Sunday, June 11, 2017

Dear Ralph,

I haven't had time to review all of your claims and the opposing arguments against them, but I wanted to let you know my opinion on a couple of points:

The Moorman Photo: As of now it appears to me that you are correct!  I looked at the Muchmore film (A film I'm not convinced that she actually photographed.)  In the film we can see Moorman and the Babushka Lady from behind and that both of them are either taking a picture or are about to take a picture.  The pov that the BL was in shows that from her angle, it was possible to catch the positions of the tree, the men and their stance, Jackie leaning toward JFK in concern, JFK's head slightly cocked to his left, and the motorcycle policemen's helmets.  As the car continues, the position of all of the above changes when the possibility of Moorman snapping the photo arises.  By the time the car passes Moorman enough for her to be in the proper alignment, SS man Hill would have been attempting to jump onto the bumper.  This isn't seen in the photo.  Also, we can see that the red shirt man on the stairs has his arms crossed over his chest in the picture. When the car gets just far enough past Moorman for her to take the picture, red shirt man clearly has his arms at his side.   

The Garage Shooter:  The identity of the shooter absolutely cannot be seen in any film I've ever seen (is there more than one?).  Unless there is a film I haven't seen and anyone that says that they can see Jack Ruby shoot Oswald is lying or simply assuming it is him.  We can only see Oswald getting shot. The identity of the shooter only comes from eye witnesses and the police at the scene.  It's hard to (for me) accuse officers of lying, but considering that the man wearing sunglasses doesn't look like Ruby and the white shirt man in the room doesn't looks like Ruby, it's safe for me to say that it is possible that the garage shooter was not Jack Ruby.  Considering all of the conspiracy evidence I've heard and the ones I actually believe (or suspect) to be true, I can entertain th epossibility that the police lied. The way it happened (with the bag getting put over the shooter's head and shooter getting rushed by many people and subdued), I think very few people actually saw the shooter's face.  

I have a few questions, if you don't mind: 

Is it proven that the man wearing sunglasses (or that looks like he is), is actually the shooter?  Or do most people just believe it was him (either LN's or CT's) to be the shooter?  

Why did they move Oswald's body?  Seriously, were they that stupid in the 60's? It's suspicious to me.  

There is a youtube video about Ruby not being the shooter, by Saintly Oswald. I'm curious; is that you?



Ralph Cinque: 

Thank you, Amy.

Yes, there is no doubt that the Moorman photo was not taken by Mary since she didn't take hers at a diagonal angle, and the photo we have was. And that was confirmed by a Physics professor with a specialty in Optics. He said that the Moorman photo was definitely taken on an angle from behind. But, Mary has always said that she took her photo right when JFK and Jackie were across from her. And why wouldn't she? Why, after waiting all those hours, would she let them pass her before taking their picture, only to shoot the back of their heads? It makes no sense. 

And you are right that the photographic evidence certainly does not confirm that the shooter was Jack Ruby, and it's only because Officialdom says it's him that people believe it. You mentioned witnesses. Well, it's only policemen who claimed to have recognized Ruby in the garage. Hugh Aynesworth, the reporter, knew Ruby and saw him 3x that weekend, and he didn't recognize him in the garage. He saw the shooter in the garage but did not get the slightest inkling that he was Jack Ruby. And the same is true of Ike Pappas who conversed with Ruby on Friday night and took his business card. So, that leaves the cops, and I would ask you to please do consider the idea that they lied. We know that Jim Leavelle lied. He not only claimed that he saw Ruby in advance; he also claimed to try to protect Oswald by jerking him behind him and to shove at Ruby's shoulder, neither of which he did. I state categorically and unequivocally that the Dallas Police lied. 

You asked whether it has been proven if the man who seems to be wearing sunglasses (and no shadow could produce the effect we see on him) has been proven to be the shooter, and I tell you no. On the contrary, he is way too tall to be the shooter. Do you realize that the shooter was the shortest man in the garage? "Sunglasses Ruby" was tall. He was almost as tall as Blackie Harrison, who was among the tallest men there. It means Sunglasses Ruby was definitely a different man from the short man who rushed Oswald. But yes, he is supposed to be the same man, as preposterous as it is. 

You are right that they should NOT have moved Oswald if he was really shot. It was terribly wrong to do that to an abdominal gunshot victim. However, it is my position that Oswald was not really shot in the garage, that only a blank was fired. And as many have noted, there was no sign of any blood. And not only was there no sign of any blood, but if you look at the Jackson photo, there is no sign of any trauma- to him or his clothing either. What are the odds of that?

But, in light of that, they obviously had to get Oswald out of there. I suspect he moved on his own power, since he wasn't really hurt.

But, I don't doubt that he was lethally shot after that, and I presume it was done in the police station. 

No, I am not Saintly Oswald, but I do know of him. I also know that he got the idea from me. And that's fine. I'm telling you and everyone right now that anybody has my permission to spread my ideas any which way they can, and they need not ask me permission or mention me. I don't need any credit. What I need is for the truth to be spread. So, one can mention me, or not mention me, as they see fit.  Even if someone were to spread my work and claim it as their own, I wouldn't care. It doesn't matter to me. I am not the issue. The truth is the issue. What really happened is the issue. 

Amy, as I often do, I am going to post what you wrote, and I mean on my own blog, not that forum. But, I won't put your last name, unless you tell me otherwise. I thank you, and I hope you will continue researching and continue sharing your ideas with me. And, I hope you will continue reading this blog. Thank you. 


Ralph Cinque 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.