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

Sparta, on McAdams' forum, is arguing that Ruby's glasses at the Midnight Press Conference were tinted, and therefore, they were essentially sunglasses, and that is a bogus deduction, as I'll explain. What that idiot fails to consider is the photographic quality of the whole image. 

Why assume they were tinted lenses? What would be the need for tinted lenses at a time like that? Look at the eyes of the man to the right of Ruby, our right. His eyes are so dark, we can't see them at all. Look at the man with the camera over his neck to our left. His eyes are black too. Look at the man on the far left whose entire face is black. Now, this is the JFK assassination, so you never know what they did to the photo; what's real, and what was altered. But considering the unusual lighting and darkness results that we see, there is certainly no reason to assume that Ruby was wearing tinted glasses. And guess what? There is another version of the image that doesn't look tinted at all.

 Notice that he looks younger there. The notion that Jack Ruby was wearing tinted glasses at the Midnight Press Conference is preposterous. And, I'll warn you: Occam is going to come back from the 13th century with his razor, and I hear he's got a mean slash.  

This was all predicated by the 1992 movie Ruby starring Danny Aielo. This was his signature look:

Now, why was that chosen? It certainly wasn't because of his look at the Midnight Press Conference. It was from this:

First, that is NOT Jack Ruby. Second, the image is so highly altered, so highly manipulated, that it isn't certain that we are looking at anyone real, that anyone had that look. And how could anyone have his sideburn a mile away from his ear? That isn't even anatomical. And third, that is NOT shadow around his eye. One idiot said it was shadow from the studio lights. But, it takes three things to make a shadow: a light source, an object between the light source and the area in shadow, and the area in shadow. So, what would be the object casting the shadow over the man's eye? And why is it jet black? Look at the eyes of Tom Pettit who is more central in the photo. There is no shadow around his eyes. What we're seeing on the disputed figure can't be shadow, and if it is what it appears to be, sunglasses, then that is an object that Jack Ruby most certainly did not have on him. And it's just one more reason why that figure is most certainly NOT Jack Ruby, for which Denis Morrissette agrees.