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

That lousy rotten David Von Pein. He quotes me, but then he jumps to something else that was said in a different context. 

[...]

I deny that the guy was Ruby, and I'm not even sure he's real. I suspect he is more photographic flim-flam and probably of recent origin. 

You would think from reading that I was referring to the Garage Shooter whom we can plainly see. We can't see his face, but we can him from behind. 

But, that statement was made in reference to this:

Gary Mack claimed to know that that was Jack Ruby during the scuffle. 

So, that's what I was talking about, not the major images of the Garage Shooter. 

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And Ruby admitting he did it doesn't mean a thing to you, does it Ralph?

And the verification that it was Ruby by the various police officers who were there in the basement on November 24, 1963, also means zilch to you, right Ralph? Such as Jim Leavelle.

Ralph Cinque: Jim Leavelle lied. How many times do I have to tell you? He said he saw Ruby in advance. He said he saw the gun in advance. He said he jerked on Oswald to pull him behind him- to protect him. And he said that he shoved on Ruby's shoulder. All of it was lies! The films confirm it. So, knowing that he lied like a dog, why should anyone believe him? 

And I have listened to Ruby's deathbed interview many times. He said that all he remembered was going to the bottom of the ramp and then being pounced upon by police. The rest was a blur. He used the word "blur" repeatedly. He had no memory of shooting Oswald. He accepted that he did only because police told him that he did. But, they lied to him. They framed him. They took advantage of him, his mental incompetence. Jack Ruby could only remember going to the bottom of the ramp and then being jumped by the police. That's all he could remember. And that is all that happened when he was there. Then, they swifted him out of there; took him up to the 5th floor; and then got ready to do it all over again with Bookhout. But, they brought Ruby down and slipped him into the scene, though forgetting to have him put his jacket on, which was up on the 5th floor. 

It was all a sleight of hand/sleight of mind trick. It may be the most devious, machiavellian, and dastardly manipulation of minds- all of our minds- that has ever been done. The trickery, the manipulation involved in this was just staggering. 

Then, look how David Von Pein had NOTHING to say. 

RALPH CINQUE SAID:

The fact that there are NO discernible images of Ruby doing it doesn't mean a thing to you, does it, David? Despite all those different camera angles, there is not a single frame in which we can tell from looking that it's him.

Then, after the shooting, the police scurried him away without handcuffing him and keeping him totally covered, and I mean blanketed, and that doesn't bother you either?

Then, there is the fact that Ruby had no memory of doing it. He didn't remember a thing about the shooting. He only remembered going to the garage and then being pushed down to the ground by police. Nothing in-between. And that doesn't bother you?

And you have the nerve to bring up Leavelle? A man who claimed to have seen Ruby coming which made him jerk Oswald behind him which we know with 100% certainty did not happen. Leavelle did not react in any way until after the shot went off.

David: It wasn't Ruby. The little bit of visual data we have from the films and photos guarantees that it wasn't Ruby; for instance; different hairline in back, different facial contour, different weight, different height.

Jack Ruby most certainly did NOT shoot Oswald. 


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Talk about a bad case of denial. Ralph's got it.

You might as well be arguing that Dallas isn't in the state of Texas. That's how silly you've become, Ralph.

Is there any end to your "denial" about every aspect of this case? Any end at all?

You said nothing, David. You didn't answer the blows. You just blathered. It doesn't count for squat. 

Then, Von Pein quoted Tim Brennan, a real lightweight from Australia, who said that Bookhout wasn't even in the garage during the shooting, and he quoted Bookhout's testimony. But, what the hell is wrong with these people? OF COURSE, IF BOOKHOUT WAS GOING TO LIE ABOUT THAT IF HE WAS THE GARAGE SHOOTER?

Seriously, what is wrong with them? I'm accusing the man of shooting Oswald. Don't you think I wouldn't put it past him to lie???????????? So, they throw his testimony at me as though I'm obliged to accept it. 

James Bookhout was a liar.
James Bookhout was a liar.
James Bookhout was a liar.
James Bookhout was a liar.
James Bookhout was a liar. 

Now, is that understood? Will you please refrain from quoting him to me as though I am obliged to accept what he said? I am NOT obliged. I call him a LIAR.

But, let's look at what Bookhout said because I don't mind exposing his lies. He said that he arrived a little late for the morning interrogation of Oswald, and not wanting to disrupt it, he remained outside and just watched it through the glass. Do you believe that? I find it hard to believe because I don't think him quietly entering the room after it began would have disrupted anything. Then, he said that after the interrogation, he stayed up in Fritz' office- doing nothing- rather than go down and watch the jail transfer. Now, why would he do that? He followed Oswald everywhere. He wanted to see everything that involved Oswald. And he had nothing to do in Fritz' office. He didn't say that he was doing FBI work there. He just say he waited there. And then when he heard that Oswald was shot, he said he went down to the jail office and followed Oswald's stretcher out to the garage. That was largely true, but he didn't go from Fritz' office to the jail office. He went from what I believe is the 3rd floor foyer next to the elevator down to the office- after a change of clothes. This is Bookhout with Detectives Boyd, Sims, and Hall.

That is James Bookhout in the center; not Jack Ruby. He is too short to be Ruby. His neck is too short. And his face is too round. And I want you to realize that the only place this image has ever appeared is the 1993 30 year retrospective on the killing of Lee Harvey Oswald by Fred Rhinestein of NBC. If that was really an image of Jack Ruby with the three detectives, why didn't it proliferate? Why didn't it spread like a wildfire? Why didn't it go anywhere? It didn't go anywhere because they must have realized afterwards the mistake they made, and they torpedoed the picture. They made sure it didn't go anywhere else. So, James Bookhout, after going through the motions of shooting Oswald in the garage (I don't believe he actually shot him; I believe it was a ruse) was danced into the jail house, and then these three swifted him away. And undoubtedly, shortly after that, they released him. He changed his clothes, and then he went down to the jail office as himself, James Bookhout. He followed Oswald's stretcher out to the garage, just as he said. 

 And this is as close as he got to the ambulance:

That's him, Bookhout, standing in back, taking it all in. He never did get up close to the ambulance. From here, he turned around and went back inside.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And I wonder how the police got Ruby to admit to a murder he never committed? Those cops were amazing, huh?


RALPH CINQUE SAID:

This is a good example of what [I] mean. I said the other day that Ruby was insane. He did plead insanity. And every time he spoke he sounded zany, disoriented, confused, and incoherent. But, David Von Pein asks how Dallas Police got Ruby to admit to a murder he didn't commit, as if Ruby was of sound mind. But, Ruby was NOT of sound mind.


RALPH CINQUE ALSO SAID:

Do you think these two are the same guy? Why? Look how different the ears are. Look how different the sideburns are. Look how phony the sunglasses are on the left. And look at his hairline in back. Jack Ruby was scruffy with hair growth back there. Why would you claim that that guy is Jack Ruby? You just want him to be Jack Ruby, so you say that he is? Is that how it works? 




DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Ralph thinks the NBC footage shows Ruby wearing sunglasses in the basement. Hilarious.


RALPH CINQUE SAID:

Then, what is it? It's a black disc around his eye, and there's a bridge over his nose. What is it?

And you've got some nerve. You mock me, and you don't even say what it is.

You're getting more famous all the time.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's a shadow, Ralph. Simple as that. The same type of blackness (i.e., shadow) can be seen on Ruby's neck. What do you think is causing the blackness on Ruby's neck?



David Von Pein is not a physicist. He knows nothing about Optics. He claims to know that the black discs around "Ruby's" eyes above are shadows, but he doesn't even know that shadows are cast by specific objects. You have a light source; you have an object that is in front of the light source and blocks some of the light; and then you have the resulting shadow. So, what is the object that is casting shadow in the shape of a black disc around Ruby's eye? If you don't know what the object is, you can't claim it is a shadow. 

I would not mind at all getting a physics professor to weigh-in on this, and I think it is important enough to do it. 

Above, you see the correspondence between the shape of the shadow and the shape of the object casting it. The shape can be stretched and deformed by the angle of the light, but still, you get the idea of what cast that shadow. So, what is the corresponding object casting the shadow here, and what is the light source?

If you can't answer that, then you can't claim that it is a shadow. 

David Von Pein:

Plus, do you really think somebody would paint in a pair of sunglasses onto a person's face without also painting in the frame for those sunglasses? Where is the hinged frame that should extend over Ruby's left ear? Are the glasses supposed to be just hanging there over his nose?

Ralph Cinque:

In some of the views, there does seem to be a faint frame:

Don't you see what appears to be a faint frame there passing behind his ear? And look how three-dimensional the glasses look. You think that's shadow? It's shadow that they added! They had to cover his eyes because he's not Jack Ruby. And he's not the Garage Shooter either. He is much taller than the Garage Shooter. 

Then, David put up this image which shows darkness around the eyes of Blackie Harrison:

First, it would be much better if you provided independent examples. Because here, they may have messed with Blackie's eyes just to authenticate the other. I don't know if this legit or not, but regardless, it doesn't compare to this:

Come on, for crying out loud. You should me one other image in which shadow appeared like that, and I mean from the entire world of photography.

Mark Knight ( in support of DVP)

Ruby admitted shooting Oswald.

Millions of witnesses on TV saw Ruby shoot Oswald.

No, no, no. How many times do I have to tell you that Ruby just accepted that he shot Oswald. He believed it because that's what he was told. He had no memory of doing it. And you can't say that millions of witnesses saw Ruby shoot Oswald on tv. They believed it only because they were told it. They didn't "know" it until they were told. 

Hugh Aynesworth knew Ruby well and had seen and interacted with him 3x that weekend. He saw the shooter zoom in, but Hugh didn't know that it was Ruby until he was told. He didn't know from looking at the shooter. He "knew" from being told. 

 Jim DiEugenio (in support of DVP)

If you look at the combination of the clips from Evidence of Revision, and the KRLD tapes, there is no question at all that this is Ruby. And as Bauer said, he was concealing himself behind Harrison. 

There are NO IMAGES, not from the KRLD tapes and not from anywhere else in which the Garage Shooter can be ID'd as Jack Ruby. This is the man who was concealing himself behind Blackie Harrison.

How can anyone look at that and say that from the visual data, they know he's Ruby? They only "know" he's Ruby because that's what they were told. They are looking at the image with their minds, not with their eyes. There is no reason to think that that guy is Jack Ruby. The condition of the hair on the back of his neck alone proves that he's not Ruby. 

Do you not get it that Jack Ruby did not have a high horizontal hairline and a cleanly razored neck? How much difference and deviation does it take to establish different men?

The noses don't match. Can't you see on the left it's much more bulbous and Roman? The sideburns don't match. On the left, it's beveled. And look at the distance from the ear it is. The ears don't match, although it looks like they messed with the ear on the left trying to get it to match. The lines in the face on the left are not present on Ruby on the right. Even the whole angle of the head is different, and that's a postural thing that is very consistent. They are different men. You have no basis to claim that the man on the left was Jack Ruby.

Then, Von Pein put up this collage, in which the only certain thing is that the 2nd and 4th figures are Ruby.

The man on the far left was balder than Ruby. There are phone records proving that Ruby was on the phone talking to his sister Eve at 2 PM on Friday, November 22. He was not at the Dallas PD. 

In the 2nd and 4th images (both Ruby) look at the consistency of the curve of the back of the neck and head. Now look at the #3 who has a neck like Dick Tracy.

I'm telling you: he was not Jack Ruby.

David Von Pein:

If you agree that the man with the torn shirt being taken to an elevator IS Jack Ruby, then what do you think the police are doing with Ruby at that moment? Did Ruby JUST HAPPEN to coincidentally be in that area of City Hall within minutes of Oswald getting shot by someone ELSE?

Or will you simply say that the WFAA video isn't nearly clear enough to determine who the man with the torn shirt is? I expect that will be your only reply.

It's Jack Ruby in that video, of course. And Ruby is being escorted upstairs just minutes after he plugged Oswald. But Ralph will now have to invent some excuse for why the police are escorting an INNOCENT Ruby (or a Ruby look-alike) upstairs. Or maybe Ralph thinks the man in the torn shirt is really James Bookhout. Could that be it?

Ralph Cinque: They brought him back down from the 5th floor just to insert him into that scene. And they left his jacket up on the 5th floor, which is why he is not wearing it. So, what the police are doing there is giving Jack Ruby is catwalk in front of the cameras. It is the "switch" in the "bait and switch." 

After that, DVP repeated his ridiculous argument that Dallas Police "yanked Ruby's jacket off to check it for weapons" which they would not have done since it is standard practice to pat down suspects for weapons. They don't strip them looking for weapons. Then, he also repeated his ridiculous claim that it can be seen that Ruby is putting his jacket back on as he walks across the jail office to the elevator. It simply isn't true. I asked David to post a frame which shows it (the jacket going back on) but he hasn't done so, and he can't do so because it didn't happen. There is only a 3 second different between the last frame of Ruby walking sans the jacket and the image of him by the elevator with the jacket. And it doesn't even look like a jacket. It looks like a black screen.

You can't see any of the specific features of a jacket, for instance, sleeves. So, how you be sure it is a jacket? I think it is most likely a black screen which they added in order to hide the fact that he wasn't yet handcuffed even by this late time. But keep in mind that he had been in custody already for the better part of an hour. What they are doing there is taking him BACK up to the 5th floor. He had already been there. And he was going back there. This whole thing was a fake and a fraud. This was their way of sticking Jack Ruby into the scene. 

There is no doubt that Jack Ruby was not in the garage during the televised spectacle. He was NOT the Garage Shooter. He was too tall to be. Jack Ruby was 5'8 1/2 inches. Look how short the shooter was:

And there is a reason why we never see the Shooter's face. IT'S BECAUSE HE WASN'T JACK RUBY! They deliberately kept his face concealed. 

The discovery of Jack Ruby's innocence is the most important discovery in JFK assassination research in the 21st century. And people like David Von Pein can't stop it from spreading. No one can.