Oswald unconsciously, like he was sleepwalking. It's ridiculous, but why would he claim such a thing? It was because Ruby must have told him that he had absolutely no memory of doing it.

I have already delineated the things in the Jackson photo that are false, impossibly false, and it's more scientific than anything you have ever done in your life. And nobody has ever addressed these findings with any explanations or excuses whatsoever I'll give you an example: Oswald's left hand slapped to his chest is un-anatomical, meaning that it is not consistent in form with a human hand. It is also much too big to be Oswald's hand. We have images of his hands, and they weren't that big. In the Jackson photo, Oswald's hand is a monstrosity.


Now, let's see you find an Anatomist who disagrees with that. I dare you, and I dare him.

Please? When have I ever said please to anybody on this forum? You've got some nerve depicting me that way, H. I mean Sparta.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/ralph-cinque-i-told-you-haydon-i-mean.html
Jason Burke
2017-06-28 19:29:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
I am re-posting this response to InsideSparta because apparently, John
McAdams not only allows aliases, he also seeks to protect them.
http://youtu.be/NQpoHclNwTk
Based on what? And you're wrong about the reporters. Hugh Aynesworth knew Jack Ruby and interacted with him 3x that weekend, yet he didn't recognize him and didn't find out that he was Ruby until the police announced it later. Then the other was Ike Pappas who also interacted with Ruby that weekend and took a business card from him, and he didn't realize he was Ruby until he was told so by Police. And Pappas seemed to have a good vantage point. Just look at the Beers photo.
So, it was just the lying cops who said they recognized Ruby in the garage; no one else. And Boyd claimed to do it from his mother-in-law's table, no less.
And they were very careful not to let the face of the shooter be exposed. Why don't you reverse that question and ask yourself why, when there were cameras pointed at him from multiple directions, that none captured his face? Just worked out that way, eh? The reason why the shooter (Bookhout) dove into the waiting arms of the cops is because they were his screen. They were his blanket. They were NEVER fighting. "Ruby", as people mistakenly call him, never did anything aggressive. Show me the frame in which he is punching, kicking, flailing, spitting or doing anything combative. He never resisted. There was NO REASON why that "fight" should not have come to an end in that garage. The idea that it dragged on into the jail office is absolutely preposterous. You hear me, H? I mean Sparta.
Yes, I have a photo of the back of James Bookhout's neck which compares favorably with that of the Garage Shooter, unlike Jack Ruby. Click on the link at the bottom.
And Shoter is a typo. I was typing fast, and the second o just didn't land. What you did is mistake two completely different words: "brakes" and "breaks". And I had never seen it before.
Now, you are completely losing it. There is no evidence that Pierce used siren and flashing lights to run any lights to get to the front of the building, and he never claimed that he did that. So, how dare you proffer it?
And the delays you mentioned had the opposite effect. They delayed the transfer, and if Pierce didn't know about them, then he would have expected Oswald to appear even earlier, so he should have left even earlier. You're just making excuses, and they're not even good ones.
The people on Commerce Street were gathered to watch Oswald being driven away. They knew that he would be coming out there. But the Main Street ramp was incoming. So, who were they waiting to see driving in? Now, if you can't understand that difference, H, I mean Sparta, I can't dumb it down any more.
Ruby knew that Pierce left the garage 1 minute before HIS EVENT, a separate event.
Jack Ruby was not at the televised garage shooting.
Jack Ruby was not at the televised garage shooting.
Jack Ruby was not at the televised garage shooting.
He was sequestered up on the 5th floor already at the time of the televised garage shooting.
The WU paperwork is bogus, and they made the mistake of time-stamping the receipt before they time-stamped the money transfer. Again, like getting the cart before the horse.
Jack Ruby had no memory of shooting Oswald. All he remembered was going down to the ramp, reaching the bottom, and then being pounced upon by police. He said that all the rest was a "blur." And the fact is: it was even so much as a blur. He had no memory of shooting Oswald, period. And why don't you think about what his lawyer plead: that he had psychomotor epilepsy and went through the action of shooting Oswald unconsciously, like he was sleepwalking. It's ridiculous, but why would he claim such a thing? It was because Ruby must have told him that he had absolutely no memory of doing it.
I have already delineated the things in the Jackson photo that are false, impossibly false, and it's more scientific than anything you have ever done in your life. And nobody has ever addressed these findings with any explanations or excuses whatsoever I'll give you an example: Oswald's left hand slapped to his chest is un-anatomical, meaning that it is not consistent in form with a human hand. It is also much too big to be Oswald's hand. We have images of his hands, and they weren't that big. In the Jackson photo, Oswald's hand is a monstrosity.
Now, let's see you find an Anatomist who disagrees with that. I dare you, and I dare him.
Please? When have I ever said please to anybody on this forum? You've got some nerve depicting me that way, H. I mean Sparta.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/ralph-cinque-i-told-you-haydon-i-mean.html
It really gonna suck for Ralph when he goes to someone who actually
knows something about film and photography (what's that called...
photogrammerty or something?) and tells him he's full of cr*p.

About everything.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-27 01:41:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
You don't know how to think, Sparta. First of all: the images rule. And
That's silly. You think all the images are fake.
Maybe the CIA faked the Altgens photo to put Oswald on the steps.
Don't the alterationists say that the DPD faked the backyard photos to
put Oswald's face on someone else's body?
Post by Ralph Cinque
the images have determined that the Garage Shooter was not Jack Ruby. And
the fact is that there isn't a single "Jack Ruby feature" that you can
cite about the Garage Shooter. What about him makes him Jack Ruby? His
height? Even if he were the right height, it would hardly matter because
there would be lots of men that height. But, he's the wrong height. He's
too short to be Jack Ruby. His hair? It's too long to be Jack Ruby, and
worst of all, it's razored clean in back, which Ruby's wasn't at the time.
You have NOTHING to cite that marks that man as even possibly being Jack
Ruby, never mind definitely being him.
Then, it all works perfectly to match the guy to James Bookhout, who was
short, who was cleanly razored on the back of his neck, just like the
Garage Shooter. And, we even have a straight-on shot of the shooter's face
taken a couple minutes after the fracas that matches perfectly to
authorized pictures of James Bookhout.
So, the Garage Shoter was James Bookhout, and there is no doubt about
that. It is completely and totally confirmed and resolved.
Then, there is Pierce. It was a little less than 1 minute beforehand that
he made his way up the Main Street ramp. But, he had to go through Harwood
Street since Harwood went north to the next street whatever it is, turn
left there, then make another left on Commerce and then proceed down to
the ramp. Think about how many lights that was. One: the light at Main and
Harwood. Two: the light at Main and the next street. Three: the light at
Commerce and whatever street he took to get to it. Four: the light at
Commerce and Harwood. Who, in a situation like that, would allow just 1
minutes, a little less than a minute, to get situated? And what was he
waiting for? What did he have to do that he couldn't leave earlier? In
fact, doesn't it seem likely that getting the lead car in place would have
been done a lot earlier? Why not?
So, there is no credibility to Pierce waiting until the last minute. There
is no credibility to anyone being gathered at the Main Street ramp when it
was an incoming ramp. And yet, there was a crowd there. Why?
We have on record Jack Ruby stating that the time he sent his money wire
was 10:15. He was promptly corrected by a Secret Service Agent who was not
in Dallas or the state of Texas on November 24, and Ruby didn't question
it, but he never questioned anything he was told. He was very subservient
to law enforcement. But, the fact that his recollection was 10:15 still
stands, and it is riveting. And that's because we already know, beyond a
shadow of a doubt, that he was not in that garage at 11:20. There are no
images of him there. And, the images of the shooter not only conflict with
him, they also conflict with each other, where one was taller and thinner
and the other shorter and more squatty. There is not a single frame of the
Garage Shooter that can remotely be recognized and identified as Jack
Ruby. People only say he was Ruby because that's what they were told.
Sparta, Jack Ruby was framed. He did NOT shoot Oswald. He was set up. He
was mentally ill and strung out on drugs, and subject to blackouts, and
they knew he would believe whatever the told him.
We have undeniable proof that Dallas detectives lied, including Leavelle
and Graves. Leavelle described a whole scenario of what happened and what
he did that is in complete defiance with the film record.
And, the amount of photographic and film alteration connected with the
Oswald shooting is staggering, including the famous Jackson photo, which
is a monstrosity.
And where are you left? You're left trying to diminish stark photographic
evidence by playing the "blurry" card (where there aren't even issues of
blurriness). Ultimately, you are just the guy saying, "Pay no attention to
the man behind the curtain."
The killing of Oswald was a joint DPD/FBI plot, which was probably
authorized by both Lyndon Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover. I've have had 3
articles published on VT about Bookhout being the real Garage Shooter, and
I'm working on a 4th. This can't be stopped- not by you and not by
anybody.
We'll just see, won't we.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-25 01:37:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bpete1969
Post by Ralph Cinque
Uh oh, Sparta. You just ate the royal pegoda. Dhority didn't back that car
up. He pulled it up. Watch the KRLD film. You see the headlights of his
car moving forward.
http://youtu.be/m5khMFFKslw
Alright, so you are wrong about that. Now, do you want to admit it, or do
you want to make like Joseph Backes and keep arguing and defending what
you said even though you have been shown to wrong?
But, you are right about something, Sparta: Dhority did testify to the
Warren Commission that he backed the car up.
Detective Dhority: Captain Fritz reached over to the door of the car and I
was turned around to see backing it up--still had the car moving it along
and I saw someone run across the end of the car real rapid like.
So, he lied then. Detective Dhority lied. Hmmm. This is quite big. I shall
write it up. And don't worry: you'll get credit for finding it. I'm going
to make you famous, Sparta.
You have to be as blind as Judyth Very Faker.
Your link proves you wrong. The car was backed up. You're seeing the trunk
and the rear bumper. The tail lights don't light up until he hits the
brakes. If you look closely, you can see the access door to the gas tank
fill centered in the rear panel above the bumper.
Quit while you're behind Raff*.
He thinks headlghts are red. Maybe that's a fancy new model of car.
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-25 22:02:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Yeah, the car was being backed up, but there are problems with it: big
problems.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/here-is-1963-ford-galaxie-500-backing.html
bpete1969
2017-06-26 18:51:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Yeah, the car was being backed up, but there are problems with it: big
problems.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/here-is-1963-ford-galaxie-500-backing.html
The only problem is with your reasoning skills.
InsideSparta
2017-06-24 20:21:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Uh oh, Sparta. You just ate the royal pegoda. Dhority didn't back that car
up. He pulled it up. Watch the KRLD film. You see the headlights of his
car moving forward.
http://youtu.be/m5khMFFKslw
Alright, so you are wrong about that. Now, do you want to admit it, or do
you want to make like Joseph Backes and keep arguing and defending what
you said even though you have been shown to wrong?
But, you are right about something, Sparta: Dhority did testify to the
Warren Commission that he backed the car up.
Detective Dhority: Captain Fritz reached over to the door of the car and I
was turned around to see backing it up--still had the car moving it along
and I saw someone run across the end of the car real rapid like.
So, he lied then. Detective Dhority lied. Hmmm. This is quite big. I shall
write it up. And don't worry: you'll get credit for finding it. I'm going
to make you famous, Sparta.
Ralph, Ralph, Ralph. The car that backs into the frame of the KRLD film
footage of the shooting, (and actually clips Ruby's leg), is a 1963 Ford
Galaxie 500, which has very round, large taillights. The lights come on in
the film because Dhority was hitting the breaks, once he saw Ruby darting
across the back of the car. You can even make out the word "GALAXIE" on
the back of the trunk. Here's a photo of a 1963 Ford Galaxie 500, which is
a match for the car seen in the KRLD film. So, once again, you've been
proven wrong and Dhority has been proven truthful when he testified to the
WC that he was "backing the car up".

Loading Image...


Make sure you include all that in your write up too.
Jonny Mayer
2017-06-25 22:28:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
What a way to get other people to do your research for you.
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-25 23:35:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Sparta, congratulations. You're the first person to mistake "breaks" for
"brakes" in my life experience, and it's something that I never thought
I'd see.

So, you don't know how to spell "brakes" but neither do you know how they
work. When you hit the brake the lights that come on are red, not white.
And that's because red, being the color of blood, is the universal color
of danger, and because red is the most visible color in the spectrum, able
to be seen from the greatest distance.

So no; Dhority didn't hit his brakes.

Here, I provide evidence that two seconds after the car was brought to a
stop, that the white light was still beaming, another proof that it wasn't
a brake light since drivers let go of the brake once the car has
stopped.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/this-is-pair-of-1963-ford-galaxie-tail.html
bpete1969
2017-06-26 20:38:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Sparta, congratulations. You're the first person to mistake "breaks" for
"brakes" in my life experience, and it's something that I never thought
I'd see.
So, you don't know how to spell "brakes" but neither do you know how they
work. When you hit the brake the lights that come on are red, not white.
And that's because red, being the color of blood, is the universal color
of danger, and because red is the most visible color in the spectrum, able
to be seen from the greatest distance.
So no; Dhority didn't hit his brakes.
Here, I provide evidence that two seconds after the car was brought to a
stop, that the white light was still beaming, another proof that it wasn't
a brake light since drivers let go of the brake once the car has
stopped.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/this-is-pair-of-1963-ford-galaxie-tail.html
So brake lights should be red on black and white film?

http://www.oswaldinnocencecampaign.com/2017/06/raff-is-having-hard-time.html

Ironic....you rag on someone for a misspelling and yet you were the one
that claimed headlights were taillights.

Only you Raff*....
InsideSparta
2017-06-26 20:47:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Sparta, congratulations. You're the first person to mistake "breaks" for
"brakes" in my life experience, and it's something that I never thought
I'd see.
So, you don't know how to spell "brakes" but neither do you know how they
work. When you hit the brake the lights that come on are red, not white.
And that's because red, being the color of blood, is the universal color
of danger, and because red is the most visible color in the spectrum, able
to be seen from the greatest distance.
So no; Dhority didn't hit his brakes.
Here, I provide evidence that two seconds after the car was brought to a
stop, that the white light was still beaming, another proof that it wasn't
a brake light since drivers let go of the brake once the car has
stopped.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/this-is-pair-of-1963-ford-galaxie-tail.html
And you're the first person that expects to see the color red while
watching black and white television footage. Instead of pointing out my
spelling error (guess what, I realized it afterward but there's no edit
function) why don't apologize to the family of Officer Dhority for calling
him a liar, which was due to your own inability to tell the front end of a
vehicle from the rear. Kind of like not being able to tell your ass from a
hole in the ground. Your accusation of Dhority being a liar was a Rather
shameful Rush To Judgement on your part.

Why don't you explain to us how Ruby knew that Lieutenant Pierce exited
the garage one minute before the shooting (and only exited that one time)
if he wasn't actually standing out there when it occurred? Your whole
"Bookhout shot Oswald" theory has fallen like a house of cards, and your
only recourse is to point out a spelling error by someone complicit in
tearing that flimsy house down.
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-27 19:12:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
No, it's not that I expect to see the color red in a black and white film.
But, I don't expect to see as white a light as that was. And as I pointed
out to you, for 3 seconds after the car stopped, that brake light was
still on, and there is a likelihood that it continued shining longer than
that. So, what Dhority doing? Sitting there with the motor running
pressing his foot to the brake pedal? And by that point in time, he had to
know that there was a fracas going on behind him. But, I'll tell you
honestly that I think he knew that was going to happen beforehand- as they
all did. All those cops. They all knew it.

And talk about putting the cart before the horse: Ruby knew that Pierce
was there at the ramp entrance the same time that he was there. They told
him it was at 11:15, and he believed them because he believed everything
they told him. So, he only "knew" it was 11:15 because they told him that
was the time. You've got some nerve putting it the way you did. And it was
one minute before the "shooting" but not the shooting that the world knows
about. In fact, there wasn't any shooting at all at the private session
with Ruby.

Hey Sparta, you know Steve Haydon? You know, Lance Uppercut? You friends
with him? Just wondering.
Mark OBLAZNEY
2017-06-23 00:01:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
I provide evidence: Jack Ruby. Jack Ruby said that he saw Pierce driving
out when he was there, and since I have established that Jack Ruby was
there earlier, then it follows from that that Pierce must have been there
earlier. That's Logic, something that you know little or nothing about.
And who says that the reason Pierce drove out at 10:15 was anything other
than baiting Ruby? I'm not saying that Pierce was actually going anywhere.
It was all about snaring Jack Ruby and providing a pretext for him getting
in. So, that's the reason he drove out at 10:15 (approximately): to bait
Ruby. No other reason; just that.
And what you call his "reason" for driving out at 11:15, it was really
just his false alibi for driving out then. Provide a police escort car to
the county jail? There was the Brinks truck which, reportedly, was going
to be driven empty. Then, Oswald was going to be in Fritz' car with
Dhority driving and carrying Leavelle and Graves and Oswald. And you're
saying that Pierce had to drive around to get in position? Well, the
Brinks truck was backed up into the Commerce Street ramp, so obviously it
was going to pull out that way, on Commerce. And Dhority was pulling in
with Fritz' car right when the shooting happened, and it was heading
towards Main Street. But, presumably, after Oswald and the others got in,
it was going to be turned around to follow the Brinks truck. That was the
plan, right? It wasn't going to drive out Main Street, was it? So, why
couldn't Pierce go out the same way? It's just a phony alibi. You have a
tendency to swallow bull chit whole.
You are practicing insanity, Sparta. That's because the photographic
evidence clearly and definitively shows that the Garage Shooter was NOT
Jack Ruby. And yet, you continue to say that he was in defiance of that
photographic evidence. And that is plucking insane.
It's time for a collage, Ralph. Better call your pal Richard up and have
him make you one.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-18 03:10:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by InsideSparta
Post by Ralph Cinque
I have put together a blogpost citing the evidence which supports my
contention that Jack Ruby reached the garage much earlier than 11:20, and
why it had to be a totally separate incident that he had with police, who
then took him up to the 5th floor, which is where he was when the
televised spectacle occurred.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/i-want-you-all-to-realize-that-this.html
To answer your question posed on blog as to where Sam Pierce was going
when he drove out of the garage one minute before the shooting; he drove
out in order to get around to the other side (Commerce Street) of City
Hall so that he could provide a police car escort to the car taking Oswald
to the County Jail. Pierce could not drive out of the garage via the
normal exit, the Commerce Street ramp, because that exit was blocked by
the armored vehicle that was going to be a decoy. Pierce was forced to
drive out via the entrance ramp (Main Street). had Pierce driven out of
the garage an hour earlier, he would have used the normal exit ramp
(Commerce) and not needed to exit via the entrance (Main). There's no
evidence he drove out of the garage any earlier than when he did so one
minute before the shooting. Officer Roy Vaughan, who was tasked with
guarding the Main Street entrance, testified under oath to the WC that in
the nearly two hours he stood in the Main Street entrance doorway prior to
the shooting, he only had to move from his spot one time, when Sam Pierce
drove out of the garage approximately one minute before the shooting.
There simply is no evidence that Pierce drove out of the garage earlier,
because it simply didn't happen.
Stop reciting stories as if they are facts.
Jonny Mayer
2017-06-19 01:24:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
One reporter said Ruby entered the basement in a green car.
InsideSparta
2017-06-19 17:06:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jonny Mayer
One reporter said Ruby entered the basement in a green car.
Don't come here and post something that you might have read in some
conspiracy book, or on another website, and throw it out like some stink
bomb without providing anything to back it up. What reporter? When did he
say or write that? What time did he see this occur? Officer Vaughan stated
that the only time he moved out of position in the nearly two hours he
stood in the Main Street entry way to the garage basement was when the car
exited the garage one minute before the shooting. There certainly isn't
any video evidence of a car entering the garage in the 15 minutes prior to
the shooting. And, given it was proven that Ruby was in the Western Union
office four minutes earlier, there's no way he could have been dropped off
by some mystery car. Please. Just stop it already.
Mark OBLAZNEY
2017-06-19 23:29:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by InsideSparta
Post by Jonny Mayer
One reporter said Ruby entered the basement in a green car.
Don't come here and post something that you might have read in some
conspiracy book, or on another website, and throw it out like some stink
bomb without providing anything to back it up. What reporter? When did he
say or write that? What time did he see this occur? Officer Vaughan stated
that the only time he moved out of position in the nearly two hours he
stood in the Main Street entry way to the garage basement was when the car
exited the garage one minute before the shooting. There certainly isn't
any video evidence of a car entering the garage in the 15 minutes prior to
the shooting. And, given it was proven that Ruby was in the Western Union
office four minutes earlier, there's no way he could have been dropped off
by some mystery car. Please. Just stop it already.
Evidence that Cinque reached the psychiatrist substantially earlier than
told…….
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-20 22:42:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by InsideSparta
Post by Jonny Mayer
One reporter said Ruby entered the basement in a green car.
Don't come here and post something that you might have read in some
conspiracy book, or on another website, and throw it out like some stink
bomb without providing anything to back it up. What reporter? When did he
say or write that? What time did he see this occur? Officer Vaughan stated
that the only time he moved out of position in the nearly two hours he
stood in the Main Street entry way to the garage basement was when the car
exited the garage one minute before the shooting. There certainly isn't
any video evidence of a car entering the garage in the 15 minutes prior to
the shooting. And, given it was proven that Ruby was in the Western Union
office four minutes earlier, there's no way he could have been dropped off
by some mystery car. Please. Just stop it already.
Not strong enough. You are too wimpy to post here, you bloody poofer. He
said the CAR went into the basement, not Ruby walked into the basement. We
KNOW Ruby walked into the basement, so you haven't proven anything new.
You need to point out that no strange car was allowed to drive into the
basement and the armored car was in the way.
Jonny Mayer
2017-06-21 14:49:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Stop what? Adding details because you can't put it in a box? I saw the
reporter in a video on YouTube saying it. It was in the basement just
after the shooting. I watch a lot of videos on the subject. I can't
remember all the details. Sometimes people are grateful I pipe up with
titbits here (although admittedly not presented thoroughly) as they are
sometimes interesting/seldom discussed.
Jonny Mayer
2017-06-22 00:51:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I would have linked the video Sparta but for your cheek you'll have to
look for it yourself if you want to know.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-19 22:10:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jonny Mayer
One reporter said Ruby entered the basement in a green car.
Is that the same reporter who called Oswald Lee HENRY?
Because he read it off the CIA 201 file?
Mark OBLAZNEY
2017-06-19 12:12:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by InsideSparta
Post by Ralph Cinque
I have put together a blogpost citing the evidence which supports my
contention that Jack Ruby reached the garage much earlier than 11:20, and
why it had to be a totally separate incident that he had with police, who
then took him up to the 5th floor, which is where he was when the
televised spectacle occurred.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/i-want-you-all-to-realize-that-this.html
To answer your question posed on blog as to where Sam Pierce was going
when he drove out of the garage one minute before the shooting; he drove
out in order to get around to the other side (Commerce Street) of City
Hall so that he could provide a police car escort to the car taking Oswald
to the County Jail. Pierce could not drive out of the garage via the
normal exit, the Commerce Street ramp, because that exit was blocked by
the armored vehicle that was going to be a decoy. Pierce was forced to
drive out via the entrance ramp (Main Street). had Pierce driven out of
the garage an hour earlier, he would have used the normal exit ramp
(Commerce) and not needed to exit via the entrance (Main). There's no
evidence he drove out of the garage any earlier than when he did so one
minute before the shooting. Officer Roy Vaughan, who was tasked with
guarding the Main Street entrance, testified under oath to the WC that in
the nearly two hours he stood in the Main Street entrance doorway prior to
the shooting, he only had to move from his spot one time, when Sam Pierce
drove out of the garage approximately one minute before the shooting.
There simply is no evidence that Pierce drove out of the garage earlier,
because it simply didn't happen.
Stop reciting stories as if they are facts.
Ralph can't beat Sparta. Ralph's too short.
Betty Drew
2017-06-27 20:38:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Team Sparta!!!
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-28 19:38:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Betty, you should get him to play the anthem. He's a piano player, you
know.

Although, personally, I don't like his taste in music.
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-28 19:38:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Betty, you should get him to play the anthem. He's a piano player, you
know. Although personally, I don't care for his taste in music.
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-28 23:22:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Betty Drew
Team Sparta!!!
Betty, the big question is now how is Steve Haydon going to reinvent his
alias? My personal favorite is: OutsideMalta

Cathchy, don't you think?
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-28 19:38:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Betty, you should get him to play the anthem. He's a piano player, you
know.

Although personally, I don't care for his taste in music.
Mark OBLAZNEY
2017-06-29 01:06:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Betty, you should get him to play the anthem. He's a piano player, you
know.
Although personally, I don't care for his taste in music.
Ralph, are you gonna let Sparta have his way with you, or are you gonna do
sumthin' about it?

You scared, say you scared…...
Loading...