This idea of an LBJ connection to Oswald's killing isn't far-fetched at all. Another way to put it is that the assassination of Oswald was just an extension of the assassination of Kennedy. The same people ordered both. Obviously, the actors were different, but the people behind the scenes were the same.

And who killed Kennedy? It was the "national security state" as per Vincent Salandria and David Talbot. And the only thing that changed is that one conspirator went from being Vice President to President. But, he was the same guy.

It would be foolish to think that Oswald's murder was unrelated to that group of people, that they just got lucky that somebody else killed Oswald for them. Oh, what a relief. No, no, no. They did it. The same people did it. They just got different people to carry it out because of the circumstances. 

And let's face it: they were practiced at setting up a patsy, weren't they? And that's all Jack Ruby was, a patsy.

The killing of Oswald and the framing of Ruby for it was a Dallas Police operation. Look at this picture: 

A gun shot has gone off already, and Fritz' reaction should have been instantaneous. He should have been startled by now, but he isn't. He hasn't turned around, and he hasn't even flinched. Now look at this:

Leavelle isn't reacting. He gave a cock-'n-bull story about seeing "Ruby" as he was moving in, jerking Oswald behind him, and then shoving "Ruby" on his left shoulder with his right hand. And I mean right there and then. He supposedly did all that BEFORE the shot went off. But, in reality, he wasn't even looking at the shooter, and he didn't react in any way until AFTER the shot. And Oswald isn't reacting. How could Oswald not be aware of the shooter there? But, the real clincher is Graves. The shooter had to literally brush by him, and I literally mean brush against him to get to Oswald, and yet, Graves didn't react until AFTER the shot as well. It is unbelievable.

OK, so we can see with our eyes that the "story" is NOT legit; it isn't real; that it was a staged thing. They're acting. They are all acting. But, who was in on it? It wasn't just the Dallas Police. It was also FBI. How do I know that? Because of this guy:

That is FBI Agent Nat Pinkston. And here he is acting like a cop, with his arms out, keeping people back. 

What is he doing there? This was supposed to be Oswald being walked 50 feet to a car, getting in, and being driven away. Why did Pinkston have to see that? And on a Sunday morning? I can understand why the reporters wanted to see it because they had cameramen with them who were going to take photos or shoot film. Images of Oswald were in high demand. But, Pinkston didn't have any camera. He wasn't going to write any story. So, why did he have to see Oswald being led out of a building and put into a car? Just try to imagine him explaining it to his wife.

Nat Pinkston: Honey, I'm going to head over to the PD and watch Oswald being put into a car on his way to the County Jail.

Pinky Pinkston: Why? What for? It's just a guy walking to a car and being driven away. Right?

Nat Pinkston: Well, you never know what might happen.

Pinky Pinkston: Like what?

Nat Pinkston: He might trip.

Pinky Pinkston: Very funny. Do you think somebody might shoot him?

Nat Pinkston: Hey, I know nothing about any plans to shoot him.

Pinky Pinkston: Well, do you consider the Dallas Police competent enough to move him a few blocks from one jail to another without getting him killed?

Nat Pinkston: Of course, I do. (acts irritated, shakes his head)

Pinky Pinkston: Then, what do you need to watch it for? He's just going to come out, walk to the car, get in the car, someone is going to put his hand on Oswald's head as he is lowered into the car, and then the car is going to drive away. That's it. So, why should that take you away from your family on a Sunday morning?

(RC: Note that there are reports that the Brinks truck was going to be used as a decoy, and Oswald was going to be driven in a police car.)

Nat Pinkston: My intuition tells me that I ought to go.

Pinky Pinkston: Oh, so, you do think something could happen on that short walk?

Nat Pinkston: Anything is possible. That's all I'm saying. 

Notice that I've got Pinky Pinkston pegged as a very smart woman. The only reason Nat Pinkston was there is because he KNEW something was going to happen, that it was not going to be just a stroll to the car. 

So, that means he was in on it too. He had foreknowledge. And with him having foreknowledge, and another FBI agent, James Bookhout, playing the role of Jack Ruby, that means that the whole FBI was in on it.  So, it was a joint venture of the Dallas Police and the FBI. 

Now, we're talking here about a plot that got Oswald killed, so it was a murder plot, and another man, Jack Ruby, framed for doing it. Those are serious crimes. What would give these Dallas police officers and FBI agents the confidence to do such dastardly things? They must have been 100%, make that 1000%, sure that there were going to be no repercussions to them, that they weren't taking any personal risk doing it, that they had complete guaranteed immunity. Where could such immunity come from? 

There is only place, and that is, the top, the President of the United States, Lyndon Johnson. JOHNSON MUST HAVE ORDERED THE HIT AGAINST OSWALD.

I don't know who LBJ talked to to launch it, but it was probably his very close friend, J. Edgar Hoover. I can imagine what he said:

"This is a national crisis, and what the country needs, more than anything, what the American people need, is: closure. It would be a disaster for the country to be bogged down in a lengthy trial. It would impede and postpone the restoration of confidence in the system. The system, Edgar, the system. It's at stake. What's needed is for the country and the people to move on, to get back to work, to get back to their normal lives."

"We know that Mr. Oswald murdered the President, and we know that he murdered a police officer. These are capital offenses. We can be certain that a jury would find him guilty and sentence him to death. But, at this most difficult and perilous juncture in our history, we do not have the window of time available to allow the wheels of justice to turn at their usual, normal pace. We should view Mr. Oswald's actions as an act of war against the United States, and as Commander in Chief, I am authorizing and ordering his immediate execution." 

Bottom line: they did it; the Dallas Police AND the FBI. They were both in on it. And they did it with complete certainty that THEY were going to be OK, that they weren't going to get in trouble. Where did that certainty come from? There's only one place: the top. Johnson and Hoover. 

There had to be two renditions of the Oswald shooting in the garage, one with Jack Ruby which came first, and then the one with James Bookhout which came later and was televised. Here's why:

This is from John McAdam's timeline of Lee Harvey Oswald.

9:30 AM: LHO is signed out of jail in anticipation of a transfer to the county facility.

11:15 AM: The transfer party leaves Fritz' office after a final round of questions.

So, that's 9:30 to 11:15. It's almost 2 hours. That makes it BY FAR the longest interrogation that Oswald did. I find that very strange. That's because after all the ground that was already covered in the many hours of interrogation that preceded this, I should think they were running out of things to ask him.

But, though it was the longest interrogation, here is what Will Fritz wrote down about it:

Nothing.

Fritz put the duration of it as 10 to 11:15. Then what happened between 9:30 and 10:00? But, the most important thing is to look at the information he wrote down from it. Nothing. Not a word. Zilch.

According to Harry Holmes, Oswald was singing like a canary about his trip to Mexico City during that interrogation, yet Fritz didn't write down a single word about it? Not one thing was said that Fritz thought was important enough to write down?

The official story has it that Jack Ruby went to the Western Union office to wire money to one of his dancers. But wait. That doesn't make sense. She was one of his dancers, right? So, she was local, right? So, why would he wire her the money? Why wouldn't he just give it to her? Why pay the exorbitant Western Union fees for nothing? And look at all the bother. He had to go to the Western Union office to send it. Then, he would have had to call her and say that he sent it. Then she would have to go out to a Western Union place to get the money. She could have just gone to him directly and gotten the money. No muss, no fuss. So, why Why WHY would he do that way? He wouldn't. Nobody would. This was just an excuse to get him close to that basement.

But, Ruby said he went from there to the garage. He said he walked down the ramp, and it happened at the bottom of the ramp. He said he remembered seeing reporters, and he remembered being pushed down to the ground by cops. And he said that he reacted by saying, "What are you doing? This is me, Jack Ruby. You know me." which indicates that he was not aware that he had done anything wrong.

So, I suggest that it actually happened, and I mean beforehand. I mean during that long so-called interrogation of Oswald, there must have been a rendering of this in the basement in which Ruby showed up and was pounced upon by cops and made to believe that he had shot Oswald. Everyone there must have been in on it, and that isn't hard to believe. The jail transfer was scheduled for 10 AM. The televised version occurred at 11:20. The one with Ruby had to occur before the latter. So, first, they did the version with Ruby to implant in his mind that he had done it, and then the version with Bookhout followed for posterity.

There is the Company E photo from 1929 which includes Bookhout.

I have scoured those faces and come up with this candidate for Bookhout.

He's in the front row, center, and he is a little guy, as in short. Here is the comparison to the 1931 photo.

I think it's a match, and he is the littlest guy in this picture:

We also have this image of James Bookhout from 1931, and it proves that he did not have drag queen eyebrows, that that was faked.

You notice that his eyebrows look normal in their shape and their thickness. What we are seeing on the right is a ridiculous, clownish cartoon that somebody drew on him. 

This is from John McAdam's timeline of Lee Harvey Oswald. 

9:30 AM: LHO is signed out of jail in anticipation of a transfer to the county facility.

11:15 AM: The transfer party leaves Fritz' office after a final round of questions.

So, that's 9:30 to 11:15. It's almost 2 hours. That makes it BY FAR the longest interrogation that Oswald did. I find that very strange. That's because after all the ground that was already covered in the many hours of interrogation that they did with him, I should think they were running out of things to ask him. 

But, though it was the longest interrogation, here is what Will Fritz wrote down about it:

So, Fritz put the time as 10 to 11:15. Hmmm. Oh really? Then what happened between 9:30 and 10:00? But, the most important thing is to look at the information he wrote down from it. Nothing. Not a word. Zilch.

According to Harry Holmes, Oswald was singing like a canary about his trip to Mexico City, yet Fritz didn't write down a single word? Not one thing was said that Fritz thought was important enough to write down? 

They said that Jack Ruby had gone to the Western Union office to wire money to one of his dancers. But wait. That doesn't make sense. She was one of his dancers, right? So, she was local, right? So, why would he wire her the money? Why wouldn't he just give it to her? Why pay the exorbitant Western Union fees for nothing? And look at all the bother. He had to go to the Western Union office to send it. Then, he would have had to call her and say that he sent the money. Then she would have to go out to a Western Union place to get the money. She could have just gone to him directly and gotten the money. No muss, no fuss. Why WHY WHY would he do that way? He wouldn't. Nobody would. This was just an excuse to get him close to the basement. 

But, he said he went from there to the garage. And he said that he was pushed down to the ground by cops. And he said that he reacted by saying, "What are you doing? This is me, Jack Ruby. You know me." which indicates that he was not aware that he had done anything wrong. 

It must have actually happened, and I mean before. During that long so-called interrogation, there must have been a rendering of this in the basement in which Ruby showed up and was pounced upon by cops and told that he had shot Oswald. Everyone there would have had to be in on it, and that isn't hard to believe. The jail transfer was scheduled for 10 AM, and that's when it may have happened. Or, it could have been 10:30. First, the version with Ruby to implant in his mind that he had done it, and then the version with Bookhout for posterity. 

Holy Cow. I told you.

Jack Ruby was totally incoherent and hallucinatory. Keep in mind that this guy is an apologist for the official story, but even so, it's a big admission. Jack Ruby was out of his mind, and he didn't shoot Oswald. They may have been able to convince him that he did- because he was out of his mind.  

I mentioned that I hired a company to find images of Jim Bookhout, and they did. I don't mean the Texas Peace Officers Flag Fund image because that one I found myself, and anyone could find it. I am referring to the Texas Tech yearbook images. They found those, and I would not have found them myself. 

But, they have also been searching fervently- and right now- for images of James Bookhout. And I mean post-SMU images. And, they have come up with absolutely nothing. They're still working at it- with great determination- but so far, they have got nothing.

What do you make of that? What I make of it is that James Bookhout was someone who doggedly avoided having his picture taken- from the time of the JFK assassination to the end of his life.

I presume somebody has gotten the word to Jim Bookhout, informing him about what is going on. And, if he's got photos of his tall father, he could send them to me right now. Jim, if you're reading this, Jim, my email is: oswaldinnocent@yahoo.com. 

Jim, if your father really was tall, then obviously, he could not have been the Garage Shooter of Lee Harvey Oswald. So, if you provide an indisputable image of him, meaning one that shows no sign of alteration and where his facial features match the known images of him from SMU, where I have no doubt that it's him, and if he is obviously tall, then that will settle it. 

Not only will that settle it, it is the only thing that will settle it. Nobody's unproven claims and roundabout excuses matter one little bit.  

And, I see each passing day that no such image of a tall James Bookhout is being offered to me as confirmation that your father was short, and someone from the FBI lied to me.

In fact, the more days that pass in which I don't get such an image, the more suspicious I am going to be if such an image finally surfaces. There is no excuse for the delay.

What we know is that, officially, there are NO images of James Bookhout from the time of the JFK assassination even though he attended more Oswald interrogations than anyone except Will Fritz. And, we also know that there are no images of him from after the assassination for the rest of his life, and that includes his obituary, which contained no image of him. That's 46 years, from 1963 to 2009. It's a long time to go without having your picture taken. 

So, if you would please provide an untampered photo of your father, which clearly shows his face and his height, I would greatly appreciate it. And after that, if I owe you an apology, you'll get it.

This just in from OIC Chairman Larry Rivera:

Ralph, I just wanted to tell you that your discovery, 3 years ago, of the black arrow over Lovelady's forearm in CE369 now takes on a whole new meaning, given the fact that we have now positively identified him as Black Hole Man based on the digitized overlays.  

It also confirms what we have been saying all along, that Joseph Ball orchestrated the whole Doorway Man cover-up fiasco for the Warren Commission from Day 1.  This is a quote by Harold Weisberg from Chapter 7 of my book:

That Lovelady “verified” that Oswald was not there is a plain lie. He did testify that he was there but not that Oswald wasn’t. Lovelady did not testify he was standing where that man is standing in the Altgens picture. He did testify to those with him,by name, and they are not in that part of the Altgens picture.40

Here is the actual testimony that Weisberg was referring to in the above citation:

Mr. BALL. I have got a picture here, Commission Exhibit 369. Are you on that picture?

Mr. LOVELADY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Take a pen or pencil and mark an arrow where you are.

Mr. LOVELADY. Where I thought the shots are?

Mr. BALL. No; you in the picture.

Mr. LOVELADY. Oh, here (indicating).

Mr. BALL. Draw an arrow down to that ; do it in the dark. You got an arrow in the dark and one in the white pointing toward you. Where were you when the picture was taken?

Mr. LOVELADY. Right there at the entrance of the building standing on the top of the step, would be here (indicating).

Mr. BALL. You were standing on which step?

Mr. LOVELADY. It would be your top level.

Mr. BALL. The top step you were standing there?

Mr. LOVELADY. Right. (WC6H338-339)

RC: Here again is Lovelady's arrow from CE 369. Note that I only claim it as the "tail" of his arrow. Remember, from his testimony, we know that he drew most of his arrow in the dark. I take that to mean the dark space of the enclosure of Black Hole Man's arms. 

And what I suspect very strongly is that after he drew it, that Joseph Ball, or someone he showed it to, took a black felt pen and obliterated the head of the Lovelady's arrow. And that's why we don't see it. Note that when we look at Frazier's arrow on the left that we can see the head of it in the black. It's not really hard to see. We can see the whole thing; every bit of it. 

And, the other significance that this has is that it undoubtedly resulted in the goon squad visiting Lovelady again. Ball told somebody who told somebody who told somebody who sent a bunch of big, tall, gruff somebodies in dark suits and sunglasses to visit Lovelady at his house.  And, they made it clear to him that he WAS the Man in the Doorway, and he better start getting with the God-damn program if his welfare and that of his family mattered to him.

And, lo and behold, a month later, in May 1964, Lovelady does an interview with Jones Harris and starts walking the walk and talking the talk. And get this: when Jones Harris asked him to resolve the controversy about which shirt he wore, the short-sleeved striped one or the long-sleeved plaid one, Lovelady said: BOTH. (!!!) 

Hey, Larry. Maybe it's time to make an overlay of Lovelady wearing both shirts.

And, the Wizard suggested that I put up Larry's excellent gif, so that they would be together in the same grouping.

"This is the Young Bookhout/Ruby Impostor gif done by Larry, just in case  you wanted to include it with the others.  Again, look how the eyes fit flawlessly in the sockets." WWW 

The Wizard continues:

"This one starts with the image of Bookhout when they are still in darkness: you can see the eyes fit neatly in the eye sockets, so it looks quite sinister." WWW

The Wizard speaks:

"This one shows the Impostor change into the young Bookhout in uniform." WWW

Now, we are going to look at some gifs from the Wizard, one by one, with his commentary.

"In this one, the Impostor's face slowly turns into the young Bookhout. They may have done us a favor with the eyebrows because they materialize precisely over the Impostor's orbital ridges. The way in which the eyes appear is quite striking." WWW 

If James Bookhout was really no less than 6 feet tall, wouldn't somebody post a picture of him? And I don't mean this fake one which has already been retracted by the person who first posted it.

And, if the people fighting me don't have a picture of him, but you really believe he was 6 feet tall, then I have a suggestion for your dim minds:  

Go to Jim Bookhout. He's reachable. Explain why you need an image of his father- to silence one Ralph Cinque. So, could he please go through his family albums and come up with at least one image of his dad which shows his true height?

Simple. Easy. Doable. So, why the hell don't you do it???????

I'll tell you this: this isn't going to be decided by anybody's lip-flapping. It's going to be decided by images. Produce a valid image of James Bookhout. I'll say it again: Produce a valid image of James Bookhout. And, don't even think about pulling any fast ones. Remember who you are dealing with. 

Ralph:
Jim Bookhout was no less than 6 feet tall during the time of my contacts with him at the FBI during the period 1953 until he retired in 1977. 

I'll tell you what this amounts to: 

- Herr Miller? Herr Peter Miller?

- Yes.

- I wonder if we could talk somewhere? Your room, perhaps?

- We can talk here.

- Of course. My name is Schmidt. Dr. Schmidt.

- What do you want?

- Perhaps we can sit down. A very pleasant hotel, isn't it? 

- A little too solid for me. What is it that you want?

- You're a journalist, I am told. With a reputation for being very thorough,
very tenacious.


- What of it?
  
- Some friends of mine heard you are making an inquiry...
...into events that happened a long time ago.

- You mean Eduard Roschmann, don't you?

- I do. I most certainly do.

- So?

- Eduard Roschmann is dead!

- I didn't know that.

- Of course you didn't. There's no reason why you should. I thought I'd mention the fact because I didn't want you wasting your time.


-Tell me something, Dr. Schmidt, when exactly did he die?

-In May 1945, fighting the American advance.


- I'm sorry. You'll have to try harder. Roschmann was captured
by the British in December 1947.  Didn't your friends brief you properly
when they gave you this errand?

- Drop this inquiry!

- Roschmann was seen alive in Hamburg in November- this year. It was never confirmed. You just confirmed it. Good day, Herr Dr. Schmidt.

Brian Pete is now bitching about the height assessment, literally splitting hairs about the measurement. 

First, he thinks he has the right to claim that this picture isn't level. 

But, that is ridiculous. Bookhout's shoulders look perfectly square, and the man in front looks perfectly vertical in his axis. And what about the man behind Bookhout? He's not vertical enough, is he?

And this idea that people can't hold their cameras level and need this asshole to straighten out their pictures for them is a pile of shit. The fact is that your proprioception (position sense) is what enables you to hold your camera level. In this case, he was holding the camera perfectly level; he just wasn't squarely facing the wall. That's all. He was turned a little bit to his left. That's what it is. What a fucking Idiot. Backes Jr. That's who bpete is. 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with calling the top Bookhout's head level with the top of the elevator panel. You don't even have to draw a line. 

And then, get this: Look what the mudderplucker says:

This isn't just stupid; it's evil. Wicked, rotten, dastardly evil. I bet they have a special place in Hell for people like bpete.  

Jesus H. Christ. This moron is dense: 

So, the idea that the placing of handcuffs on Ruby happened while cops pounced on Ruby and he's still visible to cameramen is false. 

I've been complaining, bellyaching for months about the fact that they didn't handcuff "Ruby" immediately in the garage, when they should have since it's something that police always do and have always done with a violent offender throughout the annals of police history except for this one time. There are no other instances that anyone can point to in which police dragged a violent offender somewhere without cuffing him first.

This is MY complaint, and it has been MY complaint, from the beginning, you idiot! I'm complaining that they didn't cuff "Ruby" immediately, in view of the camera. And you have the nerve to act as though I claim that they did? 

What is wrong with you, you dumb pluck?

But yes, I do presume that Ruby responded verbally right away; at the commencement of the Charge in the Garage. That's because it was presumably a spontaneous utterance by him- part of the shock at being attacked. Why would he wait to respond? If he really didn't know why they were doing it, why wouldn't he say so right away? 

"Hey, what are you doing? This is me, Jack Ruby. You know me." 

That's how Ruby put it, and it's crazy to think he would have waited to say it. If somebody you know starts attacking you, you kinda want to know why they're doing it,  and you kinda want to know right away. And what does it mean? It means that Jack Ruby didn't know that he had done anything.  He didn't know why they were pouncing on him. That's why he asked. 

But, if he had shot Oswald, how could he not know? 

So, you're just back to your same old idiocy, misrepresenting my positions, and the spewing nonsense.

Ruby also said that police pushed him down to the ground. Down to the ground. And that's what we'd expect police to do: push the violent offender flat down on the ground, face down, get his hands behind his back, and then cuff him. But, the shooter in the garage was never pushed down to the ground. He was always on his feet. How could they have dragged him out of there so fast if he was pinned to the ground?

Can you, or can you not see that that man above is still on his feet? At no time was he pushed down to the ground in that garage. They didn't want him on the ground; they wanted him out of there. But, Ruby said, repeatedly, that police had him down on the ground. 

Then, the Idiot cites this letter. I wonder: did he read it? 

Nelson said he was stationed inside the building. Then, at 11:20, he heard a gunshot. Apparently, he didn't see what happened; he only heard it. He said it came from the area outside the basement doors, in contrast to himself who was inside the basement doors. He had to run to the doors from wherever he was inside. And when he got there, "several officers were subduing the suspect." He claimed that he "reached for the suspect's left hand and felt for a gun." But, the gun was in the shooter's right hand. Do I have to put up a fucking picture? 

"Ruby" didn't toss the gun to his other hand, did he? 

Besides, we know about the resolution of the gun: Graves took it away from "Ruby." Remember how Leavelle thanked his partner on national television. saying that he probably saved his life because, of course, "Ruby" was going to shoot again.

Here is Graves with the gun:

Do you, or do you not, see the fucking gun?????

Do you see it now? Do you, or do you not, see the gun in his hands now, you moron? 

Now, does that settle it as to who grabbed the gun from "Ruby" or do we have keep arguing about this?

So, RC Nelson wasn't even in the garage when the shot went off. He heard it inside the building, coming from the garage when he was inside. His first response was to go to the doors to keep reporters from coming in.  Then, he said that he saw several officers in front of him subduing the suspect. And that's when he claimed to feel for a gun in "Ruby's" left hand, which was the wrong hand. And note that he didn't claim to find a gun, and of course, he could not have found one since there was no gun in that hand, and the gun in his right hand was taken by LC Graves.

So, how does the above equate to Nelson claiming 50 years later to have been the one who"manhandled" Ruby into the building?

It's just bull shit. And don't forget: these are the same cops that, according to Backes, bull-shitted their way into telling a phony bus and cab ride story for Oswald, replete with phony witnesses and phony physical evidence. 

So, let's see, in the world according to Backes, the Dallas Police can be taken at their word in their account of the Oswald shooting, but when it came to Oswald's movements, they lied, lied, lied worse than Lyin' Ted Cruz. You just have to know when to believe them. Oh, and the Idiot knows.

OK, let's get back to Officer RC Nelson, Tippit's partner.

Alright, so he hasn't aged as gracefully as I have, but we won't belabor it.

But, here is something we will belabor: what he said at the time of the 50th. And that is what Jack Ruby said at the commencement of the Charge in the Garage. 

‘Hey guys it’s Jack. It’s me.’ 

Do you think this guy said that?

We certainly don't hear it in any of the films. Moreover, we have no visual indication that there was any verbal communication between the shooter and his captors. It looks as though the shooter, after shooting Oswald, dove into the swarm of police; they penguinized him, meaning, made like this:

Penguins do it to keep each other warm; they did it to cover up Bookhout and keep him out of sight.  

Then, according to Nelson, he, personally, "manhandled" Ruby into the building, and then cuffed him when they got inside. That's what he said. He didn't even mention the penguins. It's like he did it alone.

But, did he do it at all?  Is there any visual evidence that he was one of the penguins? In other words: do we see him? I see only one uniformed policeman engaged with the penguins. So, was this Nelson?

Notice that that guy is wearing a white hat, and Nelson, above and below, is wearing a black hat.

I presume that the hat color was not a matter of daily fashion preference, but rather your rank or assignment. Notice that his partner JD Tippit also wore a black hat.

So, apparently, patrol officers wore black hats. And, if he wore a black hat, he definitely wasn't that other guy who was involved in the melee, the only uniformed cop to be involved. That other guy looks like the one who did the interview afterwards. 

That guy can't be Nelson because Nelson had a very wide nose, and this guy doesn't. Furthermore, this guy was asked if Ruby said anything, and he said that he couldn't make out anything Ruby said- if he said anything. However, in contrast, Nelson said that he heard Ruby say, "Hey guys, it's Jack. It's me." Now, if he remembered that 50 years later, then surely he'd have remembered it 50 seconds later. Therefore, there is no basis to claim that this guy was Nelson.

And therefore, at this juncture, I have no basis to accept RC Nelson's claim of being the one to "manhandle" the shooter into the building. I don't see it. That is, I don't see him. And, I hope I don't have to spell out for you that when it comes to choosing between what people say and what my eyes see, I go with my eyes. I trust my eyes; I don't trust people. especially not JFK people. 

Yet, bear something in mind that is important: What Nelson said Ruby said, Ruby also said he said. What does that suggest? It suggests that he said it. And, that suggests that there was another enactment of this whole thing which involved the real Ruby. Obviously, he didn't shoot Oswald, since Oswald was alive for the historic one. But, maybe at that one, Nelson is the one who "manhandled" Ruby into the building and then cuffed him.  Exactly where and when that happened, I don't know. But somewhere, the real Ruby got pounced upon.

"Stay back, everybody. I know I'm an FBI agent and not a policeman and this is the Dallas Police Department. But, I can act like a cop because this whole fucking thing is an act. Everybody is acting."  

Look who I found at the Oswald shooting, walking around acting like a cop. 

That's FBI Agent Nat Pinkston.

It's him, alright.

And he had his arms out, like the cops, keeping people back. What the hell was he doing that for? He wasn't a cop. This wasn't an FBI raid. What was he even doing there? He was never directly involved with Oswald. He never attended a single interrogation of Oswald. Yet, he showed up for the jail transfer? So, we're supposed to believe that James Bookhout, who attended most all of the interrogations, decided to skip the jail transfer to instead hang around Fritz' office, while Nat Pinkston, who didn't attend any, showed up for it. I'll tell you why he showed up for it. It's because he knew God-damn well that his buddy James Bookhout was playing the role of Jack Ruby in this little farce.