The story of the Jackson photo is that "Ruby" shot Oswald from almost directly in front of him. But, we know that's not true.
Oswald was shot in the side, where he was facing straight ahead, and the shooter came at him from the side.
That's quite a difference. Yet, people have always described the Jackson photo as the arrangement that existed at the time of the shot. The "experts" tell us that it was taken just .3 second after the blast, but can the positional arrangement change that much in just .3 second? I don't think so.
And because of the misleading information of the Jackson photo, many people, even today, think that Ruby shot Oswald from out in front of him.
But, I think most people would try to get in front of the guy and shoot at him from front to back. You know the expression, the "broad side of a barn." Well, there is a broad side of a person too, and shooting someone in the side is much more risky, especially in a skinny person like Oswald.
But, in terms of doing harm, the shot through the side, if it lands, is much more devastating.
A shot to the front, where you are just shot in the belly, you stand a good chance of surviving. Over 80%. That assumes, of course, timely delivery to a trauma hospital. Furthermore, there is a darn good chance that you won't lose consciousness.
In Oswald's case, they had to make sure that the shot, the one shot, was fatal, where the best surgeons in the world would NOT be able to save him. And, I'm sure it was also very important to them that Oswald lose consciousness and not be able to communicate to anyone about what happened. So, they had to cut those blood vessels to deprive him of blood. I'm telling you: it was a precision shot. They knew exactly what they were doing.
It is extremely unlikely that a sudden impulse shot by Ruby would have been lucky enough to accomplish all that. And if you think Ruby did it, it had to be a sudden impulse, right? Because: he brought his dog along and left her in the car. He wouldn't have done that if he knew he wasn't coming back. Right?
But, if the Jackson photo was taken just .3 second after the shot to the side, then why does it show such a different arrangement, with "Ruby" in front of Oswald? The answer is that they had to do it that way because the goal was to show as little as possible of "Ruby" since he wasn't really Jack Ruby. Notice that you can't tell from looking that it's Jack Ruby. You don't have enough visual data there. With that little visual data, there is any number of men that that guy could be. Probably thousands. Maybe tens of thousands.
They had to make sure that we didn't see enough of him to figure out the truth; that he wasn't Ruby. After all, what are you really seeing there? You're seeing a short, pudgy guy in a Fedora hat. The world is full of short, pudgy guys, and the world is also full of Fedora hats. You can't ID that guy as Ruby from looking at that figure. You hear me? You can't see his face. Well, if you can't see his face, how can you be sure he is Jack Ruby? People only think he's Jack Ruby because they've been told he's Jack Ruby. That's it. Well, I'm telling you that he is NOT Jack Ruby. And the reason you can't see his face is because they wouldn't let you see his face, and again, that's because he is not Jack Ruby.
Look at the thickness of his legs compared to Oswald's skinny legs. Were Ruby's legs that thick? Let's see. No, they weren't. Look closely, and you'll see that those jail pants were pretty baggy. Ruby's legs weren't as skinny as Oswald's, but they weren't as hefty as Bookhout's.