Thursday, August 9, 2018


LikeShow more reactions
Reply3h
Ralph Cinque Thank you for acknowledging that this man was not Jack Ruby, Alex. Here is the entire frame, taken several minutes after the shooting on the 3rd floor of the PD. It's actually a frame from a movie.




Tuesday, August 7, 2018

Oswald: shot in the abdomen but not one drop of blood. No blood in the garage. No reports of blood in the jail office. You realize that a doctor, Fred Bieberdorf, said that the entry wound was clean and bloodless. They later presented this image of blood on the floor where Oswald was lying, but tell me: if the wound was bloodless, how could this be a blood stain?
There are no images of Oswald until he is rolled out of the jail office. But, if he was lying on the floor inside, presumably, he was lying on his back, right? They didn't put him down face down, did they? And they didn't put him down on his left side where he was shot, did they? So, presumably, they put him down on his back, and if he was turned at all, he must have been turned to his right, with the inflicted side, his left side, up, right? 

Well, in that case, how could such a blood stain get beneath him? He wasn't shot through the back. If blood traveled from the wound to the floor, it didn't fly there.  And that would have been a long way to go. So, how could this be blood? 

But continuing, there was no blood in getting Oswald to the ambulance in the garage. No blood was ever seen in the ambulance itself or on the stretcher. And there was no blood on Oswald or anywhere else in any of the Parkland hospital footage. So, this:
 is the only evidence of blood from a man who essentially bled to death. They say that the bleeding was mostly internal, but it would have taken a lot of external bleeding to produce a blood stain underneath him- unless the violated part was placed directly in contact with the ground.  And we know that is not the case because Dr. Bieberdorf said he saw Oswald on his back with the wound up and visible and exposed and not bleeding.  So, it makes no sense for this to be a blood stain beneath Oswald. 
So, the reality is that there are no reports of any blood and no images of any blood, any time, any place, or any where, except for this, and this is not legitimate. This is not real. The shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald in the basement of the Dallas PD was a hoax. 







Monday, August 6, 2018

Dave Perry wrote a short piece defending Roy Vaughn from the idiot Robert Groden, who accused Vaughn of complicity, implying that he was lying when he said he didn't see Ruby, where actually he let Ruby in. 

http://dperry1943.com/vaughn.html

You really should read what Perry wrote because it's a case of one idiot calling another idiot, an idiot. 

So, how did Perry defend Vaughn? By pointing out that Vaughn must have been telling the truth when he said he didn't see Ruby enter because THREE OTHER OFFICERS DIDN'T SEE HIM EITHER. Those officers were Lt. Pierce, Sergeant Putnam, and Sergeant Maxie.  

But, Dave! Think! You dumb mudderpluck. How likely is it that Ruby got past FOUR police officers without being seen? And actually, you could make it five because there was another former officer there who was unofficially helping Vaughn. None of them saw Ruby. And supposedly they were all on high alert, knowing the grave danger that Oswald was in. Pierce was involved in securing the basement from the very beginning. Pierce is the one who called Vaughn at his earlier location and told him to report to City Hall. 

Perry cited Pierce's testimony, but what about Ruby's? Ruby recalled seeing Pierce talking to an officer on foot, but he said nothing about seeing Putnam and Maxie. How could he not see them? Coming from the direction of the WU office, Ruby would have had to look through Putnam to see Pierce. What I mean is that Ruby was on the passenger side of Pierce's car, and Putnam was sitting in the passenger seat. So, how could Ruby see the driver, and the guy the driver was talking to on the driver's side without seeing that there was someone sitting on the passenger side when he, himself, Ruby, was on the passenger side? RUBY REPEATEDLY SAID THAT HE SAW ONLY PIERCE AND THE OFFICER ON FOOT. Furthermore, Ruby said that he did not recognize the officer on foot, but RUBY KNEW ROY VAUGHN. I'll say it again: RUBY KNEW VAUGHN.  RUBY KNEW VAUGHN.  RUBY KNEW VAUGHN.

Perry's piece is supposed to be a defense of Roy Vaughn. It's called the clearing of Roy Vaughn. But is it? Perry still maintains that Vaughn incompetently and negligently let Ruby pass- NOT ON PURPOSE- but just out of incompetence, stupidity, and failure.  His claim is that, by accident, Vaughn let Ruby pass, as did three other officers, and as I said, really it was four. But, why stop there? What about the spectators? THEY, SUPPOSEDLY, WATCHED RUBY WALK DOWN THE RAMP, AND SECONDS LATER HEARD THE SOUND OF HIM SHOOTING OSWALD, YET, NOT ONE OF THEM CAME FORWARD AFTERWARDS TO RECOUNT IT?

"I saw this guy sneak past the officer. I didn't know what to make of it. Seconds later, the shot went off." 

Not one such person came forward and said that. So, what we really have is the invisible Jack Ruby, who wasn't seen by five police officers nor any of the spectators. Nobody but nobody saw him enter and walk down that ramp. 

Now, how credible is that? And Ruby didn't even claim to do it stealthily. He said he just walked down the ramp in broad daylight not trying to evade anyone from seeing him.  He wasn't hiding. He wasn't sneaking. He wasn't trying to avoid being seen. 

So, how is it possible that all those people didn't see him? 

The truth can only be this: that Ruby did it just as he said he did, but it was at an earlier time, when it was just Pierce and another officer on foot (not Vaughn) and the spectators at the ramp. And, they were all in on it  Vaughn was placed there after that. Vaughn was the other patsy that day. Vaughn was set up. He was young. He was a low-ranking officer. He was chosen to be the fall guy, to take the blame for, incompetently, letting Ruby in, where Ruby just got past him, doggone it.  VAUGHN SWORE TO HIS DYING BREATH THAT IT DID NOT HAPPEN THAT WAY; THAT IT DID NOT HAPPEN ON HIS WATCH; THAT RUBY DID NOT GET PAST HIM.

You should believe Roy Vaughn. I do. Ruby did NOT get past him. Ruby got in at a different time, a time when another officer was there, one, who like Pierce, was in on it. 

You should believe Ruby and Vaughn but not believe the others. You know very well that it's impossible for five officers to be at an 8 foot wide ramp and for someone to get by them unseen. That's lunacy. That is insanity.  If you are going to believe that, then you drank the whole damn pitcher of Kool-Aid. I am talking to you, Dave Perry. 



Thursday, August 2, 2018

Alice Gold Richard Hooke Look at the evidence and you will see Ruby was innocent too. Drop this nonsense of Jackie being in on it.
Manage

LikeShow more reactions
Reply6h
Ralph Cinque Thank you for putting that up, Alice. Until people realize that, like Oswald, Jack Ruby was innocent, they are stumbling around in the dark. They are just not getting what happened that weekend. The really frightening thing is that, in advance, the plotters wrote not just the fake story, but the alternate story, the one that their foes would adopt to fight them. That's the one where Ruby was a big Mafioso who pimped and killed and threw people down the stairs, and knew everyone from Richard Nixon to Jimmy Hoffa. It's all false. It's all a created, crafted identity for Ruby. Jack Ruby was witless, hapless, and hopeless. He was MK-ULTRA. He was definitely drugged, and he may also have been hypnotized. The whole damn story is 10X scarier than people ever thought. That's the sad truth. The depth of the evil is 10X greater than most people are aware. 
Show more reactions
Reply1mEdited

Tuesday, July 31, 2018

Rachel White Funny. How that's Rubys chin..
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply3h
Ralph Cinque You don't know how it works, Rachel. It's not what you think matches, it's what you know doesn't match. And it just takes one, what I call a deal breaker. His nose alone is a deal breaker: very narrow and aquiline on the right and more spread and bulbous on the left.  And that settles it, Rachel. You are ridiculing yourself if you say another word. He's not Ruby.



Richard Hooke is all excited about the likeness of the collars between the one on the far left and the one next to it, but how unlikely is it for a shirt to behave that way? And since James Bookhout on the left was masquerading as Jack Ruby, why wouldn't he wear a similar shirt? While you're looking at this collage, note that Ruby in November 63 seems to have a lot more hair than he did a few months later in March 64. Did he really lost that much hair? No. They doctored the earlier image to hide how bald he was, probably because of the image on the far left, and even the other images because in the Jackson photo, the shooter seems to have very thick hair in back- too thick to be as bald as Ruby actually was. And that began a permanent campaign of falsifying Ruby's hair which goes on to this day.


Juliette de la Bretoniere In my view, this is a suspicious image all together; the shooters’ face is blurred which is too much of a coincidence, so the photo could have been messed with. Then, the people look to have been ‘caught in the act’. Like in: ‘We’re posing out of politeness, but actually... we dón’t like to be photographed right now!
That is very well put, Juliette. Look at Detective Hall on the right, who seems much more concerned with the camera than he is with "Ruby" behind him. Remember that struggle in the garage? When it took a dozen large policemen to contain the mighty "Jack Ruby"? No worries any more. It's all friendly between them now. You might even think that they're working together. There isn't that much accord in my family photos. And yes, the image of the shooter is weirdly blurry, while the images of Boyd and Hall are not. And just to discount the shooter's blurriness, they went ahead and blurred up Sims, in back, even more. He looks like a ghost. I thought that blur was the characteristic of the photo overall. Since when can you have blurry parts and crisp parts in the same photo? I know it's possible when you have a moving object and a still object in the same photo, but here, it's just the opposite because, if anything, Hall looks like he's on the move, while "Ruby" looks as still as a lump on a log.  They look caught all right. They look guilty as sin. And what they are guilty of is hiding with James Bookhout who was masquerading as Jack Ruby.  Don't you get it that this was the forbidden image? The one that was never supposed to be seen? And that is exactly why it was only shown once, in the Fred Rheinstein retrospective. And he wasn't trying to do the truth movement a favor. On the contrary, he was trying to do just the opposite- keep the lie going. But, somehow this image got put in there, probably because some witless, brainless editor chose to put it in. It wasn't necessarily Fred himself. Who knows who it was, but he's the guy who, unwittingly, did the JFK truth movement a huge favor.