Walt BrownWalt and 15 others manage the membership, moderators, settings, and posts for Association for John Kennedy Ambush Truth. I am sure you are aware, as you seem to be with regard to everything, that Ruby was receiving hair treatments in the 1960s Closer examination of the "shooting" photo suggests that the hair visible on the back may be store-bought, as it curls under as a hairpiece would. I never cease to be amazed how an unclear image (left) can allow someone to wholly deny a known event (right). Or do you believe that nobody shot LHO in the DPD and that the cops shot him in the ambulance? It seems like the fakers find the most fakery, and you should either consider a hobby or real research. The photos of Ruby in custody do not remotely equate to that ugly photo from WFAA
Manage
Helen Smith I also believe these "It's not Ruby" conspiracists are either nutz or CIA. For 1 thing balding men frequently have hair everywhere else except on top. so just because Ruby was balding up top doesn't mean he didn't have hair in back. Interesting point about the curling inward, however.
Manage
Ralph CinqueYou and 15 others manage the membership, moderators, settings, and posts for Association for John Kennedy Ambush Truth. Walt, you are amazing. First, you point out something I noticed as well, that the shooter appears to be wearing a toupee'. Is there any reason to think that Jack Ruby wore a toupee'. Of course, he didn't. If he did, it would have been inventoried. And don't bring up hair treatments because you would be hard-pressed today to establish that any hair treatments work to reverse balding, but to assume that they worked in the 1960s is preposterous. There is simply no doubt that that are false images galore of Ruby's hair. But, you're right: that hair curling up at the bottom on the shooter looks very much like a toupee' and I can understand why James Bookhout would have worn one because he was an FBI agent, and they were all clean-cut and close-cropped, and he wore the toupee' to distract from that. It's pathetic for people like you and Helen Smith to have such fixed, rigid, inflexible minds. Meanwhile, there isn't a smidgen of doubt that Jack Ruby was innocent. The reason he protested when Dallas Police pounced on him in the garage is because he hadn't done anything. And note that the Garage Shooter at the televised spectacle doesn't protest at all. He doesn't say anything. The real Jack Ruby had his event in the garage earlier. But, he was impaired mentally. Jack Ruby was out of it mentally. And that's the first thing you need to know about him, that he was not mentally competent.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.