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

Dr. William Goldstein, ophthalmologist, has an excellent page on peripheral vision. There, he explains that peripheral vision goes out to almost 180 degrees. 170, to be exact.

And, he explains that the way they test for far-peripheral vision is to have you stare at something directly in front of you and then have something move at the edge of your field of vision and see if you can detect the motion. Here's the link:

http://www.eyehealthweb.com/peripheral-vision/

Now, with that thought in mind, how could Oswald not see Ruby coming at him? Ruby was less than 170 degrees to Oswald. And, he was moving. 

Likewise, why didn't Graves and Leavelle see Ruby? And, Leavelle claims that he did see Ruby and that he reacted by jerking Oswald behind him. You can plainly see above that he didn't do that. 

Look at Leavelle's stance. Look at the position of his legs. He wasn't standing still because nobody stands like that. That looks like a walking stride, and it WAS a walking stride. So, even at that late moment in which it's less than a second before the gun goes off, Leavelle is walking forward. He not only didn't react to Ruby by trying to protect Oswald, he didn't even break his stride.  

Let's look again at the collage of Ruby and this shooter:

I'm trying to think of how I could be wrong that they are different men, but I can't think of a way. 

Here is Ruby's mug shot from that day. So, we're talking here of a difference in time of about one hour. 

Is there anyone out there- friend or enemy- who thinks that that's the same hairline in back? And look how clean-shaven that shooter was in back below his hairline. Ruby's neck looks "dirty" from the hair coming in. They are NOT the same man. 

So, at this point in time, I think that was NOT Jack Ruby shooting at Oswald. 

Leavelle said that he recognized Ruby because he knew him, and I assume that is another Leavelle lie.

You've heard of Lyin' Ted? Well, now we've got Lyin' Leavelle. It rolls off the tongue much better. 

And what this proves is that Jack Ruby was definitely ordered to do what he did. And what he did was take responsibility for shooting Oswald. He didn't shoot Oswald. He only said he did.

So, why would he say he did? The only thing that matters is that he was told to. The reason he gave, that he did it to spare Jackie a trial, was just part of the lie that he did it. 

And this tells us that it was really all set up; it was staged. It was theater. I suspected it all along. Didn't you?  This confirms it.

Then, notice that in the scuffle that followed that their main intention was to keep Ruby down; to keep him out of sight. Nobody is hitting him, and he's not resisting.  They were very careful not to expose him. You don't get so much as a glimpse of him. 

Here, watch it yourself. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6PcVCqg3tg

They had that big tall guy in position to act like a screen. They were keeping "Ruby" out of sight.  

Isn't that telling? Doesn't it speak to you?

They get Ruby out of there without us ever seeing him. Here they are leading him into the building. In the whole process, we NEVER got to see him again after the shooting. He just went invisible. 

But wait! After all that, at the very end, you do get to see him, and I believe it was the real Ruby. 

So, that would be the first glimpse we get of Ruby post-shooting.. 

I'm not buying it. Jack Ruby did NOT shoot Lee Harvey Oswald.