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

The Idiot Backes said that Amy's image of "Ruby's" hat in the Jackson photo was a "Youtube grab." Idiot, it's a photo; not a film. You just go to Google Images and put in Jackson photo and it will call up countless versions of it. Youtube is for films, not photos. But, when all else fails, blame Youtube. Right? Idiot.

Then, the dirty B*&!F#@ has the nerve to show a photo of the hat in which, because of the lighting, there is modulation of the color of the ribbon, where in the direct light it looks shiny and less densely black than it does in diffuse light. Hey, we all know about that, Backes, but that has no bearing on what Amy found, which is a distinctly grey color to the center stripe of the bow, which could not possibly be the result of lighting. You can see it here:

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/11/from-show-last-night-here-are-two-gifs.html

The funny and ironic thing is that Amy's image provides an example of what Backass is talking about, which is the variation in the shade of the black depending on the angle to the light. You certainly don't see the same shade throughout the ribbon. However, the grey color of the center stripe that Amy is talking about is a horse of a different color. It obviously is not an optic phenomenon. It is a distinctly different color, as distinct in contrast to the ribbon as the color of the hat is in contrast to the ribbon. In fact, it is the same grey color as the hat. So, look at it again. It's the second image down in the link. You see the light-play affecting the color of the black ribbon, but then you see the strikingly distinct grey color of the center stripe of the bow, which you know is not a phenomenon of light. 

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/11/from-show-last-night-here-are-two-gifs.html

There is no talking point for this, and the smarter people who are opposing us are smart enough to shut the pluck up about it. It is not a light phenomenon. It is simply the wrong color. I don't think the hat was that way. I think the image was "photoshopped" that way. And again, I am using the word generically to refer to the methods they had in the 1960s to touch-up and enhance photos. What I don't know is WHY they did it that way. Was it by accident? An oversight? Or did they do it on purpose because they thought it looked cool, and they didn't think anyone would compare it to other images? 

It is a very big find by Amy, and by itself, it proves that the Jackson photo was heavily edited. So much for Jackson's story of taking it back to the newspaper and developing the film itself and seeing it for the first time. Let's remember something: Jackson lied. Jackson said that he had his foot up on the bumper of the car when he took the photo. But, the car was moving before the shot occurred, and it continued moving after the shot occurred. And obviously, Jackson did NOT have his foot up on the bumper of a moving car. So, that's one lie. But, his story about having to wait around for hours until they could send a replacement photographer rings hollow- especially since he took no photos during that time. He waited around because his photo had to be altered- or replaced entirely, the way Mary Moorman's photo was replaced. 

Meanwhile, the Idiot Backes still claims that Fritz moved out of the way for Ruby. For Ruby????  So, Fritz was in cahoots with Jack Ruby? How could Fritz know that Ruby was going to be there totin' unless he was in cahoots with him? And that means that the whole Dallas PD was in cahoots with Ruby- to kill Oswald. Their plan was that Ruby would do it, then they would pounce on Ruby, drag him upstairs, charge him, prosecute him, try him, and push for the death penalty, knowing that he would go along with it and support all their lies and never breathe a word to his lawyers, his family, or anyone else because he was willing to lose everything, and even die, to silence Oswald.  

Why would Jack Ruby want to silence Oswald? Think about it. Why wouldn't he want him to say whatever it is he had to say? And you know that "I did it for Jackie" excuse, invented by his lawyer, makes no sense since Jackie would NOT have been called to testify at Oswald's trial. Why? For whom? The prosecution? The defense? To say what? So, all you are left with is the idea that Oswald was going to squeal about who really did it? Well, whoever that was, it wasn't Jack Ruby. To those who MISTAKENLY think that Ruby had some role in it, (he didn't) it was nothing compared to Johnson and Dulles etc. So, why would Ruby give up his very life to save their skins? 

Ruby doing it makes no sense, and Fritz and the Dallas Police knowing that Ruby was going to do it makes even less sense. How could the Dallas Police know that Ruby was going to do it, when Jack Ruby didn't know he was going to do it? 

The Idiot Backes sure doesn't know. He can't begin to explain it. And nobody can, let alone an idiot. It's a stupid idea. Jack Ruby did NOT do it. He did NOT shoot Oswald. He was just a patsy, like Oswald himself, except a lot more helpless than Oswald.