JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 1247)


RALPH CINQUE SAID:

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.

[...]

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.


RALPH CINQUE THEN LATER SAID:

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.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

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.


1966 INTERVIEW WITH JACK RUBY:



RALPH CINQUE SAID:

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.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

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?


RALPH CINQUE SAID:

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.


RALPH CINQUE LATER SAID:

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.


JOHN CORBETT SAID:

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


TIM BRENNAN SAID:

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

Case CLOSED on your OIC nonsense!


RALPH CINQUE SAID:

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?


JASON BURKE SAID:

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?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

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


RALPH CINQUE SAID:

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.


RALPH CINQUE ALSO SAID:

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?




DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

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


RALPH CINQUE SAID:

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.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

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?


RALPH CINQUE SAID:

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.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

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?....




RALPH CINQUE SAID:

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.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Ralph,

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.




KATHLEEN COLLINS SAID:

Ruby never shot Oswald.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

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?"


MARK KNIGHT SAID:

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."


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

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.


MICHAEL WALTON SAID:

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."


KATHLEEN COLLINS SAID:

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


MICHAEL WALTON SAID:

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.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Amen!!!!!!!!!


MICHAEL CLARK SAID:

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


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

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




MICHAEL CLARK SAID:

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.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

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....




DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:

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]."


MICHAEL CLARK SAID:

David,

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.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Michael,

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.


MICHAEL CLARK SAID:

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


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

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).


MICHAEL CLARK SAID:

DVP,

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.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

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.


MICHAEL CLARK SAID:

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.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

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?


MICHAEL CLARK SAID:

David,

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.


MICHAEL WALTON SAID:

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

The "lapping it up" comment is spot on.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

http://Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com

David Von Pein
September 22-24, 2016
October 15, 2016
October 20-26, 2016
May 3-12, 2017