Backes, none of the films, as we watch them, show the shooter's face. Presumably, it's Ruby's face; we're told it is; but the films don't show enough of it to enable us to visually confirm that the shooter is Jack Ruby. Until now, this was the most exposure we got of "Ruby's" face.
You can't tell from looking at him that he's Jack Ruby. That's been the case for 53 years. But now, you're saying that that was wrong, that Bill Lord captured Ruby looking straight at the camera right in the middle of the fracas?
You're saying that that's Ruby?
I'm not buying it, Backes. I see the guy on the left as being older, balder, and with a rounder head.
But, what I am interested in is the history of the claim that he is Ruby. You can't tell me nobody noticed him until September 5, 2016. These films have been poured over, painstakingly, frame by frame. Every single one of them. If it was believed that "Ruby" was captured looking straight at the camera, his face in plain view, right during the melee, right during the frantic, pandemonious, chaotic ruckus, that would certainly have been noticed long before September 5, 2016.
So, where did it come from, Backes? Where else has this been claimed and by whom before you claimed it on September 5, 2016? Does the Sixth Floor Museum know about it? Because, if it's true that this is something brand-new that you and your handlers drummed up solely in response to me, that it was never seen and published before now, I say screw that; I am not buying it.
Again, I don't think that guy is Ruby anyway. I don't think there is a snowball's chance in Hell that he is Ruby. But, I am questioning the legitimacy of the image. I suspect it is more flim-flam.
If you watch the Bill Lord film, it's wild, it's frantic, and there are lot of frames in which we're seeing the ground or the wall or the backs of men matted together; noise shots. But then suddenly, and ever so fleetingly, we see this. It pops in, and it pops out- in a flash.
I am certain that he is not Ruby, but I doubt that he is even real. I think it is most likely photographic flim-flam.
So, I want the history of this thing, Backes. When was it discovered? And by whom? Methinks something is rotten in the state of Denmark.