Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

Here is another compelling point. Look at the Jackson photo. Look how long the hair of the shooter is in back. 

It's like a Beatles cut, and the Beatles hadn't even happened yet, at least not on this side of the pond. Look at it closer.

I am not suggesting that James Bookhout had hair that long in back, and we know that Jack Ruby didn't. The most likely thing is that they photoshopped it in. 

Now, I know that Photoshop didn't exist yet, nor did digital technology, period. But, they had other methods to do that kind of thing. I suppose it's possible that Bookhout wore a toupee, but I don't put much stock in it. Note also that the shooter's hair doesn't look as long in other photos and frames. 

But, why would they do it? It's because no one would expect an FBI agent to have hair that long, especially in back. Everyone knows that FBI agents are clean-cut. All they wanted to show of the Shooter was the back of him. So, why not alter the back of him as well? And so they did.

The Beers shooter has hair equally long. But, keep in mind that Beers and Jackson were made to be iconic photos. These were the images of the Shooter that they wanted to implant in the conscience of the public. 

What about Ruby? Did he have hair like that? Not so much. Unless you think they gave him a haircut before his mug shot. And if they had, they would have cleaned up the scruffiness on his neck which the Shooter didn't have.

And I have no doubt that Bookhout's hair wasn't as long as we see on the Shooter either. But his high, horizontal hairline and the full neck are a match. They just dabbled with the length of the hair to throw us off. That shooter of Oswald was James Bookhout. There are no other candidates, and I doubt there are going to be any.