Tuesday, August 22, 2017

This is a freeze-frame of Robin Unger's muzzle flash.


Note that the muzzle flash is the visible light of the muzzle blast- the sound of the gunshot. So, they are simultaneous. But notice that no one in that image is reacting to the sound of the blast. There is absolutely no indication, from looking at those figures, that a gunshot has occurred. It is absolutely preposterous to think that such a thing happened. Note that that flash is caused by the propellant gases exiting the firearm BEHIND the bullet. The bullet goes ahead of the gases. The bullet precedes the gases. So, look at that picture again because, theoretically, the bullet is already in Oswald. It has already laid waste to Oswald's inside. Yet, he isn't reacting at all. 

And look at the shape of that muzzle flash. It's nothing like the muzzle flash from a Colt Detective Special.


Now look again at the one from Robin Unger:
Then, we also have an open view in at least one other film which does not show it. 


That's the instant of the shot, and there is no muzzle flash. And it's followed by this:
Oswald is starting to cringe there, so you know he's been shot. And you can't tell me that, from that angle, we would not see the muzzle flash. Did I mention that it's a flash? 

And that makes this image, totally, utterly fake:



The idea that "crouching" accounts for the short stature of the Garage Shooter is ridiculous. Here he is in the Jackson photo.
The shooter is not crouching at all. He is leaning some, but not crouching. The one who is crouching is Oswald. And he has his right knee bent, which is lowering him. The shooter is substantially shorter than Oswald, yet Jack Ruby was the same height as Oswald.

Let's at Beers: again, no crouch. The shooter's torso is upright. His knee is bent in stride, but that's it. But, the trio is also in stride, and Oswald is towering over the shooter. Again: Ruby and Oswald were the same height. 


The height wasn't Ruby's. The short legs weren't Ruby's. The girth wasn't Ruby's. The hair wasn't Ruby's. And the cleanly shaven neck certainly wasn't Ruby's. He wasn't Ruby.


bpunk1969 

7:03 AM (1 hour ago)


- show quoted text -
You base your claim that the garage shooter was much shorter than 5' 9" on
the fact he was crouching.


Ralph Cinque:

No, you stupid, bloodied fool. I base my claim that the garage shooter was much shorter than 5'9" on the fact that in comparison to the other men in the garage, he was uniquely short, and the shortest one there.

Now, you quit misstating my positions.You are as bad as Joseph Backes.  
InsideSparta 

Aug 20


- show quoted text -
Wow. Melvin Belli used the wrong defense. He should have played the height card. But, then again, he still would have had to explain all those
eyewitnesses, not to mention his client actually being arrested at the
scene, with the gun in his hand. 


Jason Burke 

Aug 21 (16 hours ago)


- show quoted text -
Eh. Minor technicalities when you're Ralph.
Sweep 'em under the rug. No one will notice.


Aug 21 (13 hours ago)


bpunk1969 

7:05 AM (1 hour ago)


- show quoted text -
No need to sweep 'em under the rug. Just ignore them while they're laying
out in the open glaring at everyone.

Ralph Cinque:

There were NO eyewitnesses of Jack Ruby at the scene- except for lying cops. And there is no doubt that they lied. Leavelle described actions that he took which clearly did not happen- according to the films. Graves said that Oswald was handcuffed to himself- which he clearly was not. Combest said that Oswald communicated with him in the jail office by shaking his head- while everyone else denied any consciousness, awareness, responsiveness, or movement by Oswald.  

And, thanks to Amy Joyce, we know now that when Jack Ruby was first told that he shot Oswald, his first words were, "My God, My God," not "I hope the son of a bitch dies; I did you all a favor" as the lying cops maintained. 

Melvin Belli, had he opened his eyes and mind, could have made mincemeat of those lying cops on the witness stand. 

"Officer Leavelle, you claim to have seen and recognized Jack Ruby in advance, but the films clearly show that you didn't even look in his direction, and you had no reaction to him at all until after the shot was fired. Your Honor, I request permission to show the jury a film, and it would be to rebut Officer Leavelle's testimony." 

Monday, August 21, 2017

If you don't think there is a problem with the Ruby images at the Dallas Police Department, you need to compare these two.


How in the name of the Immaculate Mother of God could they be the same man when the man on the left is obviously younger, and the man on the right is obviously older? Can't you see that the guy on the left has got a baby face; it's roundish. The man on the right has got a gaunt face, in comparison. And the man on the left obviously has much more hair and much longer hair. The man on the left mostly has his hair, that is, most all his hair, while the man on the right is mostly bald. The difference is stark and blatant. And look at their jackets. They are both black and white photos, but the jacket on the right is obviously light in color while the jacket on the left looks black. It's hard to imagine it being any blacker. So, does that mean that Jack Ruby changed his suit? It's physically possible, but is it likely? How many men change their suit from one to another over the course of a day? 

I have called this the Ruby nightmare collage because if they are the same man then our lives are a nightmare. It means that nothing is dependable and predictable in the physical universe, that anything can morph into anything at any time, and in spades.   
Robin Unger posted this ridiculous gif of Oswald being shot in which we see a big muzzle flash. But, it occurs early. It occurs before the shot was fired. There is no reaction in Oswald for being shot, and there is no reaction in anybody else for hearing the loud noise of the gun blast. Finally, Oswald reacts, but only when the shooter gets closer and actually fires. This imagery suggests that the shooter shot from quite a distance, but in reality, it was a contact shot or very nearly a contact shot.


That muzzle flash was obviously added, and it had to be because it occurs too soon. 

There is another film which you can see here:


It gives us a good view, but there is no visible muzzle flash.

Oswald is starting to cringe there, and then he cringes more- from being shot.

Now Oswald is grimacing and looking pained. So, he was definitely shot. And surely, we would have seen the muzzle flash were there one. 

So, the thing Robin Unger put up is just more film fakery, and who knows? Maybe it was done recently. I haven't seen that before, and if it was widely seen, then others would have known about it and referred to it. It's probably 21st century film alteration for the JFK assassination. They are never done. They are never finished. They will fake films, shirts, whatever it takes to keep the lie going that Oswald killed Kennedy. 
The Wizard has made the startling announcement that he believes that there are zero reliable images of Jack Ruby from the Midnight Press Conference.


Ralph,

My answer to your question has to be that there are zero reliable images of the real Ruby at the Midnight Press Conference. 

I have attached still frames of all of them but will do gifs later.

There are only four Ruby "press conference/assembly room" images. Apart from the recently unearthed footage of "Ruby" (Corridor Ruby) from the back following Wade out (Image D), we have only three, and they come in the form of film or videotape clips. 


RC: So, the Wizard is saying that he thinks that Ruby above is the same as this Ruby:

And he, of course, wasn't Jack Ruby, as even Denis Morrissette agrees.

Image A is Ruby amidst the reporters.



It is very short, and you see Ruby, with glasses, moving for a very few frames. The camera is close to Wade and looking back at Ruby. (CE 2424 is taken from this.)

RC: What I notice about the above image is that he looks very young. He does not look 52, which was Ruby's age. 

With Image B, the camera sweeps across the room, left to right, and catches half of Ruby's face (again with glasses) for a split second. He is semi-obscured by another person.



In Image C, from Ruby's right side, you see him without glasses. The film is of a still frame that suddenly moves. You get Ruby "moving" for one frame before it sweeps to the right, and the apparent movement of Ruby might just be the change in texture as it goes from still to moving picture.




It is the brevity of the images that arouses my suspicion.

As far as I know, that's it. I will keep looking but at present I don't know of any footage that shows either Ruby or that corner.

I'll return to this later. Thanks for your patience.

The Wizard

RC: I question why Ruby would be bent forward like that. Why? To see better? To hear better? How much could he gain by doing that? It seems like he would have just gotten closer. I already know that they put still images into movie frames because they put the 2nd Doorman into the Wiegman film after Oswald left for the lunch room. I will tell you that that looks like the real Ruby to me, but it may have been taken from somewhere else and inserted.