Discussion:
Time For Ralph To Put Up Or Shut Up re Bookhout
Add Reply
InsideSparta
2017-08-03 20:02:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Ralph has been making claims for months now that FBI Agent James Bookhout
was the real killer of Lee Harvey Oswald, or at the very least, was the
man seen on national TV gunning LHO down in the basement garage.

Let's see Ralph make a case to us (the grand jury) that Bookhout should be
indicted for the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald. I challenge him to present
his evidence against Bookhout that proves he shot Oswald. Evidence being
presented that Ruby wasn't the shooter does not count in this hearing and
is irrelevant since Ralph is tasked with making a case against Bookhout,
and is not tasked with defending Ruby. For this exercise, we'll assume the
shooter of Oswald is unknown, and there are no other suspects.

Go for it Ralph. Make your case for an indictment. Give us all the
evidence you have that Bookhout was the shooter of Lee Harvey Oswald. Once
you make your case, I invite the rest of us to vote to either indict
Bookhout or drop all charges.

Just be aware, James Bookhout was a real person, who, no doubt, still has
living family members. He is innocent until proven guilty, and the charge
of first degree murder that Ralph has laid on him is a serious accusation.
If he can't make a case against Bookhout, he should cease and desist from
accusing the man of murder.

OBTW, only votes by people that have previously posted on this site will
count. That's to keep Ralph from calling up all his Facebook friends to
come and vote for an indictment.

Put up, or shut up.
Ralph Cinque
2017-08-04 14:43:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Sparta, I have made it clear, repeatedly, that I don't believe Bookhout
actually shot Oswald, that it was a ruse, a made-for-tv spectacle, that
Oswald was shot for real later, and probably in the PD.

So, it's not really a matter of murder, is it? James Bookhout was just an
actor, as they all were. He played a role; the role of Jack Ruby shooting
Oswald. Fritz, Leavelle, Graves, and even Oswald himself were all playing
their roles.

So, I am NOT accusing James Bookhout of being a murderer; just of playing
one in a theatrical production on television.

And what is the evidence that he did that? First, there is the
photographic evidence.


http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/08/sparta-i-have-made-it-clear-repeatedly.html

On the right is the only facial capture of the Garage Shooter, and it is
rarely seen. On the left is James Bookhout in 1937, so 26 years before.
They are the same man. I'm sure I could get a gerontologist to agree that
we are looking at the same man through 26 years of aging. He's aged on the
right, but it's still the same DNA. It's still the same neuromuscular
positioning in terms of head carriage. It is the same man despite the fact
that both images were altered, such as the imposition of "drag queen eye
brows" on the left, which he most certainly didn't have. And there's
more:

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/08/sparta-i-have-made-it-clear-repeatedly.html

That is James Bookhout on the right. It is exactly where James Bookhout
said he was on 11/23/63 at 6:30 PM: filing into Fritz' office for the
Saturday evening interrogation of Oswald. And, a longtime JFK researcher
from Education Forum said he was Bookhout before I did; it's how I found
out. My contention is that Bookhout was wearing a toupee' on the left. And
note that that is not the hair of Jack Ruby in back either. It's damn long
hair.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/08/sparta-i-have-made-it-clear-repeatedly.html

But, besides the photographic evidence, there is more. There is Bookhout's
testimony, his claim to have remained in Fritz' office during the jail
transfer, which was not credible. He didn't claim to be doing any work
there; just hanging around. Really, it was just his phony alibi because he
was in the garage playing Jack Ruby.

There is the fact that the Garage Shooter was demonstrably short, no more
than 5'6", while Jack Ruby was 5' 8 1/2".


There is the fact that officially there are NO images of James Bookhout
from the time of the JFK assassination- or any time thereafter for the
rest of his life. James Bookhout spent more time with Oswald than anybody,
attending all the interrogations and following Oswald to lineups, etc.
Surely, his image should have been captured and recognized. But, Bookhout
was systematically removed from any and all images precisely because he
was the Garage Shooter.

There is the fact that James Bookhout took a long leave of absence after
the JFK assassination- from his work as an FBI agent. It's because he was
the Garage Shooter and didn't want to be seen.

Also, Bookhout never appeared on any talk shows, forums, discussion boards
or anything else- unlike James Hosty. Bookhout even saw to it that his
image wasn't posted in his obituary.

For the same reason, Bookhout did not go to Parkland Hospital. Why not?
The man had been following Oswald around for two days and got to know him
better than anybody. Wasn't he interested in Oswald's fate? But, he just
couldn't be seen because he was the Garage Shooter, so he didn't go.

We have this image of Bookhout after the shooting, and it is exactly where
he said he was at that point in time, following Oswald's stretcher from
the jail office to the garage.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/08/sparta-i-have-made-it-clear-repeatedly.html

And you can see how short he was.

Jack Ruby had NO MEMORY of shooting Oswald, and it's because he didn't
shoot him. And, there is NO IMAGE of the Garage Shooter that compares
favorably with any image of Jack Ruby.

There is no doubt and no question that the Garage Shooter of Lee Harvey
Oswald was James W. Bookhout.
Jason Burke
2017-08-05 03:27:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Sparta, I have made it clear, repeatedly, that I don't believe Bookhout
actually shot Oswald, that it was a ruse, a made-for-tv spectacle, that
Oswald was shot for real later, and probably in the PD.
So, it's not really a matter of murder, is it? James Bookhout was just an
actor, as they all were. He played a role; the role of Jack Ruby shooting
Oswald. Fritz, Leavelle, Graves, and even Oswald himself were all playing
their roles.
So, I am NOT accusing James Bookhout of being a murderer; just of playing
one in a theatrical production on television.
And what is the evidence that he did that? First, there is the
photographic evidence.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/08/sparta-i-have-made-it-clear-repeatedly.html
On the right is the only facial capture of the Garage Shooter, and it is
rarely seen. On the left is James Bookhout in 1937, so 26 years before.
They are the same man. I'm sure I could get a gerontologist to agree that
we are looking at the same man through 26 years of aging. He's aged on the
right, but it's still the same DNA. It's still the same neuromuscular
positioning in terms of head carriage. It is the same man despite the fact
that both images were altered, such as the imposition of "drag queen eye
brows" on the left, which he most certainly didn't have. And there's
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/08/sparta-i-have-made-it-clear-repeatedly.html
That is James Bookhout on the right. It is exactly where James Bookhout
said he was on 11/23/63 at 6:30 PM: filing into Fritz' office for the
Saturday evening interrogation of Oswald. And, a longtime JFK researcher
from Education Forum said he was Bookhout before I did; it's how I found
out. My contention is that Bookhout was wearing a toupee' on the left. And
note that that is not the hair of Jack Ruby in back either. It's damn long
hair.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/08/sparta-i-have-made-it-clear-repeatedly.html
But, besides the photographic evidence, there is more. There is Bookhout's
testimony, his claim to have remained in Fritz' office during the jail
transfer, which was not credible. He didn't claim to be doing any work
there; just hanging around. Really, it was just his phony alibi because he
was in the garage playing Jack Ruby.
There is the fact that the Garage Shooter was demonstrably short, no more
than 5'6", while Jack Ruby was 5' 8 1/2".
There is the fact that officially there are NO images of James Bookhout
from the time of the JFK assassination- or any time thereafter for the
rest of his life. James Bookhout spent more time with Oswald than anybody,
attending all the interrogations and following Oswald to lineups, etc.
Surely, his image should have been captured and recognized. But, Bookhout
was systematically removed from any and all images precisely because he
was the Garage Shooter.
There is the fact that James Bookhout took a long leave of absence after
the JFK assassination- from his work as an FBI agent. It's because he was
the Garage Shooter and didn't want to be seen.
Also, Bookhout never appeared on any talk shows, forums, discussion boards
or anything else- unlike James Hosty. Bookhout even saw to it that his
image wasn't posted in his obituary.
For the same reason, Bookhout did not go to Parkland Hospital. Why not?
The man had been following Oswald around for two days and got to know him
better than anybody. Wasn't he interested in Oswald's fate? But, he just
couldn't be seen because he was the Garage Shooter, so he didn't go.
We have this image of Bookhout after the shooting, and it is exactly where
he said he was at that point in time, following Oswald's stretcher from
the jail office to the garage.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/08/sparta-i-have-made-it-clear-repeatedly.html
And you can see how short he was.
Jack Ruby had NO MEMORY of shooting Oswald, and it's because he didn't
shoot him. And, there is NO IMAGE of the Garage Shooter that compares
favorably with any image of Jack Ruby.
There is no doubt and no question that the Garage Shooter of Lee Harvey
Oswald was James W. Bookhout.
Fail, Ralph. Total fail.
How tall is Bookout?
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-05 03:28:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Sparta, I have made it clear, repeatedly, that I don't believe Bookhout
actually shot Oswald, that it was a ruse, a made-for-tv spectacle, that
Oswald was shot for real later, and probably in the PD.
So, it's not really a matter of murder, is it? James Bookhout was just an
actor, as they all were. He played a role; the role of Jack Ruby shooting
Oswald. Fritz, Leavelle, Graves, and even Oswald himself were all playing
their roles.
So, I am NOT accusing James Bookhout of being a murderer; just of playing
one in a theatrical production on television.
And what is the evidence that he did that? First, there is the
photographic evidence.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/08/sparta-i-have-made-it-clear-repeatedly.html
On the right is the only facial capture of the Garage Shooter, and it is
rarely seen. On the left is James Bookhout in 1937, so 26 years before.
They are the same man. I'm sure I could get a gerontologist to agree that
we are looking at the same man through 26 years of aging. He's aged on the
right, but it's still the same DNA. It's still the same neuromuscular
positioning in terms of head carriage. It is the same man despite the fact
that both images were altered, such as the imposition of "drag queen eye
brows" on the left, which he most certainly didn't have. And there's
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/08/sparta-i-have-made-it-clear-repeatedly.html
That is James Bookhout on the right. It is exactly where James Bookhout
said he was on 11/23/63 at 6:30 PM: filing into Fritz' office for the
Saturday evening interrogation of Oswald. And, a longtime JFK researcher
from Education Forum said he was Bookhout before I did; it's how I found
out. My contention is that Bookhout was wearing a toupee' on the left. And
note that that is not the hair of Jack Ruby in back either. It's damn long
hair.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/08/sparta-i-have-made-it-clear-repeatedly.html
But, besides the photographic evidence, there is more. There is Bookhout's
testimony, his claim to have remained in Fritz' office during the jail
transfer, which was not credible. He didn't claim to be doing any work
there; just hanging around. Really, it was just his phony alibi because he
was in the garage playing Jack Ruby.
There is the fact that the Garage Shooter was demonstrably short, no more
than 5'6", while Jack Ruby was 5' 8 1/2".
There is the fact that officially there are NO images of James Bookhout
from the time of the JFK assassination- or any time thereafter for the
rest of his life. James Bookhout spent more time with Oswald than anybody,
attending all the interrogations and following Oswald to lineups, etc.
Surely, his image should have been captured and recognized. But, Bookhout
was systematically removed from any and all images precisely because he
was the Garage Shooter.
There is the fact that James Bookhout took a long leave of absence after
the JFK assassination- from his work as an FBI agent. It's because he was
the Garage Shooter and didn't want to be seen.
Also, Bookhout never appeared on any talk shows, forums, discussion boards
or anything else- unlike James Hosty. Bookhout even saw to it that his
image wasn't posted in his obituary.
For the same reason, Bookhout did not go to Parkland Hospital. Why not?
The man had been following Oswald around for two days and got to know him
better than anybody. Wasn't he interested in Oswald's fate? But, he just
couldn't be seen because he was the Garage Shooter, so he didn't go.
We have this image of Bookhout after the shooting, and it is exactly where
he said he was at that point in time, following Oswald's stretcher from
the jail office to the garage.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/08/sparta-i-have-made-it-clear-repeatedly.html
And you can see how short he was.
Jack Ruby had NO MEMORY of shooting Oswald, and it's because he didn't
Or maybe because he had been hypnotized by David Ferrie to cover up
Ferrie's use of Oswald. You're just not trying hard enough. WIMP!
Post by Ralph Cinque
shoot him. And, there is NO IMAGE of the Garage Shooter that compares
favorably with any image of Jack Ruby.
Show me another photo of anyone else who wore such an ugly Fedora.
Post by Ralph Cinque
There is no doubt and no question that the Garage Shooter of Lee Harvey
Oswald was James W. Bookhout.
Was he wearing Jack Ruby's Fedora?
Ralph Cinque
2017-08-06 04:06:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I don't know if Bookhout's Fedora matched Ruby's exactly or not. But, you
don't even have an image of Ruby wearing a Fedora with which to compare
it. And if it did match it, so what? That would not have been hard to
accomplish.

The Garage Shooter is TOO SHORT and TOO PUDGY to be Ruby. And, his hair in
back is different from Ruby's at the time. Also, the shooter's neck is too
short to be Ruby's. There are multiple dealbreakers that make it
absolutely impossible for him to be Jack Ruby.

It's not close. The images say that he is definitely not Jack Ruby. And
the images rule.
Mark OBLAZNEY
2017-08-06 22:49:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
I don't know if Bookhout's Fedora matched Ruby's exactly or not. But, you
don't even have an image of Ruby wearing a Fedora with which to compare
it. And if it did match it, so what? That would not have been hard to
accomplish.
The Garage Shooter is TOO SHORT and TOO PUDGY to be Ruby. And, his hair in
back is different from Ruby's at the time. Also, the shooter's neck is too
short to be Ruby's. There are multiple dealbreakers that make it
absolutely impossible for him to be Jack Ruby.
It's not close. The images say that he is definitely not Jack Ruby. And
the images rule.
But your perception of those images do not rule. They fail. You are
spewing manure onto the screen, not words, Ralph. You don't know the
difference, little man.
Jason Burke
2017-08-07 14:05:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
I don't know if Bookhout's Fedora matched Ruby's exactly or not. But, you
don't even have an image of Ruby wearing a Fedora with which to compare
it. And if it did match it, so what? That would not have been hard to
accomplish.
The Garage Shooter is TOO SHORT and TOO PUDGY to be Ruby. And, his hair in
back is different from Ruby's at the time. Also, the shooter's neck is too
short to be Ruby's. There are multiple dealbreakers that make it
absolutely impossible for him to be Jack Ruby.
It's not close. The images say that he is definitely not Jack Ruby. And
the images rule.
Golly, Ralph. One minute you think every photo is fake, Fake, FAKE or
has been doctored. The next minute you claim "the images rule".

So, does the nth generation crap you pull off Youtube rule or not?
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-07 22:50:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Ralph Cinque
I don't know if Bookhout's Fedora matched Ruby's exactly or not. But, you
don't even have an image of Ruby wearing a Fedora with which to compare
it. And if it did match it, so what? That would not have been hard to
accomplish.
The Garage Shooter is TOO SHORT and TOO PUDGY to be Ruby. And, his hair in
back is different from Ruby's at the time. Also, the shooter's neck is too
short to be Ruby's. There are multiple dealbreakers that make it
absolutely impossible for him to be Jack Ruby.
It's not close. The images say that he is definitely not Jack Ruby. And
the images rule.
Golly, Ralph. One minute you think every photo is fake, Fake, FAKE or
has been doctored. The next minute you claim "the images rule".
So, does the nth generation crap you pull off Youtube rule or not?
It's just part of their game. Alterationists selectively decide what
evidence to believe based on their agenda. It can change daily or hour
to hour.
bigdog
2017-08-06 12:43:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
So let me see if I understand this correctly. First they pretended to
shoot Oswald which means they needed to get Oswald to go along with the
ruse. Then they dragged him back inside and Oswald being the good actor
never cracked a smile through the hole episode. Then after they got him
back inside and he was taking his bows and receiving high fives for his
performance, one of the cops shot him for real and of course nobody heard
the shot. Is that about the size of it, Ralph?
Ralph Cinque
2017-08-07 00:25:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
So let me see if I understand this correctly. First they pretended to
shoot Oswald which means they needed to get Oswald to go along with the
ruse. Then they dragged him back inside and Oswald being the good actor
never cracked a smile through the hole episode. Then after they got him
back inside and he was taking his bows and receiving high fives for his
performance, one of the cops shot him for real and of course nobody heard
the shot. Is that about the size of it, Ralph?
Well, I wouldn't call it the "hole truth" Corbett, nor would I call it the
whole truth. First, since Oswald wasn't really shot, he could get into the
jail house on his own power, or at least cooperate with the ones carrying
him. We don't know how they did that because with all the cameramen and
filmers in that tiny space, no one caught even a glimmer of Oswald being
moved. Not a problem for you, is it? Well, it's a problem for me.

But, once inside, I figure someone shoved a hypodermic with a sedative in
his arm or thigh to knock him out. Or maybe they used chloroform. Then,
they would have taken him to a room especially set up with sound-proofing
and used a gun with a silencer, which do exist for 38s. And then they
would have administered the shot with surgical precision. Then, they
cleaned it up so that it wasn't bleeding.
Jason Burke
2017-08-07 20:27:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Post by bigdog
So let me see if I understand this correctly. First they pretended to
shoot Oswald which means they needed to get Oswald to go along with the
ruse. Then they dragged him back inside and Oswald being the good actor
never cracked a smile through the hole episode. Then after they got him
back inside and he was taking his bows and receiving high fives for his
performance, one of the cops shot him for real and of course nobody heard
the shot. Is that about the size of it, Ralph?
Well, I wouldn't call it the "hole truth" Corbett, nor would I call it the
whole truth. First, since Oswald wasn't really shot, he could get into the
jail house on his own power, or at least cooperate with the ones carrying
him. We don't know how they did that because with all the cameramen and
filmers in that tiny space, no one caught even a glimmer of Oswald being
moved. Not a problem for you, is it? Well, it's a problem for me.
But, once inside, I figure someone shoved a hypodermic with a sedative in
his arm or thigh to knock him out. Or maybe they used chloroform. Then,
they would have taken him to a room especially set up with sound-proofing
and used a gun with a silencer, which do exist for 38s. And then they
would have administered the shot with surgical precision. Then, they
cleaned it up so that it wasn't bleeding.
Do you even LISTEN to the nonsense that comes out of your piehole, Ralph?
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-08 16:17:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Post by bigdog
So let me see if I understand this correctly. First they pretended to
shoot Oswald which means they needed to get Oswald to go along with the
ruse. Then they dragged him back inside and Oswald being the good actor
never cracked a smile through the hole episode. Then after they got him
back inside and he was taking his bows and receiving high fives for his
performance, one of the cops shot him for real and of course nobody heard
the shot. Is that about the size of it, Ralph?
Well, I wouldn't call it the "hole truth" Corbett, nor would I call it the
whole truth. First, since Oswald wasn't really shot, he could get into the
jail house on his own power, or at least cooperate with the ones carrying
him. We don't know how they did that because with all the cameramen and
filmers in that tiny space, no one caught even a glimmer of Oswald being
moved. Not a problem for you, is it? Well, it's a problem for me.
But, once inside, I figure someone shoved a hypodermic with a sedative in
his arm or thigh to knock him out. Or maybe they used chloroform. Then,
they would have taken him to a room especially set up with sound-proofing
and used a gun with a silencer, which do exist for 38s. And then they
would have administered the shot with surgical precision. Then, they
cleaned it up so that it wasn't bleeding.
Where do you find all that straw for your straw man arguments?
InsideSparta
2017-08-06 03:53:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Sparta, I have made it clear, repeatedly, that I don't believe Bookhout
actually shot Oswald, that it was a ruse, a made-for-tv spectacle, that
Oswald was shot for real later, and probably in the PD.
So, it's not really a matter of murder, is it? James Bookhout was just an
actor, as they all were. He played a role; the role of Jack Ruby shooting
Oswald. Fritz, Leavelle, Graves, and even Oswald himself were all playing
their roles.
So, I am NOT accusing James Bookhout of being a murderer; just of playing
one in a theatrical production on television.
When you post a video on Youtube (Oct 2016) and title it "Bookhout Shot
Oswald" then one could argue that your making the claim that he's a
murderer. Either that, or you're grossly negligent and downright
slanderous in how you came up with that title.
Post by Ralph Cinque
And what is the evidence that he did that? First, there is the
photographic evidence.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/08/sparta-i-have-made-it-clear-repeatedly.html
On the right is the only facial capture of the Garage Shooter, and it is
rarely seen. On the left is James Bookhout in 1937, so 26 years before.
They are the same man. I'm sure I could get a gerontologist to agree that
we are looking at the same man through 26 years of aging. He's aged on the
right, but it's still the same DNA. It's still the same neuromuscular
positioning in terms of head carriage. It is the same man despite the fact
that both images were altered, such as the imposition of "drag queen eye
brows" on the left, which he most certainly didn't have. And there's
In all honesty, the man with the detectives appears to be Jack Ruby and
bears little resemblance to the photo you claim is a young Bookhout.
Post by Ralph Cinque
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/08/sparta-i-have-made-it-clear-repeatedly.html
That is James Bookhout on the right. It is exactly where James Bookhout
said he was on 11/23/63 at 6:30 PM: filing into Fritz' office for the
Saturday evening interrogation of Oswald. And, a longtime JFK researcher
from Education Forum said he was Bookhout before I did; it's how I found
out. My contention is that Bookhout was wearing a toupee' on the left. And
note that that is not the hair of Jack Ruby in back either. It's damn long
hair.
Do you have any evidence that he's wearing a toupee? The fact that
Bookhout was in the Dallas Police headquarters the entire weekend is not
in dispute. Of course he was. That fact doesn't provide one iota of
evidence that he shot Oswald.
Post by Ralph Cinque
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/08/sparta-i-have-made-it-clear-repeatedly.html
But, besides the photographic evidence, there is more. There is Bookhout's
testimony, his claim to have remained in Fritz' office during the jail
transfer, which was not credible. He didn't claim to be doing any work
there; just hanging around. Really, it was just his phony alibi because he
was in the garage playing Jack Ruby.
Do you have any evidence, clear photographs, eyewitness testimony, etc.
that Bookhout wasn't where he said he was when the shooting occurred? No,
you don't. You've only provided your opinion as to where you think he was.
Post by Ralph Cinque
There is the fact that the Garage Shooter was demonstrably short, no more
than 5'6", while Jack Ruby was 5' 8 1/2".
I've not seen a single scientific analysis of the images from the shooting
that provides an estimate of the shooter's height. Your opinion doesn't
count. You need to provide this grand jury with expert testimony or
opinions.
Post by Ralph Cinque
There is the fact that officially there are NO images of James Bookhout
from the time of the JFK assassination- or any time thereafter for the
rest of his life. James Bookhout spent more time with Oswald than anybody,
attending all the interrogations and following Oswald to lineups, etc.
Surely, his image should have been captured and recognized. But, Bookhout
was systematically removed from any and all images precisely because he
was the Garage Shooter.
The fact of there being no photographs does not prove Bookhout to have
been the shooter. It does tend to suggest that Bookhout was not a person
of focus by anyone in the media. Also, I think I've only seen one
photograph of Hosty from that weekend.
Post by Ralph Cinque
There is the fact that James Bookhout took a long leave of absence after
the JFK assassination- from his work as an FBI agent. It's because he was
the Garage Shooter and didn't want to be seen.
Did someone tell you the reason Bookhout took a leave of absence? Please
provide that source information to the jury.
Post by Ralph Cinque
Also, Bookhout never appeared on any talk shows, forums, discussion boards
or anything else- unlike James Hosty. Bookhout even saw to it that his
image wasn't posted in his obituary.
Shyness does not a murderer make.
Post by Ralph Cinque
For the same reason, Bookhout did not go to Parkland Hospital. Why not?
The man had been following Oswald around for two days and got to know him
better than anybody. Wasn't he interested in Oswald's fate? But, he just
couldn't be seen because he was the Garage Shooter, so he didn't go.
We have this image of Bookhout after the shooting, and it is exactly where
he said he was at that point in time, following Oswald's stretcher from
the jail office to the garage.
So, he didn't go to Parkland because he didn't want to be seen (having
just shot Oswald), but he did come down to the garage as Oswald was being
loaded into the ambulance, in front of all those people that had just
witnessed the shooting? He didn't seem to worry about the actual witnesses
to the shooting recognizing him. Councilor, your logic makes no sense
whatsoever.
Post by Ralph Cinque
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/08/sparta-i-have-made-it-clear-repeatedly.html
And you can see how short he was.
Jack Ruby had NO MEMORY of shooting Oswald, and it's because he didn't
shoot him. And, there is NO IMAGE of the Garage Shooter that compares
favorably with any image of Jack Ruby
Nor James Bookhout for that matter.
Post by Ralph Cinque
There is no doubt and no question that the Garage Shooter of Lee Harvey
Oswald was James W. Bookhout.
All charges dropped due to lack of evidence.
Ralph Cinque
2017-08-09 12:18:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Sparta, if you shoot someone at close range with a gun loaded with a
blank, you have shot them. There was an actor who killed himself by
shooting himself in the head with a blank. My point is that Bookhout was
the Garage Shooter. What else can I call him but that?

And if someone wants to sue me for slander on behalf of James Bookhout, I
welcome it. That's what we need: a civil lawsuit concerning the JFK
assassination in 2017. And the first thing I would do is hire a
publicist.

And I demonstrated the spot-on match (except for age) between Young James
Bookhout and the man with the detectives. And if it goes to trial, I will
bring in a geneticist and a gerontologist to support it. How could an
image of Young James Bookhout look so much like Jack Ruby? You, Sparta,
just say things. You take advantage of the fact that you can hit any keys
on the keyboard. You don't offer a visual comparison of Jack Ruby and the
shooter. You just flap your lips. You just spew.

As far as the toupee goes, it's obviously not Jack Ruby's hair in back. We
can compare that, and when we do, we see a startling difference. My
contention that the shooter was Bookhout obviously requires that he was
wearing a toupee since Bookhout did not have hair that long. But again,
neither did Ruby.

And Bookhout didn't provide any evidence of where he was during the
shooting. His statement is no more deserving of acceptance than anyone
else's. Why don't you apply the same standard to him? That he provide
clear photos, etc. to prove it?

And now you want scientific analysis of the shooter's height? By whom?
What would qualify someone to make such a scientific analysis? Why you
keep claiming that only an "expert" can analyse photos? And even something
as basic as a man's height, you think requires a certain academic degree
to ascertain? YOU ARE RIDICULOUS!

Of course, in the meantime, you have submitted photos and made claims,
"it's exactly the xame.." etc. And yet you have no scientific
credentials.

James Bookhout was the "eyes and ears of the FBI" and he followed Oswald
around like his shadow. So, there should have been images of him, and
fortunately, we have collected quite a few.

There were 4 people involved in building this album. The work is not all
mine. It's not even mostly mine.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/08/as-it-turns-out-we-now-have-quite-album.html

I don't believe any reason was ever given why Bookhout took a leave of
absence.

And that's right: Bookhout did follow Oswald's stretcher from the jail
office out to the garage, but he did not go to Parkland. Bookhout admitted
all that himself.

And there are multiple images of Bookhout that compare favorably with the
Garage Shooter. Again: in the real world, as opposed to JFK-land, people
see it.

Since it is your conviction that only photographic experts can render
opinions about photos, don't you EVER again make any claim about the
content of ANY photo.
Jason Burke
2017-08-10 02:26:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Sparta, if you shoot someone at close range with a gun loaded with a
blank, you have shot them. There was an actor who killed himself by
shooting himself in the head with a blank. My point is that Bookhout was
the Garage Shooter. What else can I call him but that?
And if someone wants to sue me for slander on behalf of James Bookhout, I
welcome it. That's what we need: a civil lawsuit concerning the JFK
assassination in 2017. And the first thing I would do is hire a
publicist.
Aha! The failed bone-bender admits that his whole goal in life is to
make himself famous. Eh, Ralph?
Post by Ralph Cinque
And I demonstrated the spot-on match (except for age) between Young James
Bookhout and the man with the detectives. And if it goes to trial, I will
bring in a geneticist and a gerontologist to support it. How could an
image of Young James Bookhout look so much like Jack Ruby? You, Sparta,
just say things. You take advantage of the fact that you can hit any keys
on the keyboard. You don't offer a visual comparison of Jack Ruby and the
shooter. You just flap your lips. You just spew.
As far as the toupee goes, it's obviously not Jack Ruby's hair in back. We
can compare that, and when we do, we see a startling difference. My
contention that the shooter was Bookhout obviously requires that he was
wearing a toupee since Bookhout did not have hair that long. But again,
neither did Ruby.
So, according to Ralph, the dude was neither Bookhout nor Ruby.
Therefore he was Bookhout. DO you even LISTEN to yourself, Ralph.
Post by Ralph Cinque
And Bookhout didn't provide any evidence of where he was during the
shooting. His statement is no more deserving of acceptance than anyone
else's. Why don't you apply the same standard to him? That he provide
clear photos, etc. to prove it?
And now you want scientific analysis of the shooter's height? By whom?
What would qualify someone to make such a scientific analysis? Why you
keep claiming that only an "expert" can analyse photos? And even something
as basic as a man's height, you think requires a certain academic degree
to ascertain? YOU ARE RIDICULOUS!
Of course, in the meantime, you have submitted photos and made claims,
"it's exactly the xame.." etc. And yet you have no scientific
credentials.
Ralph. Is the above coming from YOUR piehole? Geez.
Post by Ralph Cinque
James Bookhout was the "eyes and ears of the FBI" and he followed Oswald
around like his shadow. So, there should have been images of him, and
fortunately, we have collected quite a few.
There were 4 people involved in building this album. The work is not all
mine. It's not even mostly mine.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/08/as-it-turns-out-we-now-have-quite-album.html
I don't believe any reason was ever given why Bookhout took a leave of
absence.
And that's right: Bookhout did follow Oswald's stretcher from the jail
office out to the garage, but he did not go to Parkland. Bookhout admitted
all that himself.
And there are multiple images of Bookhout that compare favorably with the
Garage Shooter. Again: in the real world, as opposed to JFK-land, people
see it.
Since it is your conviction that only photographic experts can render
opinions about photos, don't you EVER again make any claim about the
content of ANY photo.
Oh, my!
InsideSparta
2017-08-10 18:48:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Sparta, if you shoot someone at close range with a gun loaded with a
blank, you have shot them. There was an actor who killed himself by
shooting himself in the head with a blank. My point is that Bookhout was
the Garage Shooter. What else can I call him but that?
And if someone wants to sue me for slander on behalf of James Bookhout, I
welcome it. That's what we need: a civil lawsuit concerning the JFK
assassination in 2017. And the first thing I would do is hire a
publicist.
No doubt you'd love that, because your an assassination attention whore.
Post by Ralph Cinque
And I demonstrated the spot-on match (except for age) between Young James
Bookhout and the man with the detectives. And if it goes to trial, I will
bring in a geneticist and a gerontologist to support it. How could an
image of Young James Bookhout look so much like Jack Ruby? You, Sparta,
just say things. You take advantage of the fact that you can hit any keys
on the keyboard. You don't offer a visual comparison of Jack Ruby and the
shooter. You just flap your lips. You just spew.
C'mon Ralph, you know nobody spews out the malarkey like you. I don't need
to post comparisons between the two photos because any fool can see that
the man in the photo is Ruby. Well, almost any fool it appears.
Post by Ralph Cinque
As far as the toupee goes, it's obviously not Jack Ruby's hair in back. We
can compare that, and when we do, we see a startling difference. My
contention that the shooter was Bookhout obviously requires that he was
wearing a toupee since Bookhout did not have hair that long. But again,
neither did Ruby.
I provided you with a photo of the back of Jack Ruby's head, showing the
back neck hairline to be a match. You, to no one surprise, choose to not
accept that photo. And therein lies your biggest problem. Even when
presented with photos that disprove your theory, you choose to ignore
them.
Post by Ralph Cinque
And Bookhout didn't provide any evidence of where he was during the
shooting. His statement is no more deserving of acceptance than anyone
else's. Why don't you apply the same standard to him? That he provide
clear photos, etc. to prove it?
Bookhout's statement was made under oath, and he signed it. So, that
carries more weight than just any random claim or statement.
Post by Ralph Cinque
And now you want scientific analysis of the shooter's height? By whom?
What would qualify someone to make such a scientific analysis? Why you
keep claiming that only an "expert" can analyse photos? And even something
as basic as a man's height, you think requires a certain academic degree
to ascertain? YOU ARE RIDICULOUS!
Why should anyone take your word for it that the photos of the man
identified by multiple witnesses as Jack Ruby was actually only 5 feet 6
inches tall? You couldn't even tell the difference from the rear end of a
'63 Ford from the front end when you analyzed the film footage. Just
because YOU say he's was only 5'6" doesn't make it so.
Post by Ralph Cinque
Of course, in the meantime, you have submitted photos and made claims,
"it's exactly the xame.." etc. And yet you have no scientific
credentials.
I can tell the difference between the front end of a car from the rear.
So, by virtue of that, I'm well ahead of you.
Post by Ralph Cinque
James Bookhout was the "eyes and ears of the FBI" and he followed Oswald
around like his shadow. So, there should have been images of him, and
fortunately, we have collected quite a few.
Earlier you said it was suspicious that there was a lack of photos, now
you say you have plenty of them. Flip flop much?
Post by Ralph Cinque
There were 4 people involved in building this album. The work is not all
mine. It's not even mostly mine.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/08/as-it-turns-out-we-now-have-quite-album.html
I don't believe any reason was ever given why Bookhout took a leave of
absence.
Then don't make one up.
Post by Ralph Cinque
And that's right: Bookhout did follow Oswald's stretcher from the jail
office out to the garage, but he did not go to Parkland. Bookhout admitted
all that himself.
So what?
Post by Ralph Cinque
And there are multiple images of Bookhout that compare favorably with the
Garage Shooter. Again: in the real world, as opposed to JFK-land, people
see it.
Only fringe CT loonies see Bookhout shooting Oswald.
Post by Ralph Cinque
Since it is your conviction that only photographic experts can render
opinions about photos, don't you EVER again make any claim about the
content of ANY photo.
Please show me where I said only photographic experts can render opinions?
Don't bother looking, because I never said it. What I asked you was to
provide any supporting expert opinions regarding your own photo analysis
and opinions you've come up with. Don't get mad at me just because you
don't have any supporting opinions. And, OBTW, don't ever tell someone
what they can and can't say on this or any other thread. I've never once
told you that you can't spew the idiotic theories you've either come up
with on your own or lifted from some other kook. If you want to make
stupid claims like the one in which you said that Oswald faked his own
death in the basement garage, more power to you. But don't get all
defensive and mad when someone comes a long and points out how foolish
things like that are.
Ralph Cinque
2017-08-11 00:58:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Sparta: You don't need to post comparisons because anyone can see that the
man is Ruby? I'm starting a movement here of people who say he's not Ruby.
And four years before I got started, a Russian, one Maxim Irkutsk, put up
a stupendous video in which he demonstrated that the shooter does not
match Ruby. You can watch it here:



And that Russian is now a senior member of the Oswald Innocence Campaign.
So, yes, you DO need to post comparison images.

And no, you did NOT submit an image of Jack Ruby with the back of his head
and neck matching the shooter. How dare you say such a thing? OK, post it
again, and then I'll post it on my blog, and then we'll let the people
determine who is right.

And no, Sparta. You are wrong. Bookhout saying something under oath and
signing it gives his statement no weight. None at all. How absurd.

And others besides me have pegged the shooter's height as 5'6". Jerome
Corsi, the host I worked with on Infowars, pegged his height as 5'6". And
I didn't have anything worked out with him. We didn't discuss it in
advance. On the air, I asked him how tall do you think he is. And he said,
5'5" or 5'6". And the researcher I worked with whom we refer to as the
Wizard to protect his identity, (and I'm sure you understand since you use
an alias yourself) also pegged him at 5'6". And by the way, we can add
this to the bet when we get the photo expert involved. I'm more than
willing.


And I wish you would try harder in the thinking department. I said there
were no official images of Bookhout, and there aren't. There are no
officially acknowledged images of him from the JFK assassination or any
other time. There are only his yearbook photos from when he was young.
But, we, meaning me and my associates, have found 6 images of him from the
assassination, which hold up to scrutiny. So, I'm not flip-flopping;
you're just flopping.

And so what that Bookhout followed Oswald's stretcher out to the garage?
So therefore, we should see him, Bookhout. That's what.

You have repeatedly chastised me for rendering analysis of photos without
being a recognized expert. And then you do it yourself, just now claiming
to have presented a photo of Jack Ruby whose the back of head matches the
shooter. Now listen: you don't proffer any photo experts; so you don't you
chastise me for not having photo experts.

And actually I do have one, a professional commercial photographer. Her
name is C. Gail Willis, and she has done her own analysis establishing
that the Altgens Doorman is Oswald.
Jason Burke
2017-08-11 17:04:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Sparta: You don't need to post comparisons because anyone can see that the
man is Ruby? I'm starting a movement here of people who say he's not Ruby.
Yeah, Ralph. You're starting a movement all right. But not the kind you
think, Ralph.
Post by Ralph Cinque
And four years before I got started, a Russian, one Maxim Irkutsk, put up
a stupendous video in which he demonstrated that the shooter does not
http://youtu.be/oh3zvoj9HVc
And that Russian is now a senior member of the Oswald Innocence Campaign.
So, yes, you DO need to post comparison images.
Dang, so now Russkies are fools also, I see, Ralph. And all I thought
they did was pound liters of vodka, Ralph.
Post by Ralph Cinque
And no, you did NOT submit an image of Jack Ruby with the back of his head
and neck matching the shooter. How dare you say such a thing? OK, post it
again, and then I'll post it on my blog, and then we'll let the people
determine who is right.
You mean ol' Ralph's hand-picked gang of idiots, dont'cha, Ralph?
Post by Ralph Cinque
And no, Sparta. You are wrong. Bookhout saying something under oath and
signing it gives his statement no weight. None at all. How absurd.
And others besides me have pegged the shooter's height as 5'6". Jerome
Seriously, Ralph?
Post by Ralph Cinque
Corsi, the host I worked with on Infowars, pegged his height as 5'6". And
Based on what, Ralph? Oh! I know! Absolutely nothing. How about his
co-worker, Ralph? You know, the dude who said he was over six feet, Ralph?
Post by Ralph Cinque
I didn't have anything worked out with him. We didn't discuss it in
advance. On the air, I asked him how tall do you think he is. And he said,
5'5" or 5'6". And the researcher I worked with whom we refer to as the
Wizard to protect his identity, (and I'm sure you understand since you use
Yeah. Da Man gonna go after The Wiz, Ralph. Hell, if I were CIA / FBI /
ABC I'd just continue to let you spew your nonsense, Ralph. Besides being
hilarious, Ralph, you've done more to bolster the LN case than anyone else
in the past half decade, Ralph.
Post by Ralph Cinque
an alias yourself) also pegged him at 5'6". And by the way, we can add
this to the bet when we get the photo expert involved. I'm more than
Oh, goody! Ralph now has a "photo expert". Damn glad I finished my beer a
coupla minutes ago, Ralph. Otherwise half of it would be on my monitor,
Ralph.
Post by Ralph Cinque
willing.
And I wish you would try harder in the thinking department. I said there
were no official images of Bookhout, and there aren't. There are no
officially acknowledged images of him from the JFK assassination or any
other time. There are only his yearbook photos from when he was young.
But, we, meaning me and my associates, have found 6 images of him from the
Associates, Ralph!?! You hilarious!
Post by Ralph Cinque
assassination, which hold up to scrutiny. So, I'm not flip-flopping;
you're just flopping.
And so what that Bookhout followed Oswald's stretcher out to the garage?
So therefore, we should see him, Bookhout. That's what.
You have repeatedly chastised me for rendering analysis of photos without
being a recognized expert. And then you do it yourself, just now claiming
to have presented a photo of Jack Ruby whose the back of head matches the
Debunking foolishness doesn't require an expert, Ralph.
Post by Ralph Cinque
shooter. Now listen: you don't proffer any photo experts; so you don't you
chastise me for not having photo experts.
And actually I do have one, a professional commercial photographer. Her
name is C. Gail Willis, and she has done her own analysis establishing
that the Altgens Doorman is Oswald.
And there goes any credibility "C. Gail" ever had, Ralph.
InsideSparta
2017-08-11 17:07:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Sparta: You don't need to post comparisons because anyone can see that the
man is Ruby? I'm starting a movement here of people who say he's not Ruby.
And four years before I got started, a Russian, one Maxim Irkutsk, put up
a stupendous video in which he demonstrated that the shooter does not
http://youtu.be/oh3zvoj9HVc
And that Russian is now a senior member of the Oswald Innocence Campaign.
So, yes, you DO need to post comparison images.
And no, you did NOT submit an image of Jack Ruby with the back of his head
and neck matching the shooter. How dare you say such a thing? OK, post it
again, and then I'll post it on my blog, and then we'll let the people
determine who is right.
And no, Sparta. You are wrong. Bookhout saying something under oath and
signing it gives his statement no weight. None at all. How absurd.
And others besides me have pegged the shooter's height as 5'6". Jerome
Corsi, the host I worked with on Infowars, pegged his height as 5'6". And
I didn't have anything worked out with him. We didn't discuss it in
advance. On the air, I asked him how tall do you think he is. And he said,
5'5" or 5'6". And the researcher I worked with whom we refer to as the
Wizard to protect his identity, (and I'm sure you understand since you use
an alias yourself) also pegged him at 5'6". And by the way, we can add
this to the bet when we get the photo expert involved. I'm more than
willing.
And I wish you would try harder in the thinking department. I said there
were no official images of Bookhout, and there aren't. There are no
officially acknowledged images of him from the JFK assassination or any
other time. There are only his yearbook photos from when he was young.
But, we, meaning me and my associates, have found 6 images of him from the
assassination, which hold up to scrutiny. So, I'm not flip-flopping;
you're just flopping.
And so what that Bookhout followed Oswald's stretcher out to the garage?
So therefore, we should see him, Bookhout. That's what.
You have repeatedly chastised me for rendering analysis of photos without
being a recognized expert. And then you do it yourself, just now claiming
to have presented a photo of Jack Ruby whose the back of head matches the
shooter. Now listen: you don't proffer any photo experts; so you don't you
chastise me for not having photo experts.
And actually I do have one, a professional commercial photographer. Her
name is C. Gail Willis, and she has done her own analysis establishing
that the Altgens Doorman is Oswald.
Ralph, Here we go, one more time for posterity, the side my side photos I
posted earlier, showing the back of Ruby's neck. One is taken from film
footage taken Friday night, as Ruby followed Henry Wade out of the show-up
room, the other is, of course, from Bob Jackson's photo.

https://ibb.co/cFdbra

Now, to close this out, I'd like you to answer two very simple questions:

1) In the now 53 years that have passed since the weekend events of the
Kennedy assassination, how many of the dozens of witnesses that were in
the basement garage on 11/24/63, and witnessed the shooting of Oswald
first hand, have ever given an interview statement or ever testified
publically that the person they saw shoot Lee Harvey Oswald was someone
other than Jack Ruby? How many?

2) How many people, in the past 53 years, that were first hand witnesses
to any of the events surrounding the JFK assassination have ever come
forward and made a statement or claim that James Bookhout's role in the
events was anything other than that of an FBI agent covering the case? How
many?

These aren't difficult questions to answer. So please don't skirt around
them. Tell me how many?
Ralph Cinque
2017-08-12 00:46:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Sparta, this is how I responded to that collage on my blog:

A Ruby/Shooter collage submitted by Sparta fails to equate

Sparta had the nerve to put up this collage as evidence that the Garage
Shooter was a match to Jack Ruby. The image of Ruby on the left is from
the Midnight Press Conference.

(image)


These are obviously two different men. The man on the right has a much
wider, fatter head and a shorter, bulkier neck. And on the left, the
reason why his neck is so dark is because he has fuzzy hair growth, while
the man on the right was razored clean. The man on the right has longer
hair in back that is curling up at the bottom- not seen on the left. The
man on the left has a larger ear. But, the thing that jumps out
immediately is the stocky, bull-like thickness of the neck on the right
that is so different on the left. They are obviously two different men.
Frankly, I am not absolutely sure that the man on the left is Ruby, but I
know the man on the right isn't, and regardless, they are definitely not
the same man.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/08/sparta-had-nerve-to-put-up-this-collage.html

Now: your questions are irrelevant. The fact is that the first person to
realize that Jack Ruby was not the shooter was Maxim Irkutsk of Russia,
which happened in 2013, so 50 years later. Before that and until then,
everybody accepted that Ruby did it because the government and media said
so and because Ruby didn't deny it and was willing to accept
responsibility- even though he had no memory of doing it. This isn't a
matter of polling; it is a matter of evidence. And if it took 50 years for
someone to see it, I say: better late than never.
InsideSparta
2017-08-13 03:22:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
A Ruby/Shooter collage submitted by Sparta fails to equate
Sparta had the nerve to put up this collage as evidence that the Garage
Shooter was a match to Jack Ruby. The image of Ruby on the left is from
the Midnight Press Conference.
(image)
These are obviously two different men. The man on the right has a much
wider, fatter head and a shorter, bulkier neck. And on the left, the
reason why his neck is so dark is because he has fuzzy hair growth, while
the man on the right was razored clean. The man on the right has longer
hair in back that is curling up at the bottom- not seen on the left. The
man on the left has a larger ear. But, the thing that jumps out
immediately is the stocky, bull-like thickness of the neck on the right
that is so different on the left. They are obviously two different men.
Frankly, I am not absolutely sure that the man on the left is Ruby, but I
know the man on the right isn't, and regardless, they are definitely not
the same man.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/08/sparta-had-nerve-to-put-up-this-collage.html
Now: your questions are irrelevant. The fact is that the first person to
realize that Jack Ruby was not the shooter was Maxim Irkutsk of Russia,
which happened in 2013, so 50 years later. Before that and until then,
everybody accepted that Ruby did it because the government and media said
so and because Ruby didn't deny it and was willing to accept
responsibility- even though he had no memory of doing it. This isn't a
matter of polling; it is a matter of evidence. And if it took 50 years for
someone to see it, I say: better late than never.
So, a question regarding whether or not any of the dozens of eyewitnesses
to the shooting of Oswald had ever claimed or testified that they saw
someone other than Jack Ruby as being the perpetrator is irrelevant? How
much more relevant can it get? In your world, the bizarre statement of
someone in Russia 50 years after the fact carries more weight than the
statements of the individuals that were actually there. Classic "Ralph"
denial of the actual facts and evidence of the case if they don't support
your insane theory. You make the statement that this "is a matter of
evidence", yet you conveniently choose to ignore the actual evidence of
the case. I've got a few facts for you: Ruby was convicted of the murder
of Oswald because the evidence and eyewitness testimony proved it. You
have no real evidence that Bookhout was even in the garage at the time of
the shooting. No witnesses, no ballistic evidence, nothing whatsoever that
would even allow for an indictment, let alone warrant a trial. If you
faced a judge or grand jury with the "evidence" you claim to have against
Bookhout you'd be laughed out of court. Similar to how folks on this site
have responded to your fantasies.
Mark OBLAZNEY
2017-08-14 02:12:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by InsideSparta
Post by Ralph Cinque
A Ruby/Shooter collage submitted by Sparta fails to equate
Sparta had the nerve to put up this collage as evidence that the Garage
Shooter was a match to Jack Ruby. The image of Ruby on the left is from
the Midnight Press Conference.
(image)
These are obviously two different men. The man on the right has a much
wider, fatter head and a shorter, bulkier neck. And on the left, the
reason why his neck is so dark is because he has fuzzy hair growth, while
the man on the right was razored clean. The man on the right has longer
hair in back that is curling up at the bottom- not seen on the left. The
man on the left has a larger ear. But, the thing that jumps out
immediately is the stocky, bull-like thickness of the neck on the right
that is so different on the left. They are obviously two different men.
Frankly, I am not absolutely sure that the man on the left is Ruby, but I
know the man on the right isn't, and regardless, they are definitely not
the same man.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/08/sparta-had-nerve-to-put-up-this-collage.html
Now: your questions are irrelevant. The fact is that the first person to
realize that Jack Ruby was not the shooter was Maxim Irkutsk of Russia,
which happened in 2013, so 50 years later. Before that and until then,
everybody accepted that Ruby did it because the government and media said
so and because Ruby didn't deny it and was willing to accept
responsibility- even though he had no memory of doing it. This isn't a
matter of polling; it is a matter of evidence. And if it took 50 years for
someone to see it, I say: better late than never.
So, a question regarding whether or not any of the dozens of eyewitnesses
to the shooting of Oswald had ever claimed or testified that they saw
someone other than Jack Ruby as being the perpetrator is irrelevant? How
much more relevant can it get? In your world, the bizarre statement of
someone in Russia 50 years after the fact carries more weight than the
statements of the individuals that were actually there. Classic "Ralph"
denial of the actual facts and evidence of the case if they don't support
your insane theory. You make the statement that this "is a matter of
evidence", yet you conveniently choose to ignore the actual evidence of
the case. I've got a few facts for you: Ruby was convicted of the murder
of Oswald because the evidence and eyewitness testimony proved it. You
have no real evidence that Bookhout was even in the garage at the time of
the shooting. No witnesses, no ballistic evidence, nothing whatsoever that
would even allow for an indictment, let alone warrant a trial. If you
faced a judge or grand jury with the "evidence" you claim to have against
Bookhout you'd be laughed out of court. Similar to how folks on this site
have responded to your fantasies.
Ralph's running your response by the Wizard as we speak, IS, and should
have a cogent response soon, perhaps even sooner.
Ralph Cinque
2017-08-14 02:49:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Sparta, it's not Maxsim's saying it that matters. Anybody can lip-flap
anything, like you, for instance. It's what Maxsim's shows, the image
comparisons. The plain truth is that a honed, focused comparison of the
Garage Shooter to Jack Ruby establishes beyond doubt that they were
different men. And likewise, a comparison of the one front view of the
shooter with the last known image of James Bookhout (which is from 1937)
shows, beyond doubt, that he is the same man- less the ravages of time.

The herd can be wrong, Sparta. And, the fact is, as I've told you, that no
one except cops (who were in on it) claimed to recognize Jack Ruby in the
garage. Why didn't Hugh Aynesworth recognize him? He knew him very well
and had seen Ruby 3x that weekend. Hugh said that he didn't realize it was
Ruby until he found out from police afterwards. And why didn't Ike Pappas
recognize him when Ike had interacted with Ruby and taken his business
card at the Midnight Press Conference?

What you are really arguging here is that we shouldn't critically examine
this because of the number of people who accepted that it was Ruby. Well,
I don't care how many of them accepted that it was Ruby. The images tell
me that the shooter was not Ruby. And I put images ahead of all the
lip-flapping in the world.

The Jackson photo shows the shooter shooting with his middle finger on the
trigger. Now, who would do that? Jack Ruby had an intact right hand. So,
why would he fire the gun with his middle finger? Again: who would do
that?
Jason Burke
2017-08-14 20:02:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Sparta, it's not Maxsim's saying it that matters. Anybody can lip-flap
anything, like you, for instance. It's what Maxsim's shows, the image
comparisons. The plain truth is that a honed, focused comparison of the
Garage Shooter to Jack Ruby establishes beyond doubt that they were
different men. And likewise, a comparison of the one front view of the
shooter with the last known image of James Bookhout (which is from 1937)
shows, beyond doubt, that he is the same man- less the ravages of time.
The herd can be wrong, Sparta. And, the fact is, as I've told you, that no
one except cops (who were in on it) claimed to recognize Jack Ruby in the
garage. Why didn't Hugh Aynesworth recognize him? He knew him very well
and had seen Ruby 3x that weekend. Hugh said that he didn't realize it was
Ruby until he found out from police afterwards. And why didn't Ike Pappas
recognize him when Ike had interacted with Ruby and taken his business
card at the Midnight Press Conference?
What you are really arguging here is that we shouldn't critically examine
this because of the number of people who accepted that it was Ruby. Well,
I don't care how many of them accepted that it was Ruby. The images tell
But, uh, Ralph... The images are all fake, Fake, FAKE!
Aren't they, Ralph?
Post by Ralph Cinque
me that the shooter was not Ruby. And I put images ahead of all the
lip-flapping in the world.
The Jackson photo shows the shooter shooting with his middle finger on the
trigger. Now, who would do that? Jack Ruby had an intact right hand. So,
why would he fire the gun with his middle finger? Again: who would do
that?
Mark OBLAZNEY
2017-08-15 19:01:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Ralph Cinque
Sparta, it's not Maxsim's saying it that matters. Anybody can lip-flap
anything, like you, for instance. It's what Maxsim's shows, the image
comparisons. The plain truth is that a honed, focused comparison of the
Garage Shooter to Jack Ruby establishes beyond doubt that they were
different men. And likewise, a comparison of the one front view of the
shooter with the last known image of James Bookhout (which is from 1937)
shows, beyond doubt, that he is the same man- less the ravages of time.
The herd can be wrong, Sparta. And, the fact is, as I've told you, that no
one except cops (who were in on it) claimed to recognize Jack Ruby in the
garage. Why didn't Hugh Aynesworth recognize him? He knew him very well
and had seen Ruby 3x that weekend. Hugh said that he didn't realize it was
Ruby until he found out from police afterwards. And why didn't Ike Pappas
recognize him when Ike had interacted with Ruby and taken his business
card at the Midnight Press Conference?
What you are really arguging here is that we shouldn't critically examine
this because of the number of people who accepted that it was Ruby. Well,
I don't care how many of them accepted that it was Ruby. The images tell
But, uh, Ralph... The images are all fake, Fake, FAKE!
Aren't they, Ralph?
Post by Ralph Cinque
me that the shooter was not Ruby. And I put images ahead of all the
lip-flapping in the world.
The Jackson photo shows the shooter shooting with his middle finger on the
trigger. Now, who would do that? Jack Ruby had an intact right hand. So,
why would he fire the gun with his middle finger? Again: who would do
that?
Message to Ralph:

The Lizard says he(she?) is ready. Do you still have everything in that
safe, Ralph? Is it safe? Better make copies for your attorney.
Ralph Cinque
2017-08-16 19:34:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
You can personally research this, Pink:

https://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/08/what-do-my-adversaries-say-about-lack.html
Mark OBLAZNEY
2017-08-17 12:15:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
https://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/08/what-do-my-adversaries-say-about-lack.html
Thanks for posting that, Ralph. Now everybody can see it. Comments,
anyone? Suggestions for treatment?
InsideSparta
2017-08-18 17:39:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark OBLAZNEY
Post by Ralph Cinque
https://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/08/what-do-my-adversaries-say-about-lack.html
Thanks for posting that, Ralph. Now everybody can see it. Comments,
anyone? Suggestions for treatment?
Notice that Ralph does not provide his audience with a side by side photo
of Ruby, circa 1963, with the image of him with the detectives. Instead,
he elected to show a much younger photo of Ruby to compare with. He also
neglected to point out that the younger photo of Ruby looks a lot more
like the man in the photo with the detectives than does the young
Bookhout. The reason, of course, being that the photo of the young Ruby
and the photo of the man with the detectives are of the same man, Jack
Ruby. Ralph has also made much about the eye of the man in the photo with
the detectives being blacked out. However, if one looks at the full
un-cropped photo, it's easy to see that the blackened area around Ruby's
eyes is caused by the shadow of the cowboy hat that was worn by the
detective on the left. I can forgive Ralph for missing that one though,
because he's so bad at photo analysis to begin with.

Mark OBLAZNEY
2017-08-05 02:26:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by InsideSparta
Ralph has been making claims for months now that FBI Agent James Bookhout
was the real killer of Lee Harvey Oswald, or at the very least, was the
man seen on national TV gunning LHO down in the basement garage.
Let's see Ralph make a case to us (the grand jury) that Bookhout should be
indicted for the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald. I challenge him to present
his evidence against Bookhout that proves he shot Oswald. Evidence being
presented that Ruby wasn't the shooter does not count in this hearing and
is irrelevant since Ralph is tasked with making a case against Bookhout,
and is not tasked with defending Ruby. For this exercise, we'll assume the
shooter of Oswald is unknown, and there are no other suspects.
Go for it Ralph. Make your case for an indictment. Give us all the
evidence you have that Bookhout was the shooter of Lee Harvey Oswald. Once
you make your case, I invite the rest of us to vote to either indict
Bookhout or drop all charges.
Just be aware, James Bookhout was a real person, who, no doubt, still has
living family members. He is innocent until proven guilty, and the charge
of first degree murder that Ralph has laid on him is a serious accusation.
If he can't make a case against Bookhout, he should cease and desist from
accusing the man of murder.
OBTW, only votes by people that have previously posted on this site will
count. That's to keep Ralph from calling up all his Facebook friends to
come and vote for an indictment.
Put up, or shut up.
The gauntlet has been thrown, Ralph. Are you man enough to rise to the
challenge?

I feel like I'm in the middle of a 'Matlock' episode in an alternate
universe, where Andy Griffith is really InsideSparta.
Betty Drew
2017-08-08 20:37:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Great idea Sparta.
Betty Drew
2017-08-10 18:53:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Oh, dear!
Betty Drew
2017-08-14 19:10:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Then the Wizard has to run his response through Amy. So be patient for
your answer.
Betty Drew
2017-08-17 17:57:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
The images are all fake and his supporters are all fake.
Loading...