ROB CONTI SAID:
After researching the video footage of Oswald getting shot, as well as photos of Jack Ruby, his own words, etc... as well as the work of other independent researchers on this topic, I am convinced there is more to Oswald's killing than meets the eye.
The short man in the fedora who killed Oswald, how can we be sure it was really Jack Ruby? We never see his face. The Oswald shooter is shorter, has stocky legs, and has a wider face than Ruby did. He was also wearing a different colored suit jacket than Ruby was in the Dallas County jail corridor, minutes before, and he had no fedora on and an entirely different build, hairline, messy hair cut, and ear shape.
Plus, no one ever photographs or films the Oswald shooter's face EVER. When he is wrestled to the ground after he shoots Oswald, everyone seems to carefully cover him so NO ONE sees him. There is zero photographic or film evidence of this man's face.
Then only afterwards do you see Ruby walking without his suit jacket on, supposedly right after he was arrested and apprehended. It just doesn't match up. Why doesn't he still have his suit jacket on? Maybe because they knew it is much lighter than the Oswald shooter's jacket? That is just one inconsistency in all this.
Plus, listening to Ruby interviewed convinces me he was set up as a patsy, just like Oswald was. Ralph Cinque did some interesting work on this subject: I agree with a lot of his thesis. What do you guys think? Isn't it strange we NEVER see the Oswald shooter's face from the time he appears to the time he is wrestled to the ground and apprehended?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
In 2016 and 2017, I battled Ralph Cinque for several rounds over his absurd "Ruby Never Shot Oswald" theory. Those rounds can be found here.
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?"
JOHN IACOLETTI SAID:
Is this the same Vince Bugliosi who said that the rumor that Oswald preferred Dr Pepper to Coke somehow constitutes evidence for Oswald’s guilt?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
It's always a good idea for CTers to truncate and mangle (and, above all, isolate) an LNer's argument in order to attempt to make the LNer look like an idiot (as John just did above). Par for the CT course....of course.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/isolating-evidence.html
CHARLES COLLINS SAID:
Generalization is another of their favorites.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And their all-time favorite....
Let's Pretend All The Evidence Against Oswald Is Fake & Phony So We Can Summarily Dismiss Every Last Piece Of It.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/09/was-all-of-this-evidence-planted.html
JOHN IACOLETTI SAID:
Not even necessary. What little evidence you have is weak, circumstantial, and tainted. Even if it was all genuine, including the shells with the disappearing initials, the bag that’s invisible in the crime scene photos, and the magic disappearing and reappearing partial palmprint, it still doesn’t demonstrate that Oswald shot anybody.
Which is why empty rhetoric like Dr Peppers and rings in cups is so ridiculous.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I see that things like denial and isolation of evidence are things that are still as strong as ever amongst the conspiracy theorists at this forum.
(What a surprise.)
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
Spoken like a true believer.
Denial? Care to explain?
Could it be that valid questions about dubious and weak, speculative evidence is the same to you as "denial"?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The extensive Single-Bullet Theory debate linked below perfectly illustrates what I mean by a conspiracy theorist's "denial". I couldn't have asked for a better made-to-order demonstration:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
And the very same kind of denial exists at this forum too. Always has. And, I surmise, always will.
And now we're even being treated to denial with respect to Ruby shooting Oswald! And it can't get much worse on the "denial" scale than that.
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
You present a highly speculative subject matter, like the SBT...
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The SBT is not "highly speculative" at all, IMO. Quite the opposite, in fact. [As demonstrated at my SBT website below.]
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
The SBT...cannot be duplicated in real time and leaves a lot of questions unanswered, and when somebody doesn't instantly take your word for it, he's in denial. Is that your position?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
In the SBT discussion I linked earlier, I wasn't asking James R. Gordon of The Education Forum (or anyone else) to simply take my word for anything. I presented a multitude of looped video clips to prove my case. Gordon then went into his Ultimate Denial mode for several days, resulting in him banning me from the EF Kingdom, then unbanning me when he realized he was wrong, and then going back to his Ultimate Denial mode yet again.
That particular 2015 SBT discussion should be propped up as an example whenever a CTer continues to ignore (or deny) something that is obvious.
David Von Pein
December 31, 2020—January 3, 2021
