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

Look, on the left, how bald Jack Ruby was in 1960. 1960. That's 3 years before the assassination, and a man can lose a lot more hair in 3 years. 

And then on the right is the shooter from the Jackson photo with that thick mane. How could Jack Ruby have hair like that when you can see how he was on the left, three years before?

And what I'm starting to think is that they doctored a lot of Ruby's images to give him more hair. Did they do that because the Garage Shooter seemed so thick-haired? And keep in mind that Bookhout had to be wearing a toupee' on the right. He was an FBI agent, and they, to the last man, wore their hair razor short. They were close-cropped and clean-cut. No hippies among them. So, that had to be a toupee on the right. 

Look at this image, for instance. He looks like he's got pretty thick coverage on top.

This photo of his jail transfer on November 25 shows much less coverage.

  We know it was a common practice to bolster Ruby's hair in photos from his trial, sometimes to comic proportion.  

So, why did they do that? The only reason I can think of is because the Garage Shooter seemed to have thick mane. 

That's why they did it: because of the toupee' Bookhout wore when he fake-shot Oswald in the garage. 

And what about this image on the right?

Are you buying that progression, from what we see on the left to what we see on the right, with the one on the left being 3 years earlier? Because I'm not buying it. Either that guy on the right wasn't Ruby at all, or they did a lot of doctoring of that image.