Another great find here by Amy Joyce. In this image, Officer Patrick Dean doesn't have a name tag on his shirt, even though it shows in his other images, such as the KRLD film. Also, what is with that guy's hand on the far right? It looks like the hand of E.T. And notice the mic there, hanging down from the ceiling, which was present in some photos and missing in others. 

That is NOT a human hand on the far right. That is the drawing of a hand, a crappy drawing of a hand. But, why did they do it? What were they thinking?

The hat is one object. The ribbon is another object; a separate object. There is no connection between two in manufacturing. The idea that the ribbon would have a vertical stripe of a different color than the rest of the ribbon is ridiculous. 

 And, lo and behold, the hat in the Beers photo doesn't show it.

There, the vertical stripe is the same color as the ribbon in its middle section. And why the ribbon is black at the extremes, look, it's just art: evil, bloodied, assassination art. And if you disagree, then let's see you duplicate the photo. 

Let's look at the bow in Beers. Here, it is weird again, but in a different way. There is jet black color to the ribbon at the top and at the bottom, but then there is an abrupt change to a lighter color starting right at the point of the vertical stripe. What's that due to? Lighting? Come off it. Give it up. It's just more photoshopping, in whatever way they did it back then. And don't give me any of your lip-flapping about it. Take out a camera and duplicate it.  

Here, Amy Joyce points out that if the vertical stripe on the bow of the hat was the same color as the hat, we'd see it in these frames of the shooter in the Phenix film.

So, what it means is that the light vertical stripe in the hat in the Jackson photo is a definite sign of tampering. I don't mean that it might be a sign of tampering. I mean that it definitely is a sign of photographic tampering, and there is NO CHANCE that it came out of Bob Jackson's camera that way. 

Amy Joyce has made yet another great find. It turns out there is a difference between the hat we see in the Jackson photo and the one shown at Jack Ruby's trial. See if you can see what it is:

In the Jackson photo, the vertical stripe at the center of the decorative bow on the hat is the same color as the hat, while in the trial photo, the vertical stripe is the same color as the rest of the wraparound, which is black. It's a small difference and one that many would have and did miss. But, smallness has no say; it is very decisive. 

So, what accounts for it? I suspect that we are seeing in the Jackson photo is photoshopping. And I realize that Photoshop didn't exist in 1963; I am using the term generically. They used whatever methods were available. It really is quite ridiculous to think that the stripe would be a different color than the rest of the bow. Somebody just got carried away touching up the Jackson photo.

But, do you still think that it's something that Robert Jackson developed himself and put on the wire? If you do, you are being awfully naive. At this point in time, he may really believe the story he tells. At this point in time, Jim Leavelle may really believe the story he tells. At this point in time, O.J. Simpson may really believe the story he tells. That's why I really need to sit down with Bob Jackson and show him the numerous incongruities and impossibilities in his photo, starting with that ridiculous, humongous right thumb pressed to a left hand with only 3 fingers. 

The plat of the 1st floor of the TSBD does NOT show that there was a shipping room.

I realize that you can't make out that small print, but I assure you that none of it says anything about a shipping room. And when Troy West, the "mailer" testified, he claimed to work in another building.

Mr. BELIN - What do you do for the Texas School Book Depository? 
Mr. WEST - Well, I am a mail wrapper. 
Mr. BELIN - You are a mail wrapper? 
Mr. WEST - I wrap mail all the time. 
Mr. BELIN - Were you doing that on November 22nd of 1963 too? Were you a mail wrapper at that time back in last November? 
Mr. WEST - Yes, sir. 
Mr. BELIN - Did you go to work on November 22, 1963? That was a Friday, the day the President was assassinated. 
Mr. WEST - Yes; I went to work that day. 
Mr. BELIN - What time did you get to work? 
Mr. WEST - Well, we always get to work - we are supposed to be there at 8 in the morning. 
Mr. BELIN - You got there at 8 that morning? 
Mr. WEST - Yes, I always, most of the time I got there a little early. 
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember what time you got to work that particular morning? 
Mr. WEST - It was about 10 minutes to 8. I always be 5 or 10 minutes early. 
Mr. BELIN - Where did you go when you got to work? 
Mr. WEST - Well, When I first got to work I always made coffee in the morning at the store. This is the first thing I do in the morning. 
Mr. BELIN - Where did you make the coffee? 
Mr. WEST - Sir? 
Mr. BELIN - Where did you make the coffee? 
Mr. WEST - Well, it is down on the first floor in the same department where I wrap mail at. 
Mr. BELIN - Well I have a first floor map here of the Texas School Book Depository. Here is Elm Street and here is the front entrance. Here is Mr. Truly's office, and Here is Mr. Shelley's office. There is the stairway down to the basement, and there are the elevators and the back stairway. There are the toilets there. About where would you wrap mail there? Here is the Domino room and the shower. You are looking here, that is north Elm Street runs this way and Houston Street runs that way. It is shown on the diagram. 
Mr. WEST - Well, my place was in the west side of the other building. 

What part of "other building" did David Belin have trouble understanding? But, Belin just ignored it and kept going as if Troy West didn't say it. 

So, we are left with a plat that shows no shipping room, and a shipper who said he didn't ship there.  So, what are we to believe? That the shipping was done not within a room but in the open space of the first floor? But, Troy said that he used a string tying machine, which probably referred to a Bunn string typing machine, which are loud and noisy and were probably louder and noisier then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3Psvpn1jz4  

So, they had that going on in the open space of the 1st floor all day long? Why would they operate like that? Why wouldn't they put that inside a room? 

And if it the shipping operation was all out in the open, then how, on Thursday afternoon, could Oswald have been busy constructing a bag for himself without being seen?

And how, with paper and tape, could he possibly produce a bag this good?

What if somebody gave you some paper and tape? Do you think you could come up with a bag that good? One that solid, that cohered? So, you think Oswald made that on Thursday afternoon right out in the open on the 1st floor and nobody saw him? And then you think that he had that bag with him at quitting time and traveled with it to Irving in Frazier's car, and Frazier didn't notice it? (Frazier said nothing about seeing a bag on Thursday). So, what do you suppose Oswald did with it? Hid it in his pants? But, why would he do such a thing if he knew that Frazier was going to see the bag on Friday morning anyway? Why hide it on Thursday if it's going to be out in the open and stuffed with a rifle on Friday? And how did Mariana and Ruth not see the bag the evening that he was at their house? And Frazier said that the bag that he saw was held between Oswald's armpit and his outstretched hand. Well, you can see how much longer that bag is than that, towering way above Officer Montgomery's head. He has his arm bent, yes, but even if he straightened his arm, it would still go way above his head. So, how could Oswald get it in his armpit? He couldn't. He wouldn't. He didn't. There is no way that that is Oswald's bag. And if it's not Oswald's bag, it means that it's a planted bag. And if it's a planted bag, then it means that Oswald was being framed. And if he was being framed, then he must have been innocent.

So, you see: even the bag gets him off.  The story of the bag alone is more than enough to create reasonable doubt. 

Attorney Larry Schnapf wrote an excellent article which summarized the results of all the mock trials of Lee Harvey Oswald. It is on the Kennedy and Kings, the website of Jim DiEugenio. 

Note first that I am NOT a supporter of Jim DiEugenio. Although he disputes the official story of the JFK assassination, he does NOT do so effectively, in my opinion, and I do not consider him an asset to the cause of JFK truth.

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-2017-houston-mock-trial-of-oswald

The gist of it is that all the mock trials resulted in hung juries except the most lavish one, which was the 1984 trial in England which featured Vincent Bugliosi for the prosecution and Gerry Spence for the defense. It resulted in a conviction for Oswald. But, here is an intriguing statement by Larry: 

It is generally agreed upon by lawyers that Spence was not prepared for this mock trial and that his performance made a mockery of the event. 

In the immortal words of Ed McMahon, I did not know that. 

There also was one in Michigan in 2016 where a grand jury deliberated whether Oswald should be charged as a lone gunman or not as a lone gunman. Oh, thanks a heap.  They just presumed Oswald's guilt. What a disgrace. That one doesn't even count, in my opinion.

So, basically, all but one resulted in hung juries except the one in 1984. 

I also gather from what Larry wrote that most of the defense lawyers focused on disputing the Single Bullet Theory. What a waste. I hope the lawyers in Houston don't make that mistake. What good does it do Oswald? If you dispute the Single Bullet Theory, even if you succeed, Oswald could be just as guilty. It doesn't exonerate him.  If you're shooting at a man, and somebody else is also shooting at him, you're just as guilty of trying to kill him. 

And do you know what it tells me? It tells me that there are a great many people who want to dispute the official story of the JFK assassination, but they don't really care about Oswald. Dr. Cyril Wecht, for instance, has never defended Oswald. His whole schtik is that there were multiple shooters. That's it. And if someone wants to think that Oswald was one of those shooters, it's fine with him. 

So again, disputing the Single Bullet Theory does NOTHING to defend Oswald. And here's another reason why it's really foolish to harp on it; people are inured to it. If Jerry Seinfeld could devote a whole episode of his show to "The Magic Loogie", and people laughed,  then you know that people are inured to it. It has no emotional impact on people any more. It's like a song they've heard too many times. I'm afraid it's even going to bore the jury. They're going to be looking at their watches. 

So, what truly vindicates Oswald? What really matters? Well, obviously, his alibi matters. That matters more than anything. Imagine if you were a lawyer in 1963, and you were called in to represent Oswald. So, you get to the Dallas Police Department. You're taken up to the 3rd floor, and you're put into one of the small interrogation rooms alone with your client. (We'll put aside the issue of Tippit.) I presume the first thing you would ask him is if he did it. Oswald says, "No. I did not." What's the very next thing you are going to ask him?  Isn't it, "Then, where were you when the crime occurred?" That's what you would want to know, isn't it?  It's also what the jury would want to know. 

You keep the focus on Oswald. Did he order and own the rifle? Well, he denied it. Now you're his lawyer. Do you believe him or not? I believe him. And that's why I put great stock in this article by John Armstrong which disputes the evidence that Oswald ordered a rifle from Klein's Hardware in Chicago:

http://www.harveyandlee.net/Guns/Guns.html

And, it follows from that that if Oswald didn't owned the rifle, then he didn't pose with it for the Backyard photos. So, as his lawyer, you attack the authenticity of the Backyard photos. But, think about it means: IT MEANS THAT YOU ARE ADVOCATING PHOTOGRAPHIC ALTERATION AS A FACTOR IN THE JFK ASSASSINATION. And the truth is that you can't defend Oswald without advocating photographic alteration. 

Alright, so there is his alibi, which is that he was standing in the doorway during the shooting; there is his never having ordered or owned the rifle, as per the evidence laid out by John Armstrong; there is attacking the validity of the Backyard photos, including bringing in a photo expert to testify that the photo was faked. That's 3 things. What else? Again, the issue of whether a single bullet could have passed through the bodies of two men causing 7 wounds is obviously very important to assassination study- but not specifically to Oswald's defense. Here's something better: you bring in a professional sniper to testify on whether Oswald, with his known shooting record and experience- experience which included NOTHING comparable to the shooting conditions from the 6th floor- could have pulled off that shooting result: hitting the moving target twice in less than 6 seconds. And I know just who to call in: Former Army and Tulsa Police Department Sharpshooter Craig Roberts. And he'd do it too. I know him. He'll tell the jury that he got to size up the whole situation, and he realized instantly that he, Craig Roberts, could not have done it. And there is no way that Lee Harvey Oswald was a better shot than he is. 

What else would truly vindicate Oswald? There is the issue of the flight time from the 6th floor after the last shot to the 2nd floor lunch room, in which Oswald arrived shortly before Officer Marrion Baker. According to Dr. David Wrone, there was a time span of 75 seconds between the last shot and the encounter. But, when you consider what Oswald would have had to do, were it him, which was, apparently, wipe down the rifle, since very little was found on it. He had to go hide the rifle and climb over a mountain of books to do it. Then he had to make his way to the stairs and proceed down. Dr. Wrone devotes a whole chapter in his book to it, and he points out that when the Warren Commission timed it, they just skipped the part about hiding the rifle. They just had the Oswald-surrogate hand it off to someone who was waiting at the stairs. Dr. Wrone, who is still living and could testify as an expert, is adamant that an honest reproduction of the trek would never get Oswald to the lunch room in time, nor would it get him there without being sweaty, winded, and ruffled, which Oswald wasn't. In reality, Oswald walked at a normal pace from the doorway, up the southeast staircase, and across the 2nd floor to the lunch room. 

Impugning the testimony of Buell Frazier would also be valuable, specifically, his claim that Oswald carried a large bag into the building, holding it between his outstretched hand and his armpit. However, Frazier insists that the bag he saw was no more than 24 inches long. The disassembled rifle was 35 inches. So, if Frazier testifies, you first get him to assert very strongly that 24 inches was the maximum that he saw. But then, you find a way to bring in the testimony of Jack Dougherty, who claimed to see Oswald as he walked in the door at 8:05 AM, saying that he saw no such bag. He also saw no such unusual carry method. 

I could keep going. There is plenty more. One mock trial included testimony from Bonnie Ray Williams that he was up on the 6th floor until close to 12:30, and he didn't see Oswald or anyone else. Now that was good! Is Bonnie Ray still alive? Then bring him in! Another good witness would be James Jarman who had to tell Oswald that the motorcade would be passing the building that afternoon. Oswald didn't know. He asked Jarman why people were gathering on the sidewalk. So, if Jarman is alive, you find him and bring him in.

That's more than there would be time for in a two day trial. I mainly wanted to make the point that there is no time to devote to whether there were shots from the front, multiple shooters, whether the Single Bullet Theory is nonsense. Just forget about all that because it can't help Oswald. Do you want to help Oswald or not? Do you want to get him acquitted? Or do you want to dispute the official story of the JFK assassination? Take your choice because you can't do both. 

You, Sparta, have no right to claim that, in a bright environment, external light was required to operate 1960's movie cameras. That is ridiculous. My family owned a movie camera at that time, and we certainly didn't add light when shooting under bright conditions. 

And regarding who the shooter by the elevator with the detectives resembled, I have already demonstrated on InfoWars and elsewhere that people have no difficulty seeing what I see, that he resembled the young James Bookhout. So, time will tell whose opinions prevail and whose are called delusional. 

A cameraman could have accessed the 3rd floor by walking through the main entrance of City Hall and going to the 3rd floor. Plus, we got a look what the 3rd floor looked like later when Ruby was brought there to be questioned by Fritz. This is what it looked like:

It was nothing like this:

The above image was taken just several minutes after the shooting and right before Bookhout was released to assume his own identity. 

And with light, it became this. 

It's not even Ruby's posture.

But then again, you don't know anything about posture, do you? You don't know anything about anything. You can see at a glance how much shorter and rounder and wider the face of the Shooter was. 

And Amy Joyce has admitted to me that James Bookhout is the leading contender to be the Garage Shooter- and the only contender so far. So, she's close. She is a lot closer to my position than she is to yours. And I get plenty of Likes on Facebook for the posts I do on this. I get a lot of support. Eager, enthusiastic support. And, it's only going to grow over time. For you, only more failure and disappointment are coming. So, get used to it.  

"I walked into a trap the moment I walked down the ramp Sunday morning. This was the spot where they could frame the Jew, and that way all of his people will be blamed as being Communists, this is what they were waiting for. They alone had planned the killing, by they I mean Johnson and others.”  Jack Ruby

Here is another very important find by Amy Joyce. It turns out that the tall Sunglasses Ruby got his own WC exhibit.

So, they were pegging him as Jack Ruby all along, which is interesting. He's obviously not Ruby. Ruby didn't have those vertical creases in his face, producing the catcher's mitt effect. Ruby didn't have that hairline in back. Ruby's ear didn't look like that, and no human's does.

And, as you can see, Ruby's nose wasn't as lumpen and Roman as we are seeing on the left. Those noses are nothing alike. Why anyone would think that was Ruby is a mystery to me. I bet even Denis Morrissette would be willing to admit that that isn't Ruby. And just as sure is the fact that he was NOT the Garage Shooer who was a much shorter man with a round face and a short neck. 

And here's another weird thing: notice that the shooter is to the left of Blackie Harrison in the image above. But, in the other one, "Ruby" is behind him and to the right of him.

 Also, you can see Sassas, the Japanese guy there, who is closest to us. Seconds later, you can see the short shooter, and he is perched between Harrison and Sassas. 

So, Sunglasses Ruby, whoever he was, and Bookhout weren't even in the same spot. It is ridiculous to claim that they were the same man. 

This is NOT Jack Ruby, and who knows what the guy really looked like.

And no, that is not shadow over his eyes. Shadow is cast by objects: objects that are located between the source of light and the area of the shadow. And in general, shadows take the shape of the object that cast them. So, what object could possibly cast such spherical shadow around his eye? Of course, there is none, and it is childish to think otherwise. 

My take on this guy is that they didn't want to show Bookhout's face because he was Bookhout. But, they figured it would look suspicious if the shooter's face was never seen. So, they came up with this guy. I tell you, the guys who came up with this scheme were not rocket scientists.  

A message from Amy Joyce:

Ralph,

I remember when I posted in the forum or told you that I couldn't see a gun flash in any of the films and you responded with the screen shot of DVP's doing, a newsreel frame with the gun flash.  How it could be in one or more (actually most Newsreels) and not others didn't occur to me at the time.  If it had been the same situation, only in a newsreel of JFK getting shot, I wonder how people would react.  As you have shown with Lovelady, this was a regular practice- to falsify images.  

In the newsreel when the freeze-frame Jackson look-alike pops up, announcer Ed Hurley says "Here is the shame of all America".  He was right;  it was shame of all America alright, in regard to Oswald's murder - that the powers that be in 1963 falsified the story and got the media to lie about the events as they occurred, forever destroying innocent lives while protecting the guilty.   

AJ

Jason Burke

9:58 AM (42 minutes ago)

- show quoted text -

Are you *honestly* trying to get your pants sued off, Ralph? 

Ralph Cinque:

Dr. Burke, with a PhD, is unaware that in the United States, there are no libel and slander laws pertaining to the dead. And the whole idea is ridiculous. We are talking here about an historical event that occurred over half a century ago. So, why can't I give my theory of the crime? Why should I be subject to a lawsuit for saying what I think about something that happened 53 years ago? 

Furthermore, I am NOT accusing James Bookhout of shooting Oswald. I am accusing him of pretend-shooting Oswald. And I am not suggesting that it was Bookhout's own scheme. Bookhout was just one of the actors in the spectacle, the idea for which probably came down from LBJ and Hoover. 

I don't claim to know who actually shot Oswald. I have no idea who it was. 

And speaking of that, do you realize how many books have been written accusing LBJ of killing Kennedy? The first appeared during LBJ's Presidency by J. Evetts Haley. The next was by Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams, published in 1974, the year of LBJ's death. Then Bart's, then Phillip Nelson's two books, and then Roger Stone's. And those are just the ones I've read; there may be more. 
What about Bobby Baker? Did he write a book? I know that he publicly accused LBJ of killing Kennedy. 

But, how many of those authors have been sued by LBJ's estate? 

But, I say that that is exactly what we need in the year of Our Lord 2017: a civil law suit pertaining to the JFK assassination. I'm all for it. Imagine the headlines. Imagine the coverage. Let's get the JFK debate front and center, where it belongs. It's time for a showdown. I'm all for it. 

Amy Joyce: 

The 2 clips of LHO being shot that are seen in newsreels are part from the "live" shooting and part from another unidentified cameraman from a different angle.  The fact that latter's cameraman is unknown is a different issue I'll get to later. 

We already knew the gun flash is fake but there is more proof.  Here are videos of the newsreel before they added those fake flashes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ukl7rPnYz4   No gun flash. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu0Njrfc86c   No gun flash. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBdHBhDWzFs  No gun flash.

When I compared the above to ones that have the fake flash, I noticed that LHO  (of all people) looks heavier.  I think it's because when the fake flash was added they also changed the aspect ratio.  

See attached and compare the freeze frame from a newsreel clip before it was changed (without flash) to the freeze frame from a newsreel clip after it was changed (with fake flash).  

I also attached an example of the difference between aspect ratios, before and after switching to widescreen.  Of course, if the gun flash(es) were there originally they would still be there.  

PS.  I downloaded those newsreels without the flash just in case they got removed. I also downloaded newsreels with the flash. 

Ralph Cinque:

Amy, there has been a lot of aspect ratio manipulation of JFK images. For instance, when they realized that the guy they used for Lovelady (in their fake video of Lovelady in the squad room) was too stocky and muscular, they slimmed him down by adjusting the aspect ratio, and to the extreme. 

The one on the right came first. That's the original image from the History Channel 2009 documentary "Three Shots That Changed America". But when they realized afterwards that Lovelady did not have an arm like an Olympic weightlifter, they slimmed him down to the image on the left by adjusting the aspect ratio. But, of course, he wasn't as gaunt as that, and nobody could have a head shaped like that. They really turned it into a cartoon. It's grotesque.  

But, it's the evil of it all that gets to me. Every time they do something like this, they are pumping more rounds into Kennedy and Oswald. 

I see what you mean about the absence of the muzzle flash in some versions of the Newsreel. And why shouldn't it be there if it's real? They take it to the point that Oswald is anguishing over being shot, which means that the shot has occurred, and so has the muzzle flash. So, there is no excuse for it not being there. 

I am going to put this up on McAdams' forum as well. 

Sparta, once again, you are wrong. Many times, I have posted a comparison of 1963 Ruby and the Garage Shooter by the elevator with the detectives. 

They are NOT the same man. We can readily see that the face on the right was rounder than Ruby's face. His forehead was shorter than Ruby's. His neck was much shorter than Ruby's. His nose was much narrower than Ruby's, without the pyramidal shape that Ruby's had. And his head carriage was completely and totally different. Ruby, on the left, did an odd tweaking of the head into right lateral bending. He did it there for the Dallas PD, and he also did the next day for the Sheriff's Department, even more pronounced.

Meanwhile, the Garage Shooter by the Elevator had the exact same head carriage as Young Bookhout.

And no, Sparta. It is not true that the young Jack Ruby matches better.  You are absolutely unqualified and useless when it comes to making anatomical comparisons. 

And, you are also wrong in saying that shadow from the cowboy hat of the detective is being cast over the Shooter's eyes.

It's just his eyes that are black, so how could shadow from a hat cast shadow just over someone's eyes? Are you aware that objects cast shadows their own shape? 

You're just wrong, Sparta. You're wrong about everything. It's like you are askew with the whole universe. 

This jazz standard was written for the 1937 screwball comedy of the same name, Easy Living. I think the song survived better than the movie did, which sometimes happens. It's a very snazzy, jazzy song which I think is very cool. It was composed by a guy named Ralph; Ralph Rainger, with lyrics by Leo Robin. 


 https://youtu.be/lhhXfrdiQZI

People have claimed that that weirdness there represents an object that "Ruby" was clutching when he shot Oswald. But, that is ridiculous. It is no part of the official story. It isn't even plausible that he was holding something. Why? Why would he do that? So, what is it? Who knows? It's a manipulated, altered image. Nobody could duplicate it- with or without clutching something. You couldn't make an image that looked like that, not by posing someone. So, when they manipulated that, what were they going for? What were they suggesting? I think they were concerned about Ruby's pinkie ring, and they wanted to get that pinkie out of view so that they could claim there was a ring on it, even though we can't see it. Why they settled on that weird thing, why they thought it looked good, I can't tell you because it doesn't look good. It looks weird.  

This concerns sign language, but we can put the image to work to help understand the left hand of the shooter in the Jackson photo.

In this case, if we look at his right hand, you can see that the thumb is out of it; it's not visible. On his left hand, we can see his thumb, but just imagine if you were looking at him from behind as in the Jackson photo. You wouldn't see his thumb. It would be tucked out of the way. Well, that's the situation with the left hand in the Jackson photo. The thumb is tucked away, and they just added that other thumb. What Bookhout was doing was making a fist. 

 And notice that the thumb is rising not from the wrist but from above the wrist. But, everything beyond the wrist arises from the wrist. It has to. It has to go from the wrist to the hand. But in that image, you can clearly see the margins of the wrist on both sides. And, the thumb is rising from above the wrist. Why'd they do it? Perhaps just because his hands were small. But, it is really quite ridiculous to think that his pinkie would be flexed more than his other fingers. 

You're seeing all the proximal interphalangeal joints there, and they are all lined up, including the one for the pinkie, and that's typical, especially for a spontaneous fist, meaning one that you make without consciously thinking about it too much. 

The idea of that, I believe, is to rationalize why we don't see the ring on his pinkie, as we did in Beers. That's supposed to represent the pinkie being curled up so much that we don't see the hulk of a ring that was on it. But, I don't think that is tenable, and the inferior edge of that hand looks strange and inexplicable. Nobody could duplicate it photographically. We really are looking at a bizarre alteration, the purpose of which was to hide Bookhout's small hands and his lack of a ring.