Saturday, June 17, 2017

There is no depth of stupidity that Joseph Backes won't sink to. And don't forget: this is an idiot who claims that the Dallas Police were complicit WITH Ruby in killing Oswald. 

Backes says the jacket is "opened up" but what does he mean? Jackets open in the front, we're looking at the back. So, how does he know? And how does he know that it's a jacket. 

I won't give that a pass as being a jacket. No can do. It has none of the features of a jacket. And in this image below, there is no sign of any jacket at all. 

How can one assume there is a jacket there? Is Backes stupid and evil enough to claim that because he thinks he sees a jacket in the other image that there must therefore be one here? That is really dark and evil. What a very bad man he is. There is NO jacket here, and no one has the right to claim that there is. And keep in mind that multiple testimonies maintain that Ruby was handcuffed immediately upon being brought into the jail office. And once handcuffs go on, there was no getting one's jacket off. You can't take a jacket off or yank it off someone who is in handcuffs. The arms won't come out of the sleeves once the handcuffs are on. This is just a man in a shirt, and anyone who says otherwise is a vicious, bloodied, Kennedy-killing, Oswald-killing bastard. 

There isn't the slightest indication "the shooter" put up any resistance or acted aggressively to the police. 
An IDIOTIC statement to make when Ruby just shot Oswald.  Ruby was set upon by the police as soon as he pulled the trigger.  The gun was wrenched off his hand by Det. L.C. Graves. 

I know about the shot to Oswald, but the brawl with police started after that. So, with the commencement of the brawl, there is no sign of any aggressive, violent action on the part of the shooter. He simply dives into the waiting arms of the police, and at no time does he try to punch anyone or kick anyone or spit on anyone or headbutt anyone or do anything else comparably aggressive. We never see the slightest sign of any "fight" in him. And even the images that Backes vouches for:

Does that guy look like he's fighting? Of course, he doesn't look like Ruby, but he is supposed to be Ruby. 

Then Backes refuses to admit that this shirt is not the cabana shirt that they gave Ruby to wear at some point.

They're not the same shirt, Backes. Can't you see that? Can't you see that the collar and the lay of the shirt are very different? 
In the end, they will just argue the preposterous, the outlandish, the impossible. And I think it's part of the whole dis-info thing, although in Backes' case, it may be just pure stupidity. 

Alright, I'll dumb this down for you, Backes. We heard Bill Lord twice describe this shirt as ripped open. 

You do agree it must have been ripped to get that way, right? Because the only alternative is that they deliberately unbuttoned it. Ruby couldn't button the shirt because he's in handcuffs. But then later, his shirt doesn't look ripped, and the buttons are intact. 

We can see buttons there secured. That is 11/24/63. So, how do you go from this:

to this?

The only thing Backes proves is that anybody can say anything. You just have to wag your lips or tap a few keys on the keyboard. 
It really is awful the base arguments he makes. I should think that an average middle school student would show more intelligence in grasping the issues than Backes does. The degree of his density is really appalling. 

And as I said, ultimately, for him and his kind, it just comes down to denial and the abandonment of all reason. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

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