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

 It is amazing to me the lengths that the minions of the Leviathan State that killed Kennedy will go to protect their masters, such as Mike Morgan. Now, he is attempting to blame the obfuscation of Bookhout's eyes on shadow. He knows nothing about shadow. I'm sure he couldn't pass an 8th grade Physics class. But, that doesn't stop him from spewing about it.

He's claiming that the reduction of Boohout's eyes to blackness is due to shadow. First, note that Bookhout's face is completely in light, that the margin of his face isn't broken by shadow. We see the whole thing. Observe that his forehead is completely in light and so is his cheek below his eye completely in light. His face is brightly illuminated.

You can see where the shadow from Sims' hat is going: on the door behind him and at the same level. There is extreme blackness over Sims' left eye, and I have an arrow pointing to it. That, I presume, is supposed to be from Boyd's hat, but you have to understand something: blur in a photographic image is consistent. The only way that one element might be blurred, while another not, is if the blurred element was moving. But, that's not true in this case. Sims wasn't moving. But, why would Boyd cast such an inky black shadow over Sims' eye? Remember, that we've seen this before. In the Altgens photo, Billy Lovelady was visoring his eyes with his hands atop his head, and they blackened out his whole face. It isn't real. It's something that they did because he was Billy Lovelady. I have added him to this image to remind you.

I can tell you what these morons did, what their piddling minds were thinking. They thought that they could mar the image of Sims severely, blurring it more severely than Bookhout, to imply that distance caused it. So, Boyd is clear and sharp, then Bookhout has some problems, while Sims is a complete mess. On Sims, they tried to make it that shadow obliterated both his eyes, that even though the shadow over his right eye is much lighter, it still obliterated his eye, where we can't see it at all.

So, the idea was that Bookhout has visual problems, but Sims is much worse, so just accept it.

Now, as for Boohout's eyes, it may be that they intended to suggest that, by chance, shadow from Boyd's hat obliterated them, but it's impossible. Boyd was a huge object in front of Bookhout, and the idea that his shadow would intrude on Bookhout's face just specifically at that spot to obliterate his eye is ridiculous. It's as ridiculous as Lovelady's whole head being blacked out by his hands atop his head. And the irony in that case is that it was intense light that was causing Lovelady to visor his eyes to begin with.

Now, look at Bookhout's left eye. It's not in shadow, right? Yet, it's missing too. You don't see it. All you see is a weird line, and his eyebrow above it is just as weird and screwy too.

Aaron Peterson made an attempt to restore Bookhout's eyes, which I posted upper right. Bookhout also had a very slender nose that they tried to hide, so I replaced that too. His nose was very aqualine with very narrow nostrils. And you can see the vast difference between him and Jack Ruby, lower right.

But, keep in mind that the extreme difference in the shape of Bookhout's face being so round, and that of Ruby, which wasn't round, and the extreme shortness of Bookhout's neck, in contrast to Ruby whose neck was much longer, eliminates any chance that the Shooter is Ruby. It is simply impossible.

The one and only thing that Mike Morgan said that is true is that the four men were standing in the dark, and the only light came from the flash of the camera. So, why were the three detectives and their prisoner standing in the dark on the 3rd floor of the Dallas Police Department shortly after the Oswald shooting? I'll tell you what they were doing there. They were hiding. I'm sure they were hoping that that cameraman didn't see them and would just go away. And since it was the 3rd floor of the Dallas PD, which was the nerve center, why were all the lights out? Who turns off all the lights in a police department? What is the talking point for that?

And this is the only image there is of the face of the Garage Shooter. So, why isn't it the go-to image? Why is it that Ralph Cinque is the only one who publishes this image? And why was the video from which it came quickly taken down once I started talking about it?

It's because it's obviously not the face of Jack Ruby. And claiming that it is, when it so obviously not is a very bloodied thing to do. It is a desperate and reckless attempt to dismiss irrefutable evidence that Jack Ruby was framed through adamant denial. And they do that because there is nothing else they can do. The chessboard is saying "Checkmate" but even though their King has no move, they're adamantly saying, "No. It's not Checkmate."

Well, it is Checkmate. This image proves that Jack Ruby was innocent; framed and innocent, and that's the reason they don't publish it. That's the reason they wish I wouldn't show it and talk about it.

Anyone and everyone who is decent and honest will admit from this that Jack Ruby was not the Garage Shooter of Oswald. That poor, hapless man was tricked into thinking that he shot Oswald, but he didn't. It was an amazing, incredible psy-op, on him, and on all of us.