So, we get to this moron, bpete.
What he's doing there is trying to use this man, Fred Rheinstein, the NBC producer who produced the "live" footage of the Oswald shooting, as an eye-witness for Ruby.
But, Fred Rheinstein wasn't in the garage. He claimed to have met Ruby over the preceding two days, but he never claimed to see and recognize Ruby in the garage at the time of the shooting. And that's what we're talking about, Moron. We're looking for reporters who saw and recognized and ID'd Ruby at the crucial moment before anything happened:
If Rheinstein didn't claim to see Ruby then, in the scene above, or shortly before then it doesn't count for shit. Do you understand that now?
And I won't accept any claims of recognizing him after the shot because we've all seen the films, and we know that they immediately got the shooter into the center of their huddle and then danced him out of there like an army of penguins.
So, it has to be before and not after. Chaos and pandemonium is all anybody saw after. And if anybody tries to claim otherwise: just don't.
Then, the Moron thinks he's found currency in Hugh Aynesworth. But, first of all, Hugh Aynesworth is the textbook example of a CIA media asset. Everybody knows it. Jim DiEugenio knows it. This is from an article Jim wrote:
On November 18th, Hugh Aynesworth clocked in with his annual Kennedy assassination cover up article in the only daily circulation paper in Dallas, The Dallas Morning News. In this article the longtime CIA-FBI asset did two things. He first took his usual slam at the critics of the Warren Commission. Secondly, with help from Larry Dunkel aka Gary Mack, he did protective cover for his protégé and apparent successor in the local cover up, Dave Perry.
What part of "longtime CIA-FBI asset" do you not understand? Here's the link to it:
So, bpete, you wouldn't have shit even if you had something, but the fact is: you don't have anything. In the article you posted about Aynesworth, all it said was:
"His wife, however, prevailed, and both were in the basement when Jack Ruby lunged forward and fired that one shot into Oswald’s stomach."
First, he didn't even get the location of the wound right. Oswald was shot in the rib cage, not the stomach, and that is not in dispute. But, there is not even the implication there that Aynesworth recognized Ruby in the garage before the shooting, such as here:
And that is the only thing that matters.
And think about it: On Friday afternoon, Aynesworth ate lunch with Jack Ruby at the Dallas Morning News cafeteria.
At 11:30 a.m. on November 22, 1963, Hugh Aynesworth was sitting next to Jack Ruby in the Dallas Morning News cafeteria. Ruby finished his meal and went upstairs to the advertising office to place an ad for his club. Aynesworth remembers thinking, “There goes that son of a bitch Ruby, trying to get his name in the paper again.”
So, that means he knew him, right? Could he have eaten lunch with the man without knowing him? So, if Aynesworth had seen and recognized Ruby in the garage before the shooting, surely, he would have gone up to him and said something, such as:
"Jack, what are you doing here? Always the police busybody, aren't you."
So no, there is absolutely nothing of substance to this claim by the vicious, criminal, Army-trained bpete. He's got nothing, but the fact is: he's too damn stupid to know that he's got nothing. You struck out, Moron. You had a worse night than the Cubs did last night.