Sunday, July 23, 2017

To believe that Jack Ruby conspired WITH the Dallas Police, including Captain Fritz, to kill Oswald is really stupid. Yet, Joseph Backes claims he's never met anyone who didn't know it. 

Well, what about all the people who claim that Ruby did it alone? Has Backes never met any of those people? Does he not know that they exist?

And if Fritz knew, as Backes claims, then didn't Jim Leavelle have to know? You don't assume it was a plot just between Fritz and Ruby, do you? There is no evidence that Fritz and Ruby ever met prior to November 24. Besides, how could Fritz let his men, Leavelle and Graves, escort Oswald without warning them that Ruby was going to be attacking? 

It had to be a scary for Leavelle, don't you think? Knowing that the only thing between him and the bullet was Oswald's skinny frame.

But, Jim Leavelle has made a cottage industry out of reliving his doomed escorting of Oswald. So, Jim Leavelle is a liar, isn't he, Backes? According to your theory, he's a liar. Of course, according to my theory, he's a liar too, but I say the conspiracy involved the Dallas Police and the FBI but not Ruby. I say Ruby was just the patsy.

Well, let's see, Backes: If the Dallas Police conspired with Ruby to kill Oswald, then in effect, they all killed him. Didn't they? They were accomplices to murder, were they not? They all have blood on their hands, don't they? So, how do you feel about Jim Leavelle being an accomplice to murder, and yet going around the country, receiving awards and accolades, being honored, being revered, when all along he was involved in the plot to kill Oswald?

That's some theory you've got there, Backes. But, you haven't laid out the nuts and bolts of it. When and how was it arranged? Why did Ruby agree to go along with it when it meant a fate worse than death for him? And I am not exaggerating; it was worse than death what he got. Why would anybody do such a thing? Ruby was willing to kill Oswald even though it meant the utter and complete destruction of everything he valued and held dear? Literally, the loss of his entire life, everything he enjoyed about being alive was gone, and gone forever? But, you figure that he figured, "Yeah, this will be worth it." 

You're a buffoon, Backes. You're stupid, and not even you can explain your asinine, ridiculous, preposterous theory. 








Do you doubt that Marguerite Oswald had a mole under her right eye? Well, you are a fool if you do.  



So, we should see the mole in every image of her, right? How about this one?



How about this one?



Are you seeing it here?


I think she looks so pretty here, and there's no mole. 




How about when she got married to Eckdahl?


How about on the right below?


Guess what, Ops? James Norwood can't help you on this because he's a supporter of John Armstrong. 
So, this is the uncropped Beers photo, and it's obvious, that from corner to corner on the left side, there are 3 men, Lowery, Combest, and Beaty, and they are standing diagonally. But, in the KRLD, there are 5 men in the same space, standing flush with the wall.

That is different, and the difference cannot be attributed to the angle of the shot. We still have two corners there: the corner behind Lowery and the corner which I marked with a vertical yellow line. There are five men in that space- from one corner to the other. In Beers, there are just three men.

It is a different setup. We are NOT looking at the same thing from a different angle. It is a different setup. 
This collage demonstrates very well the stark difference in hair coverage between the real Jack Ruby on the left and the impostor at the DPD on Friday afternoon. No way is that the same head of hair, and therefore, no way is it the same man. They had a Ruby double running around; at least one; they may have had more than one. They were setting him up.

There are a lot of discrepancies between the Beers photo and the Jackson photo, taken half a second apart. And, the differences can't be explained. For instance, why don't we see Detective Blackie Harrison in the Beers photo?
Only an utter moron like Joseph Backes would try to rationalize this. Most know that it's best to shut the fuck up about it. But not, Backes. One can only imagine what doozey of an explanation he'll come up with. Note that Blackie, while puffing away on his cigar, is supposed to be reaching for "Ruby's" gun to try to interrupt a shooting. Methinks he isn't trying very hard. But, why don't we see him at all in Beers? His arm should be going across in front of Graves just as we see it doing in Jackson.
Shouldn't we at least see part of him? His arm? Of course, we should. But, he is completely AWOL in Beers. And that's just one example. Here, I have cataloged the various discrepancies between these two "iconic" photos.
Here is some Backshit, in all its glory:


Could there be anything dumber than this? Well, granted, the Dallas Police inventing the bus ride and cab ride is pretty damn stupid, but this takes the red ribbon for stupidity. How could Fritz have conspired with Ruby? When people conspire together, don't they both expect to win? Isn't that the idea? But here, Ruby did something that meant the total, complete, utter destruction of everything he held near and dear in his life. Fritz wasn't going to lose anything, but Ruby was going to lose everything. So, why would Ruby do it? Why would he be part of something in which he was going to suffer total, utter devastation and ruin? What was supposed to be in it for him? What was the selling point for Ruby? What was the lure? And how did it go down?

Fritz: OK, Jack. We're counting on you to shoot Oswald. Of course, afterwards, we will have to arrest you and prosecute you and testify against you, and you'll probably get the electric chair. But, look on the bright side.

Ruby: And what would the bright side be for me?

Fritz: Isn't it obvious? You'll have killed Oswald! Isn't it worth throwing away everything in your life just to kill Oswald?

Ruby: I don't know. I'm pretty fond of my dogs, my club, my bimbos. And I'm about to move into this new swanky apartment. What will I have if I kill Oswald?

Fritz: You will have a cell at the County Jail, until it's time to strap you into the electric chair. 

Ruby: Well, when you put it that way. OK. I'll do it. 

Obviously, the killing of Oswald could not have been a conspiracy between Fritz and Ruby. That is really dumb. It is so stupid that words can't express how stupid it is. It is the true mark of a blithering idiot, a wailing nincompoop, a stumbling, bumbling moron.



A certain blithering idiot (Joseph Backes) lies not only with words but with numbers. He notated Lowery, Combest, and Beaty in this image, but not the other two guys, numbers 4 and 5. Note that they are all behind the edge of the wall that juts out. 



And note that I said this in my write-up: 

"And NO! You can't attribute it all to perspective. It's just too much. Even considering the perspective, Beaty can't be in the same spot that he is in Beers and Jackson."

Perspective refers to the angular difference, which is something I talk about a lot. I've pointed out, for instance, the the Moorman photo was taken from a different perspective (read: different angle) than the angle at which Mary took her picture- by her own admission. But, in this case, we've got a space there, and there are 5 men in that space, and all of them are behind the wall that juts out from the door in the corner. If you look closely, there is a door there.


So now, let's look at Beers. What we see are just 3 men in the same space, the Beaty, the deepest, is in front of the edge of the wall, which is behind him.


Let's enlarge that:


So, number 4 from the original image is now standing in front of the jutting wall, meaning caddy-corner. He was behind it in KRLD.


And again, we can use the edge of the all as a frame of reference in both pictures.


Where is #5 in the Beers photo? He is farther down the other side of that wall. He's in front of the face of that jutting wall in KRLD, but he is on the other side of it in Beers. This is obviously NOT the same arrangement of men.

But, let's review because it has been pointed out before that the arrangements in Beers and Jackson are not the same, even though they are supposed to be just half a second apart.



So, how come we don't see Blackie Harrison in Beers? Puffing away on his cigar as he reaches for the gun with his impossibly long arm. Why shouldn't he be visible in Beers? Or why shouldn't at least his gorilla arm be visible? 

And what about McMillan in Beers? Why don't we see him in Jackson?


Shouldn't we see him in Jackson? Or do you think he was so skinny he got hidden? Well, he wasn't that skinny. Look at him in the Penguin shot:


It turns out McMillon was bigger than Blackie Harrison.




Or maybe you think it was all due to the angle, eh Backes? 

But, let's get back to Beers vs. Jackson:



Of course, there is the microphone difference. Note that in the Beers photo it is lower than the top of the door, while in Jackson we can see the top of the door, and there is a lot of elevation above it. You can't tell me that the mic was there, just that it was higher. That is ridiculous. The whole purpose of putting a mic is to get it close. But, why was there a mic in Beers at all when this was supposed to be just a guy being walked 30 feet to a car and then driven away? Who puts a mic up for that? They put a mic up to walk Oswald to a car? 

Another problem in Jackson is that L.C. Graves right shoulder is completely missing.


Note that Graves' jacket registered very dark in the grey-scale. On our left, there is a shoulder, but it is the right shoulder of the man behind, who wore a lighter suit. We see Graves' left shoulder but not his right. Where is it? And don't tell me he is turned and standing sideways because he is NOT turned and standing sideways.



It might be worthwhile for us to look at where Beers and Jackson were in the schematic. This is according to the late Gary Mack:


So, Gary Mack placed them right on top of each other. Here is how Robin Unger depicted it:


So, both left of center, but Beers less so than Jackson. He has Jackson up close to the car because Jackson actually claimed to put his foot up on the bumper of the car. But, let's go back:


Let's consider the position of Tom Petit. In Beers, he is completely within the cubbyhole with a guy behind him, and then the corner of the wall behind him. In Jackson, Petit has his back to the other wall, and we don't see the other guy at all. And look at the change in Leavelle's position. All of this supposedly occurred in half a second. 


How in half a second could all that difference take place? And that includes the ridiculous slapping of Oswald's arm to his chest, which we do not see in any film, and which defies common sense (because why would anyone do that? And when else has anyone done it? show me another trauma photo in which an abdominal gunshot victim slapped his arm to his chest; this is the only one. There is no tendency for anyone to do that. Not anyone. You hear me?) 


Notice that the distance between the cop in the white hat and the detective in the Stetson hat is much greater in Jackson. In Beers, the man in the Stetson is largely in front of the cop.


Note that the man in the Stetson is behind Oswald and in front of the cop in uniform. In Jackson, there is no one between Oswald and the cop in uniform.



And I repeat: NO! You can't attribute it all to perspective. It's just too much. Even considering the perspective, there is a difference there- a difference in how and where they are positioned; in how and where they are placed. 

The flaming lip-flapper will no doubt continue to flap, but the truth is that the only way the legitimacy of these images can be defended is to go there, reproduce the scene, and then, without moving anyone, take the photos from the locations of Beer and Jackson and see if you can reproduce each image exactly as it appears. 

What are the chances that anyone can do that? They are zero. And if anyone wants to place a wager on it, I've got my checkbook handy. I'm sure we can find an impartial judge. Maybe even get a photographic expert. I have no objection. I welcome it.