(PART 1247)


This is weird. I have been saying for a long time that I dispute the claim that the man shooting Oswald in the garage was Jack Ruby. And, it is absolutely undeniable that we don't get enough of a view of his face to visually confirm that he is Ruby. There isn't enough visual data in the images of him to confirm, with our own eyes, that he is Ruby. We just have to take the word of authority.

Well now, suddenly, Joseph Backes, who pretends to be an Oswald defender but isn't really, has discovered some frames of the shooter's face from the Bill Lord film that have never been seen before. Supposedly, right in the middle of the ruckus, right in the middle of the wild, pandemonious, frantic, chaotic melee that broke out right after the shooting, "Ruby" turned and posed for the camera. Isn't that convenient?

You can see the image on my blog [here]. I deny that the guy was Ruby, and I'm not even sure he's real. I suspect he is more photographic flim-flam and probably of recent origin.


Jack Ruby didn't shoot Oswald, and there is no image of the shooter that provides enough visual data to confirm that he did.

And then after the shooting, they scurried him out of there so fast, without even cuffing him, that we simply have no image of Ruby doing it.

Seeing a guy from behind who kinda/sorta looks like Ruby doesn't cut it because we can't see his face. I said: we can't see his face.


And Ruby admitting he did it doesn't mean a thing to you, does it Ralph?

And the verification that it was Ruby by the various police officers who were there in the basement on November 24, 1963, also means zilch to you, right Ralph? Such as Jim Leavelle.



The fact that there are NO discernible images of Ruby doing it doesn't mean a thing to you, does it, David? Despite all those different camera angles, there is not a single frame in which we can tell from looking that it's him.

Then, after the shooting, the police scurried him away without handcuffing him and keeping him totally covered, and I mean blanketed, and that doesn't bother you either?

Then, there is the fact that Ruby had no memory of doing it. He didn't remember a thing about the shooting. He only remembered going to the garage and then being pushed down to the ground by police. Nothing in-between. And that doesn't bother you?

And you have the nerve to bring up Leavelle? A man who claimed to have seen Ruby coming which made him jerk Oswald behind him which we know with 100% certainty did not happen. Leavelle did not react in any way until after the shot went off.

David: It wasn't Ruby. The little bit of visual data we have from the films and photos guarantees that it wasn't Ruby; for instance; different hairline in back, different facial contour, different weight, different height.

Jack Ruby most certainly did NOT shoot Oswald.


Talk about a bad case of denial. Ralph's got it.

You might as well be arguing that Dallas isn't in the state of Texas. That's how silly you've become, Ralph.

Is there any end to your "denial" about every aspect of this case? Any end at all?


Don't give me that crap, David. This isn't trivial. There is no image of Jack Ruby doing it. There are images that are claimed to be of him, that are assumed to be him, but they provide so little visual information that you can't tell if it's him. And what little visual information they provide conflicts with him. We're not going to assume it's him just because he's wearing a Fedora hat, are we? And the fact that they said it was him, and he didn't deny it means nothing because he couldn't remember doing it. He had no memory of doing it. What is the meaning of that? That he blocked it out of his mind? Too painful to remember?

And then, immediately after the shooting, they scurried him out of there lightning-fast, under tight, close cover because God forbid anyone should get a look at him. Why would they do that? There's only one reason: because that shooter was NOT Jack Ruby.

If you want to defend it, go ahead. But, stop acting high and mighty about it. I say it wasn't Ruby.


The biggest development in the history of JFK assassination research has just happened. We have irrefutable proof now that the garage shooter of Lee Harvey Oswald was FBI Agent James Bookhout.

It turns out that the Ruby impostor we found, posing with police, is him, Bookhout. We have a front-facing image of him staring right at us, and it fits perfectly with the young James Bookhout.

There is no longer a speck of doubt that an agent of the US government, James Bookhout, shot Lee Harvey Oswald--not Jack Ruby. Please read this and share it. Spread the word. JFK truth is rising. JFK truth is here.


After reading this I had to check my calendar. I thought maybe it was April 1.


Bookhout wasn't even in the basement when Ruby was shot. [Click Here.]

Case CLOSED on your OIC nonsense!


Brennan, there's this thing that people do. It's called lying. And Bookhout did it. Why would he hang around the Homicide office when it wasn't even his office? And, the entire national press and some of the international press were there to cover that jail transfer, so why wouldn't Bookhout have watched it? Of course, he did, and he was the shooter. However, I am completely convinced that he shot a blank, and Oswald was shot inside the police station.

Don't you get it? It was all theater. It was all a dog and pony show.

The people who know that the official story of the JFK shooting is a lie, why do you accept the official story of the Oswald shooting?


So, let's see what we have here.

1) "They" pretended to shoot Ozzie in the basement when the cameras were rolling.

2) "They" then shot Ozzie elsewhere...where there were no cameras.

3) "They" then put Ozzie in the ambulance and we pick it up from there with the cameras rolling.

Do you realize how foolish this sounds?


And I wonder how the police got Ruby to admit to a murder he never committed? Those cops were amazing, huh?


This is a good example of what [I] mean. I said the other day that Ruby was insane. He did plead insanity. And every time he spoke he sounded zany, disoriented, confused, and incoherent. But, David Von Pein asks how Dallas Police got Ruby to admit to a murder he didn't commit, as if Ruby was of sound mind. But, Ruby was NOT of sound mind.


Do you think these two are the same guy? Why? Look how different the ears are. Look how different the sideburns are. Look how phony the sunglasses are on the left. And look at his hairline in back. Jack Ruby was scruffy with hair growth back there. Why would you claim that that guy is Jack Ruby? You just want him to be Jack Ruby, so you say that he is? Is that how it works?


Ralph thinks the NBC footage shows Ruby wearing sunglasses in the basement. Hilarious.


Then, what is it? It's a black disc around his eye, and there's a bridge over his nose. What is it?

And you've got some nerve. You mock me, and you don't even say what it is.

You're getting more famous all the time.


It's a shadow, Ralph. Simple as that. The same type of blackness (i.e., shadow) can be seen on Ruby's neck. What do you think is causing the blackness on Ruby's neck?

Plus, do you really think somebody would paint in a pair of sunglasses onto a person's face without also painting in the frame for those sunglasses? Where is the hinged frame that should extend over Ruby's left ear? Are the glasses supposed to be just hanging there over his nose?

Isn't it time to give up this nonsense, Ralph?


Shadows are cast by objects, where an object is between the source of the light and the surface on which the shadow is laid. The object blocks the light, and that produces the shadow.

So, what is the object casting the disc-shaped shadow around his eye? I'm looking for an object here. Object. Object. Object.


What did I tell you, David? I told you that every shadow is cast by something; some object. So, you can't say it's a shadow without naming the object that cast it, and how it was in position to cast it. It has to make sense according to physics. But, you haven't even named the object.

The shadow on his neck is presumably cast by his chin, though what is casting the shadow on the lower part of his face I do not know.

But, the inky black disc around his eye with the stripe across the bridge of his nose, what could possibly be casting such a shadow?

And if you look closely, there does appear to be an eyeglass temple going over his ear.

Now, when you complain about the missing frame, don't blame me. There is a lot of crude stuff they did, photographically speaking, thinking that no one would care or even notice. They were very arrogant people who had nothing but contempt and scorn for the common man and his inability to observe details.

So yes, I really do think they would paint in a pair of sunglasses onto a person's face without also painting in the frame. And if you look closely, you can see the "temple" of his glasses which is going over his ear. Apparently, you're not too good at observing details either.

Alright, now you know that you can't claim shadow for the black disc without pointing to the object that is casting it. So, you can either cite the object, which will then be scrutinized, OR you can retract the claim. Take your pick. But, that's it. That's where you are at. That's the crossroad that you are at.

So, what's it going be? Cite the casting object or retract the claim.

And if you won't retract it, I'll retract it for you.


Here's another screen capture from the 11/24/63 NBC-TV coverage in the DPD basement. Do you think the man on the right is wearing sunglasses too, Ralph? If not, what's causing the same kind of blackness around his eyes that we also see on Jack Ruby's face in the same NBC video?....


Von Pein: It's NOT the same kind of blackness. And, we don't have to go beyond the frame in question to see how shadow manifested. There is a reporter whose face is partially covered in shadow who is close to the "Ruby" figure.

Alright, so let me dumb this down for you: On the left is the NBC reporter Tom Petit [sic], and his face is partially in shadow. That is what shadow looks like. Understand? That's the density of it, the color of it, etc. But, the guy on the right with the massive black disc over his eye, which has much greater density, which has inky blackness, which has three-dimensionality and form, that is NOT shadow. And if you think it's shadow, then show me another photo from the entire history of photography in which someone showed shadow that looked like that. What you submitted does not come close to that.



I'm officially done with this foolishness about Ruby and the nonexistent sunglasses. You can play your silly games by yourself from now on. I joined in for a few posts merely for the fun of it.

As everyone can easily see, Ralph Cinque's imagination has now reached new heights in the "fertile" and "ridiculous" departments.

The truth is (and always was, of course): the person who shot Lee Harvey Oswald in the Dallas Police Department basement on 11/24/63 was Jack L. Ruby, not FBI agent James W. Bookhout. And Mr. Ruby was definitely not wearing any eyeglasses when he murdered Oswald.


Ruby never shot Oswald.


It's amazing to see the amount of absolute trash and junk that crops up when people discuss the JFK case, as this ludicrous "RUBY NEVER SHOT OSWALD" hogwash clearly illustrates.

Is the next theory going to be: "TIPPIT WAS NEVER SHOT AT ALL"??

As Vince Bugliosi said....

"I know that conspiracy theorists have a sweet tooth for silliness, but is there absolutely nothing that is too silly for their palate?"


Mr. Von Pein, if you and I NEVER agree on anything else, at least we agree on this point.

Ruby shot Oswald.

Ruby admitted shooting Oswald.

Millions of witnesses on TV saw Ruby shoot Oswald.

THERE'S your "Case closed."


This is loony. .... I hope this does not lead to a Ruby Innocence Project.


Can we dispose of this nuttiness?

If you look at the combination of the clips from Evidence of Revision, and the KRLD tapes, there is no question at all that this is Ruby. And as Bauer said, he was concealing himself behind Harrison.

End of argument.

That nut Cinque has now convinced Fetzer and his gang that there is something to this.


This thread should have never gone on this far. As DVP said, it's embarrassing for even modest researchers to even think to post here to support "it wasn't Ruby." As for the mic appearing and disappearing from different angles in different photos (as [Robin] Unger points out) why would that even be considered strange? Yet again, as one researcher said elsewhere, "something sinister could be done...because they can."


A fake Ruby is not my theory. There are 2 Oswalds and 2 Marguretes (sp). Most researchers believe that.


I'm only quoting what you called this thread, Kathy - "It wasn't Ruby." How is anyone suppose to interpret that?


I'm not most researchers, Kathy. The Oswald and his Mom clone story is nothing but a silly fairy tale concocted by a guy and his minions to sell a slick bill of goods—at $60 a pop—to an unsuspecting public.




No one in videos or photos of the LHO murder looks like JR [Jack Ruby].


You don't think this looks like Jack Ruby? ....


It looks more like JR than it doesn't. That's just 49% vs. 51% comparison. If you were to ask me if I would identify that person as JR, I would say no.


C'mon DVP, blow that character's face up and put it next to your best compatible known JR pic for a good side-by-side comparison.


I can't believe I did this for this stupid "It Wasn't Ruby" discussion (which couldn't be any more ridiculous even if Jim Fetzer had been its original author), but Michael asked me to do it. I only wish the basement pic was clearer, but I haven't the slightest idea how to sharpen the image. I can blow it up, but that only makes it worse and more pixelated; so this is the best I could do, not that it deserves even this much, since all sensible people already know that it's the real Jack Ruby in all of these pictures....


I think my good friend and fellow "LNer" Bud summed up the actions of most conspiracy theorists quite well recently at another forum when he said:

"You guys are playing silly games with the deaths of these men [JFK & J.D. Tippit]." -- Bud; March 1, 2017

And with regard to this idiotic thread regarding Jack Ruby, Bud's quote shown above could be expanded to three different deaths:

"You guys are playing silly games with the deaths of these men [JFK, J.D. Tippit, and Lee Harvey Oswald]."



Do you have any sense of compassion for the great number of people who feel that they have lost so much? I'm not even talking about the life of one man, or three. It cannot be lost on you, after all of your work, that these people are not playing games. These people are looking to restore the loss of the legitimacy of their country. Surely you understand that.

I'll ask again, do you have compassion for them, even if you feel that they are wrong? It's not a game. I believe that you know that.

Is it, to you, a game? I sense that, to you, it is.



I have no compassion at all for the type of JFK conspiracy theorist that Bud was referring to in the quote I cited above. I agree with Bud 100% with respect to THAT type of JFK CTer. Those people ARE playing silly games. Bud was referring mainly to one particular conspiracy nut who has posted on the Internet for many years [whose name is Ben Holmes]; but Bud's comment certainly applies to many other JFK conspiracy believers as well (especially on the Internet)—i.e., the type who never met a conspiracy they didn't lap up with glee. To THAT kind of "CTer", yes, it is only a silly game, IMO. They don't care that there's no evidence at all to support the conspiracies they are alleging. But they keep harping on them anyway. And that certainly includes any and all JFK conspiracy theorists who (incredibly) still support Jim Garrison and his bogus prosecution of Clay Shaw in New Orleans.


.... but you could not bring yourself to say a word about the "other type".


That's because Bud's quote doesn't really apply to the "other type". (At least I don't see his quote as applying to that "other type".)

Ergo, I was referring only to the "outer-fringe kook" type of CTers, who are, indeed, merely playing silly games with the deaths of JFK and J.D. Tippit (and LHO too).



As a follow-up, if you were trying to convince people that they are just wrong about this, if you were just trying to show them the light, your MO would not be one defined by a penchant to mock and ridicule them.


Define "this" in "about this" for me, Michael.

If you mean THIS absurd "It Wasn't Ruby" thread, do you really think THOSE CTers who buy into the idea that "It Wasn't Ruby" actually deserve anything BUT mocking and ridicule? Surely not.


By this, I am talking about the conspiracy to assassinate JFK. I've already said that I don't think that that person looks like JR.


Then you're merely playing a silly game too, Michael. Because you HAVE to know that Jack Ruby DID shoot Lee Oswald, right? You surely can't deny that fact, can you? After all, you ARE a "reasonable CTer", are you not?



I hate photo analysis. I could sit here and point out odd things in that pic that say "hey, what's up with that ear, or hairline, or the balding pattern?" You could too. I don't get into pissing matches over pictures. My statement was reasonable.

Telling me I am playing games, when I am telling you what I see, think, and feel, is, at best, discourteous. Perhaps my prior characterizations could be construed as discourteous. In my defense, I don't mock or ridicule you or anyone, as a rule. I HAVE done that, but only in times of failure. It is not my MO.


David, very well said. You explained it very well about the different TYPES of CTers.

The "lapping it up" comment is spot on.




In Ralph Cinque's mind, the "evidence" (i.e., the NON-evidence) that he has presented which he thinks proves beyond all doubt that James Bookhout shot Lee Oswald instead of Jack Ruby, is somehow supposedly STRONGER and MORE ironclad and MORE persuasive and MORE powerful than the actual evidence (i.e., 100% proof) which indicates Ruby shot Oswald.

Ralph actually seems to believe his own delusional crackpot "Ruby Is Innocent" theory is a BETTER theory than believing the actual truth of Ruby's guilt.

Is there some kind of medical term to define Ralph's affliction (other than "delusional")?


You just spoke in generalities. You challenged my evidence for Bookhout being the shooter and said it was trumped by evidence that Ruby was, but you didn't cite any evidence at all; nothing. Can't you see how empty that is?



Who do you think the person is who is being escorted by police into the elevator at City Hall within a couple of minutes of Oswald getting shot (go to 22:07 in the video below)?

If you agree that the man with the torn shirt being taken to an elevator IS Jack Ruby, then what do you think the police are doing with Ruby at that moment? Did Ruby JUST HAPPEN to coincidentally be in that area of City Hall within minutes of Oswald getting shot by someone ELSE?

Or will you simply say that the WFAA video isn't nearly clear enough to determine who the man with the torn shirt is? I expect that will be your only reply.

It's Jack Ruby in that video, of course. And Ruby is being escorted upstairs just minutes after he plugged Oswald. But Ralph will now have to invent some excuse for why the police are escorting an INNOCENT Ruby (or a Ruby look-alike) upstairs. Or maybe Ralph thinks the man in the torn shirt is really James Bookhout. Could that be it?

Let's watch Ralph's comedy act continue....



Yes, that is the real Jack Ruby, but he was brought down from the 5th floor. He had been up there for the better part of an hour, and they just brought him down for a photo op, to insert him into the story.

If he was just being brought in, then how could he be out of his jacket? He was wearing one, right? And there was a big struggle, wasn't there? And for some reason, they didn't handcuff him in the garage, right? But once they got him inside the jail office, then they did handcuff him, right? We can't assume that they removed his jacket first before they handcuffed him, can we? Why would they do that? They wouldn't. They would have had no thought in their minds to do such a thing. They would have just handcuffed the violent man, however he was dressed. So, how could he be handcuffed in just a shirt there? What happened to his jacket?

They probably left his jacket upstairs. They forget about it. It was a slip-up. They took him downstairs to redo bringing him in, except they forgot to put his jacket back on him. And that's why we see him there handcuffed with no jacket.

It was all an act, David; a dog and pony show. This was their feeble attempt to insert the real Jack Ruby into the story. This was the switch in the bait and switch.

Pathetic. Hapless and pathetic.



Your stupendously ridiculous theories about a variety of issues relating to JFK's assassination are a sad example of how delusions can take over a person's brain. I'd like to be able to help you break free from all of those delusional thoughts and preposterous theories, but I just don't know what I could say at this point to make your common sense return to you. I hope you can eventually find your way back to reality at some point in time in the future. Good luck.


You know, Von Pein, nothing irritates me more than when a person writes something but says nothing. I pointed out something very concrete to you, the fact that Ruby is seen handcuffed in just his shirt shortly after the shooting, when he surely would have been handcuffed in his jacket, since he was wearing one. And you completely evaded the point, refusing to respond to it, and instead going off on a diatribe about me.

Being evasive; it is very dishonest. But, it does tell me that even you realize that it is an insurmountable problem.

Ruby was NOT just brought in then. He was brought in much earlier; before the televised spectacle. And he was brought down from the 5th floor just to be paraded around like he was just brought in. And you, apparently, have no answer to it.



The things that you consider to be "concrete" are, in actuality, nothing more than watered-down mush. And everybody knows it. Take your "Ruby was wearing a jacket" mush, for example. Yes, Ruby was certainly wearing his jacket when he shot Lee Oswald, and he's not wearing it when he was being escorted by the police to the elevator in the jail office just a few minutes later.

But, so what? Why can't those two things possibly co-exist? Why couldn't Ruby be wearing his jacket one minute, and then not wearing it the next? Why is that impossible? A jacket is an item that can be taken on and off very quickly and easily in a matter of seconds. Why couldn't the police, after struggling with Ruby to take the revolver out of his hand, have then yanked the jacket off his back to make certain there were no additional weapons in the pockets of his jacket? Why is that possibility not even on Ralph Cinque's radar screen? Ralph, instead, always jumps to the most ludicrous and "conspiratorial" conclusion imaginable, even when ample non-conspiratorial explanations are readily available. Why do you always do that, Ralph?

Another hunk of pure mush that Ralph has offered up recently is the idea that Ruby must be innocent because Ralph says he knows for sure that Ruby (or the "person" whom Ralph tells us is really NOT Ruby at all in the NBC-TV footage) was carrying some papers under his left arm just before the shooting. But it's very clear what the answer to that "mystery" is --- the papers weren't being held by Ruby; they were, instead, under the right arm of the person standing to Ruby's immediate left. But Ralph won't even consider that alternate possibility (which is, of course, the absolute truth of the matter).

In summary, a nonsensical theory like the one Ralph has created from whole cloth about James Bookhout killing Lee Harvey Oswald doesn't deserve anything more than scorn and ridicule because it is so patently silly and provably wrong for a whole host of reasons. But you, Ralph, don't care about those reasons. You have it set in your mind that an FBI man (of all people) took the shot at Oswald instead of Ruby. Which is a crazy notion all by itself from this standpoint....

If Jim Bookhout HAD, in fact, been the actual shooter of Oswald, then it would have given the Dallas Police a perfect way to "save face" in front of the world after the shooting, because Bookhout was an FBI man who had a RIGHT to be in that basement on November 24th. He was a member of law enforcement. Ruby wasn't. Ruby was an outsider who shouldn't have been in the basement at all.

So please tell the world, Ralph, WHY the DPD was trying to pin the murder on someone whose entry into the basement could only make the DPD look like fools, idiots, and Keystone Kops---instead of just placing the blame on the person you say did it--a "rogue" FBI man who had a grievance against Oswald?

Blaming the actual killer would certainly have been much better for the DPD (and much easier, of course), versus going through the complicated "bait and switch" charade and "fake films" operation that you say did occur on 11/24/63. Ever think of that?


Another problem for David Von Pein....

Uh-oh. Trouble.

David Von Pein said: "Yes, Ruby was certainly wearing his jacket when he shot Lee Oswald, and he's not wearing it when he was being escorted by the police to the elevator in the jail office just a few minutes later."

That's impossible for reasons I have already stated, but mainly because they would have cuffed him right away, and once cuffed, there was no removing his jacket. But, look what happened when he gets to the elevator a few seconds later.

Is he not in his jacket? What else could that darkness be? So, you figure they put his jacket back on him? But, how could they when he was in handcuffs?

His hands are cuffed behind his back there, right?

So, how could they put his jacket back on him? How could he get his arms in the sleeves?


It looks to me as if Ruby is in the process of putting his jacket back on when we first see him in the WFAA-TV footage, and when we see his back as he gets in the elevator, he's got his jacket back on. So the police obviously did not handcuff Ruby at all prior to taking him to the elevator.

Why are you so insistent about the cops having to handcuff him? They obviously didn't, as we can see by examining Ruby's movements in the WFAA footage. [See my follow-up comments on this in my next post.]


Wait a second! There was a reporter and a cameraman. So, how could it be when Ruby was brought in? You can't tell me that they had a camera crew there then. Everything we are seeing here must be well after Ruby was brought in. Only then could there be a camera crew in place.


The very fact that there is a camera crew there and a reporter speaking into a microphone tells you that it has to be several minutes later. So, what is Ruby doing there? They brought him back down precisely because of the camera--to put him in front of it.

This was the moment at which they inserted the real Jack Ruby into the story. We never saw him before this.



ABC had its camera set up in the jail office (or just behind the desks in the jail office area) BEFORE Oswald ever got shot. They wanted their camera to capture Oswald as he came out of the elevator. And it did capture those images (20 minutes into this video).

And that same camera then was moved a short distance to its right to film Oswald going into the basement garage, and that's also in the video above, which shows Oswald from behind as he was shot.

That same camera then filmed Ruby a minute or two later as he was being escorted by police to the same elevator that Oswald was just brought out of.

A little more about the topic of Ruby's jacket....

It sure looks to me as though Ruby is moving in a manner so as to put his jacket back on in the ABC jail office footage. But another possibility is that Ruby is, indeed, handcuffed at that moment in time and his jacket is only partially off of his body. Maybe the jacket got pulled partly off (exposing only his white shirt in the brief glimpse we get of Ruby in the ABC footage) and perhaps they did slap the cuffs on Ruby at a point in time when Ruby was disheveled and had his jacket only partially on.

Then, a short time later in the jail office, probably with the help of the officers to his left and right, Ruby's jacket was slid back into its proper place on his body after it had slid part of the way down his back in the struggle after Ruby shot Oswald. It's hard to tell in the ABC video whether Ruby's jacket is completely off or whether it's just part of the way off of his body.

So maybe it was more the actions of the police officers, rather than being Ruby entirely on his own, who got the jacket back in place just before entering the elevator. If he was handcuffed at that moment, then it was almost certainly the policemen who did most of the work in getting Ruby's jacket back into place on Ruby's back, rather than Jack doing it all himself, which would indeed have been difficult (if not impossible) if he had been in handcuffs at that moment.

I have no idea if the above scenario is accurate or not, but I really don't care too much one way or the other --- and that's because no rational person could possibly even BEGIN to believe in all the crazy cloak-and-dagger stuff and "fake films" theories that Ralph Cinque has been entertaining his audience with in recent months.

Regardless of whether Ruby was handcuffed or not in the jail office, and regardless of how Ruby's jacket was situated on his body just after the shooting of Oswald, the bottom-line fact still remains the same --- and that fact is:

Jack Ruby was the man who shot and killed Lee Harvey Oswald. And no sensible person could believe otherwise.


It's the same film crew, and they went out into the garage. Why would they have left a film crew in the jail office when nothing else was expected to happen there? Oswald was supposed to be put in a car and driven off, and then it was going to be over. There was nothing else pending; nothing else to happen in the jail office. So, why would they have left a film crew there? They wouldn't. They couldn't. They didn't.


There was only ONE film crew in that area. But why don't you just look at all of the film in question? You seem to only be taking note of some of it to support your arguments.

At the 21:00 mark in this video, we can see the camera move from the basement area back to an area inside the jail office. And that footage at that point appears to be totally uncut, with no breaks in it at all. And we can see the camera go from the wild scuffle in the garage back to the exact place where ABC had just filmed Oswald coming out of the elevator.

So it's the same camera alright. But there was no need for two camera crews to be there in order to get all the footage that ABC got from those jail locations. And you, Ralph, should have very easily been able to figure that out yourself (since I provided the WFAA/ABC video for you), but evidently you just couldn't seem to figure this out at all---even though you surely had to have viewed the parts of the video I just discussed above at the 21-minute mark.

Also --- From the looks of the ABC footage, it appears to be captured with a handheld film camera, not a bulky TV type of camera, which means the camera could be moved around from place to place very quickly and easily. And as we can see in the video, that's just what the ABC cameraman did---he moved with the action as it was happening--uncut.

But even if I'm wrong about the exact type of camera being utilized, it's a moot point, since we can see for ourselves that the cameraman IS moving along with the action---from an area near the jail doorway leading into the basement garage and then back inside the jail office area while still filming with the very same camera.


[Quoting DVP:] "It sure looks to me as though Ruby is moving in a manner so as to put his jacket back on in the ABC jail office footage."

How can that be so if we don't even see the jacket?


If the jacket had slipped down mostly behind his back in the struggle, you wouldn't be able to see it in the very brief glimpse we get of Ruby in that footage. I don't see any problem with that at all. Naturally, you do. You see "problems" everywhere you look. You invent problems that aren't there at all, in fact. You do that every day. Such as your newest hunk of silliness regarding Blackie Harrison and the "felt pen" line you think somebody drew onto his face in the NBC raw TV footage.

Now please tell the world, Ralph, WHY on God's green Earth anyone would have any desire to mark up Harrison's eyes with a felt pen? Is there ANY logical reason for someone to have wanted to alter the NBC videotape in that manner? Of course there isn't. But you'll argue that such craziness happened anyway. Won't you, Ralph?

And you'll continue to blow up already crappy images and make them much more pixelated and distorted, and then you'll declare still more fakery. Won't you, Ralph? Because that's what you apparently like to do as a silly hobby 24/7.

What you're seeing, of course, as a result of your blow-ups is nothing more than pixelation and various other anomalies that enter the photographic equation when you attempt to enlarge areas of pictures. What do you expect when you blow up images like that? You can't expect 1080p HD clarity.


Why are you speculating like that when we don't see the jacket at all? How dare you say that it's partially on him when we don't see it at all?


The jacket is very likely being put on Ruby at the moment we see him in his white shirt for those fleeting 2 seconds before he's put in the elevator. Why you think that's an utter impossibility is yet another of man's unsolved mysteries.

But you are apparently going to keep arguing this stupid "jacket off/on" thing till the cows show up at your door, right Ralph? Even though all sensible people know it means NOTHING --- because regardless of how the jacket got back on Ruby's body, we know that it IS Jack Ruby in all of that ABC footage. It's the SAME GUY in all the footage. And to believe anyone put a "fake" coat on Ruby in the one second of "elevator" footage is something only a person named Ralph Cinque could begin to advocate.


If he's handcuffed, and we have to assume he was, neither he nor the cops could get the jacket on him, and that's because he was handcuffed. He could not have been wearing the jacket at all if he was handcuffed. So, what are you saying? That he wasn't wearing the jacket but that the jacket was draped over him like a shawl? Because that's all that's left.


See my previous comments. I can easily envision all the "jacket" scenarios I have wasted my time pointing out to you in the last few days, Ralph. Somehow, you can't envision any of them being even remotely possible. Well, so be it.


You are just making it up as you go.


Irony Alert #1!!!


All that you are saying is entirely the product of your imagination.


Irony Alert #2!!!!

(Let's see if Ralph goes for the coveted Hat Trick....)


That's all you've got, David: just stubborn insistence and nothing else.


Yes, indeedy! Irony Alert #3 has been tallied!!! Good job, Ralph!

Let's see now....

...Making stuff up as you go.


...Products of the imagination.

and finally....

...Stubborn insistence.


Now who do we all know here who fits those above three descriptions? Any ideas?

David Von Pein
September 22-24, 2016
October 15, 2016
October 20-26, 2016
May 3-12, 2017
June 1-4, 2017
June 7-10, 2017