There is no difference between my screen capture of "Ruby" and the way he appears in the video, and people can check that for themselves. This is very apparent, and what the Punk is claiming is an outrage. Here is the link. Stop it at the 14 second mark:
Or, don't stop it, but just observe it at the 14 second mark. Either way, it makes no difference. Now, I can't put the film here; I wish I could. But, since film grab looks exactly the same as it does in the film as you watch it.
And this is what it has to be compared to:
Obviously, they are vastly different; they are polar different.
The Ruby impostor has a very cleanly razored neck with a high horizontal hairline, in contrast to Jack Ruby, who had a fuzzy scruffy neck, replete with hair growth all the way down to his collar. The contrast could not be more great.
It is simply a lie that there is anything blurry about this. It is as plain as day. It is sharp. In fact, I am amazed that the Punk had the audacity to make such a ridiculous, stupid claim, such a boneheaded argument.
Again: this isn't marginal; it isn't vague. It is screaming-out-loud that this man cannot possibly be Jack Ruby. And of course there are other things, such as the fact that he is too tall to be Ruby, and his face is too jowly to be Ruby. He is not Jack Ruby, and he is not close to looking like Jack Ruby. He doesn't even look like he could be related to Ruby.
I have said repeatedly that bpunk is very childish. He never grew up. That's the case with some people; they are perennial children. All his spewings tend to be pathetically ludicrous, and this one is no exception.
And I have provided ample evidence to establish that James Bookhout was a short man, about 5'6" including multiple images of him.
At this time, it is up to YOU to provide evidence which challenges that, such as a photograph of him showing him to be tall.
I am going to write more about this.