Why would Jack Ruby shoot Oswald with his middle finger? Both the Jackson and Beers photos show the Shooter using his middle finger. Ruby's lawyers asked him why he used his middle finger to pull the trigger, and do you know what he told them?
"How could I know when I don't even remember shooting him? I keep telling you that I don't remember a thing about it, and I never had any thought about it. And the way I found out about it is that up on the 5th floor, the cops told me that I did it. But, I certainly can't tell you why I used my middle finger. I have no idea."
His lawyers believed him, and that's how they came up with the "psychomotor epilepsy" defense, the idea being that he was not mentally present when he did it, that it was essentially sleep-walking and having a very weird epileptic seizure.
It was stupid and ridiculous, but the problem was that they believed Ruby, but they also believed the cops. And that was their mistake; they never should have believed the cops.
The real reason for the middle trigger finger was that it was a production error. I am a filmmaker, and I know how easy it is to make production errors. In this case, they acted on false information. Someone told them that Ruby's right index finger was partially severed, so Bookhout would have to use his middle finger at the photo-shoot. But actually, it was Ruby's left index finger that was partially severed. Ruby had an intact right index finger. So, there would have been no reason for him to use his middle finger to pull the trigger.
And if you use your middle finger to pull the trigger, what are you going to do with your index finger? It has to go somewhere, and the only place it can go is along the barrel and right next to the cylinder gap. And therefore, all the firey hot gases will get released, which will burn and blacken your index finger- or worse. And we know that didn't happen to Ruby.
So, here is the Jackson photo showing the Shooter using his middle finger. And since Bookhout didn't burn and blacken his index finger, you know the gun was not fired at this photo shoot. And Oswald did not slap his arm to his chest either. That was something the art department did afterwards. You see, since there was no shot, there was no trauma, so they had to completely cover up the area of trauma- since they had no trauma to show. That explains the need for all the weird stuff. The idea was that Oswald was shot, and even though this was just a split-second afterwards, you can't see anything because Oswald slapped his arm to his chest. That hand of Oswald is not real. It isn't even anatomical. It couldn't possibly look like that. The thumb is "opposed" to the other fingers, which makes that configuration impossible.
Plus, the thumb is too long and there are only three knuckles, which means just three fingers. So, did Oswald lose a finger too? Of course not. That is actually two hands clasped. It's all fake, and so is the left arm of Leavelle with his hand in Oswald's pants. We are supposed to believe that Leavelle was escorting Oswald with his hand buried in his pants. Since when do police do that, and since when do prisoners tolerate it? I have to laugh because in the Texas Theater, Officer Nick McDonald went for Oswald's waist area to grab the pistol, and Oswald responded by slugging him in the nose. But, we're supposed to believe that Oswald was OK with Leavelle putting his hand in his pants all the way down to the knuckles. Not in his pocket, but over the waistband and deep into his pants. That is supposed to be what happened, but only in JFK-land. This monstrosity of a photo actually won the Pulitzer Prize. Remember: this is supposed to be after the shot. Oswald is grimacing, supposedly, because he was shot a split-second before. Do you see any blood? Do you see anything at all that indicates trauma? And what about that cop in uniform? If a shot just went off a split-second before, shouldn't he be startled? Why instead does he look stiff and frozen like he's in a trance? Wouldn't the shot have snapped him out of it? What does it take to wake that guy up? I tell you , this photo is ridiculous. How could people be so stupid as to accept it for 59 years?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.