I have been asked to provide a concise statement, for a historical journal, of the evidence proving that Jack Ruby did not shoot Lee Harvey Oswald. And that's what this is.

It starts by recognizing that when you do a close inspection of the images of the Garage Shooter, and compare them to images of Jack Ruby from that day, you can see that they were different men.

On the left is the Garage Shooter. You see how is hair was, which was rather long and thick in back and matted. It looks like it could have been a wig. You don't see any hair growing out of his scalp. And the skin in back of his neck was razored clean; he had no fuzzy hair growth. However, Ruby, on the right, did not have long hair that abruptly ended in a clean horizontal line; rather, he had the typical tapering of the hair in back, and A LOT OF FUZZY HAIR GROWTH. I am referring to the "dirty neck look" that men get between haircuts. Ruby had that dirty neck look on 11/24/63, but the Garage Shooter did not. 

Note second, that the Garage Shooter had a very short neck. Ruby's neck was much longer. Compare the distance from the hairline in back to the collar on each man.

Note third, that the Garage Shooter was a short man, the shortest man in the garage, that we know of. He was like a midget compared to the "penguins," as I call them, who subdued him.

Jack Ruby was 5'9". That was average height then, and it still is today. How, in a garage with 50 men, could a man who was 5'9" stand out as being the shortest man in it? And note on the left above the image of Captain Will Fritz, who was a short man, much shorter than 5'9". But, even he appears to be taller than the Shooter.  

I could go further with the physical comparisons, but let's move on to what Ruby said. It is widely claimed that Ruby admitted shooting Oswald. That is not true. Ruby accepted that he shot Oswald. Big difference. Ruby said he had no intention of shooting Oswald, that for the whole weekend, he never had the slightest thought of harming Oswald in any way. And when he went to the Garage, he didn't even have the expectation of seeing Oswald, let alone killing him. And all he could remember was going to the basement, being jumped by the police, hustled up to the 5th floor jail, where he was told that he shot Oswald. His entire belief that he shot Oswald was derived from police telling him that he did it. 

But, if he did it, why couldn't he remember doing it? Ruby's lawyer, Melvin Belli, argued at trial that Ruby had "psychomotor epilepsy" in which he lost consciousness and shot Oswald in the midst of an epileptic seizure.  It was nonsense. The disorderly and chaotic nervous discharge of an epileptic seizure could not possibly produce the organized, precise action of pulling the trigger of a gun. So, why did Belli make that absurd argument?

It was because Ruby told him, "Look, I can't remember what happened. All I remember is going down there and suddenly the cops jumped me, and I didn't know why. And I even said to them at the time, "What are you doing? You know me. I'm Jack Ruby." 

The problem was that Melvin Belli was mentally incapable of considering that the Dallas Police were lying. Belli had a mental defect, what I call "Americana," the belief that America is good, and it couldn't happen here that police would lie, after framing Ruby and tricking him into believing that he shot Oswald. 

There is no reason to think there was anything wrong with Ruby's memory. He remembered seeing and recognizing Lt. Rio Sam Pierce at the top of the ramp, just a couple minutes before the shooting. So, if he could remember that, why couldn't he remember shooting Oswald? He couldn't remember shooting Oswald because he didn't shoot Oswald. 

And that brings me to another issue that is almost comical. In the famous Beers and Jackson photos, you can see that the Garage Shooter used his middle finger to pull the trigger. Why would Jack Ruby do that? I have heard ridiculous claims, such as that that was the Mafia way to do it. The fact was that Jack Ruby's left index finger was partially amputated. But, the people who plotted this must have had the mistaken belief that it was Ruby's right index finger that was missing. And so, they had Ruby's surrogate, who was FBI Agent James Bookhout, stage it with his middle finger. 

So, that is the middle finger in the trigger compartment above. I do not believe that Oswald was shot in the garage. I think the Garage shooting was a theatrical spectacle for television, and Oswald was shot for real afterwards. But, here is the image of Ruby exposing his amputated left index finger.

So, that mistake was a production error, which I know about since I am a filmmaker. It's very easy to make production errors. Then, likewise, there was the sock an shoe fiasco, in which Ruby's mug shot showed that he wore a high-top work shoe and jet black socks, whereas the Shooter wore a dressy wingtip shoe and light socks.

So, on the left is the Garage Shooter, and on the right is Ruby in his mug shot. How were they going to explain this discrepancy. It was like a chess game, and their only move was to claim that the Dallas Police, not only changed Ruby's shirt and pants, but his shoes and underwear too. Do you know how ridiculous that is? It was a City Jail. Nobody stays there. Defendants get arraigned, then they either go to the County Jail to await trial, or they go home. So, no uniforms or clothes of any kind are provided to prisoners at a City Jail. Was Oswald provided with clothes? No. Even the clothes he wore on Sunday morning were his own clothes obtained from his boarding room. But, look at this ridiculous thing, an invoice claiming that they confiscated Ruby's underwear.

You see that it says "1 set underwear." Supposedly, they took that from Ruby, and put it in a bin, and presumably provided him with a set of their underwear, because this was a PD and prisoners had to be in regulation underwear. Do you see how ridiculous it is? And they did this even though Ruby was going to the County Jail the very next morning. It is absolutely absurd. 

There is much more that I could tell you about the framing of Jack Ruby, which was the greatest psy-op in the history of psy-ops.  But, I am going to give you just one more thing: we know the identity of the Garage Shooter. He was FBI Agent James Bookhout. This discovery was made upon realizing that there were no images of James Bookhout from the JFK assassination, even though he followed Oswald around like his shadow and attended every Oswald interrogation. We have only one straight-on image of the face of the Garage Shooter, and it's from the 30 year retrospective on the killing of Oswald by NBC. So, it was from 1993.

On the right is the face of the Garage Shooter, although deliberately compromised. For instance, his eyes were blackened out. They look more like racoon stripes. And notice how round his face was, which Ruby's wasn't. On the left is James Bookhout in 1937 when he graduated from SMU Law School in Dallas. Those two are the same person separated by 26 years of time. It's called aging. And I'd have to say that Bookhout's resemblance to his younger self was more striking than most. 

And the Garage Shooter was definitely not Jack Ruby, who had a longer face, a longer forward, a much longer neck, and pyramidal shaped nose. 

Ruby, on the left, could not possibly be the man on the right, even though the photos were taken on the same day. 

Like Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby was innocent. Note that Ruby told the Warren Commissioners that he sent his money wire to Karen Carlin at 10:15. Right away, a Secret Service agent who wasn't even in the state of Texas on 11/24/63 corrected him and said it was 11:15. And Ruby didn't dispute it. But, then again, Ruby didn't dispute anything from authority because he respected authority so much.  

But, he wasn't mistaken. He did send the money wire at 10:15. He got to the garage an hour earlier than reported, and he was already in custody up on the 5th floor when the Garage Spectacle went down. A few hours later, they wove the real Jack Ruby into the story for the first time when they brought him down from the 5th floor to the 3rd floor and let reporters and cameramen see him. It was a classic bait and switch. 

Jack Ruby was innocent! It is the best kept secret of the JFK assassination. The first person to realize it wasn't me; it was Maxim Irkutsk, the Russian researcher who proclaimed it in 2013. So, the plotters went 50 years before anyone unraveled it. Here is Maxim's Youtube video about it, which has been up since 2013. It now has about 10,000 views, but help me get it up to 10 million.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oh3zvoj9HVc

Jack Ruby was innocent! Stop fighting it! Take your mind back. We've all been like Pavlovian dogs over this. So yes, take your mind back and help destroy the most diabolical and Machiavellian lie in the history of lies. Jack Ruby was not a Mafioso. All those stories and sightings are lies. He was not a pimp. He was not a hit man. And he did not kill Oswald. Jack Ruby was innocent. 

 The people who are fighting me are being ridiculous. We have an FBI document which says, "Lovelady stated that he wore a red and white vertical striped shirt and blue jeans." Then, we also have an image of Lovelady wearing such a shirt on 11/22/63.

It's definitely Lovelady in the image on the right because that's where her said he was at that time, heading for the railway yard. So, if that's not him, he still needs to be there, which means that there should be another guy there as him. But, there is no other guy there as him. So, it has to be him.

And if you look closely, you can see the alternating vertical stripes of his short-sleeved shirt. I put and RWR, which is short for red, white, red.

I realize that it's extremely blurry. Still, you know it's not a plaid shirt, and you know it's not a longsleeved shirt, since you can see his naked elbow. It's an either/or situation. Either it's a short-sleeved vertically striped shirt or it's a longsleeved plaid one. Obviously, it's the former. So, that's what Lovelady wore, and it conforms to what he told the FBI, and what he wore to pose as Doorman on 2/29/64 for the FBI.

So, it's over. That's what Lovelady wore, a short-sleeved vertically striped shirt, which means that all the imagery of Lovelady in a plaid shirt was faked. Our own government did that to us; they fabricated false evidence, which was a criminal act, then and lied, lied, lied. And they're still lying. They've been lying ever since.

 We have it in writing from the FBI that Lovelady stated that he wore a red and white vertical striped shirt and blue jeans. Here it is in plain English. And then, they went on to photograph him in that shirt precisely because he wore on 11/22/63. I underlined it. "He stated that he was wearing a red and white vertical striped shirt and blue jeans."

So, Lovelady did NOT wear a plaid shirt. All the imagery of Lovelady in a plaid shirt is fake. That consists of the Gorilla Man footage and the Squad room footage, which are fake, fake, fake. It was your tax dollars at work faking evidence and obstructing justice in the Crime of the Century.

Billy Lovelady wore a short-sleeved, vertically striped shirt, and therefore, Lee Harvey Oswald was the Man in the Doorway, which means that he was innocent of shooting President Kennedy.

So, you should join me and others in tearing down a 60 year old State lie. Join us in chanting: Stop the lies! Oswald outside.

To you naysayers, Lovelady said he wore the striped shirt. Lovelady said he wore the striped shirt. Lovelady said he wore the striped shirt.

 It's 2023, and they are still altering JFK films. This phony compilation is being heralded as the "full" Darnell film. It just went up a month ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxtb3PVci9I&t=1330s

It took 60 years to find it? Remember that I said that I contacted Gary Mack and asked him if the Sixth Floor Museum had a version of the Martin film that had the infamous Lovelady clip, which features Gorilla Man milling around smoking in front at a time when Lovelady was DEFINITELY not there in front of the TSBD. The Martin film was claimed to be the source of the Gorilla Man clip, but it didn't have it. However, eventually, someone came up with the "full" Martin film in which the phony clip was added. So, this is more of the same bull shit.

It's happened again, with the phony clip of "Prayer Man" in the doorway after the assassination, which has been added to the Darnell film. Be aware that there was never any Prayer Man. He is nobody. He's a complete fabrication.

But right now, focus on the fact that that film jumps from somewhere early in the motorcade, long before Dealey Plaza is reached, to suddenly being after the assassination with Officer Marrion Baker running across the street. That phony clip was first scene in Oliver Stone's JFK, 30 years after the assassination, and it's a pity that he included it, considering how shaky its origin and authenticity are.

Jimmy Darnell was the cameraman for a local Dallas station, WBAP, and he was in the 3rd camera car back. How could these two images have been captured by his camera when they are qualitatively so different?

So, the first frame is from 2:26 in the film, and then at 2:28, it suddenly goes to the other. But, how could that be the same camera?

And why would Darnell have turned his camera off between the times that those images were taken? They are not temporally or spatially juxtaposed. There is a huge gap of time and space between them.

Darnell did shoot his film in chronological order, didn't he?

But, what's funny is that they got some of the footage for this Frankensteinian fraud from Shutterstock. That's a stock image/stock footage house, and I know about them because I'm an indie filmmaker. It's considered a crime for Hollywood to use stock footage, but indie filmmakers do it all the time. I've done it many times, although I prefer to use Pond5.

But, all these stock suppliers splatter their name over their offerings, precisely to prevent someone from using it until they pay for it. Once you pay for it, they let you download the version that doesn't have the name splatterings. But, whoever made this phony thing just used it with the name, and you see it repeatedly: Shutterstock.

So, what is Shutterstock doing over the original film by Jimmy Darnell shot in 1963? Oops. Whoever made this phony thing fucked up badly.

And by the way, whoever did it, don't bother removing it from Youtube because I have downloaded it.

Now, as to the source, it's no surprise that one of the "discoverers" of this was Bart Kamp. He's the guy who claimed to find the one and only image of James W. Bookhout from the JFK assassination. I am referring to the image of the freaky guy who was standing in the Homicide Bureau where Will Fritz is talking to officers, and everyone is paying close attention except for this one guy who is preoccupied smoking his pipe. We call him Pipe Man.

Kamp claimed that Pipe Man was Bookhout, but he most certainly was not. Kamp claimed in a lecture that he went to the National Archives seeking an image of James Bookhout and that they directed him to this image, that they identified him as Bookhout. But then, I went to the National Archives and put it to them, and they denied ever claiming that Pipe Man is Bookhout or knowing that he's Bookhout. What they told me was "we leave that to researchers." Not only was Pipe Man not Bookhout; he wasn't even there. He was dropped into the photo. The story of this photo is that Will Fritz, on the right, is talking to his men, and everyone in the room has their eyes and ears on him, including the guy sitting at the desk, who apparently is looking through Pipe Man like he wasn't there. He wasn't. He was pasted in.

I am not going to revisit all the freaky things about Pipe Man, his hair, his glasses, his right hand, etc., but I will point out that he most definitely was not James Bookhout. You know how genetics works right? That you get half your genes from your mother, and half from your father? Well, here is Pipe Man with Jim Bookhout, the son of James Bookhout, and I can guarantee you, as a doctor, that these two guys were not genetically related.

So, the bottom line is that, just as the Martin film was fraudulently used to source the phony Gorilla Man clip of Lovelady that was made in 1966, so too was the Darnell film used to source the phony Prayer Man clip, hence the "full" version that includes it. So, where'd you get it, Bart? How'd you find it after 60 years, with Shuttershack nameplate included? Did you go back to the National Archives, did you? Is that where you got it?

So, you see, falsification of JFK assassination imagery never ends. They are still doing it in 2023.

 There is no way, even theoretically, that Jack Ruby fired with his middle finger. It was a revolver, and hot, burning gases come out laterally through the cylinder gap. The first thing they teach you in gun safety class is not to put any part of your hand alongside the cylinder.

What I have is a Smith and Wesson snub-nose 38. Ruby had the Colt Cobra. They are similar, and they both have a lot of recoil. Mine has so much recoil that after shooting at the range, the bottom of my hand is sore.

This guy demonstrates what can happen if you put your finger next to the cylinder.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFBAcz16GvU&t=71s

So, how can you avoid it when using your middle finger? I guess by flexing your index finger, but this is the result on the right. You think I'm going to shoot a gun like that? I do not have firm control of that weapon. All I have holding the grip are my two weakest fingers, my ring figer and little finger. And my index finger isn't helping at all on the other side. The idea that Jack Ruby would have thought to fire his gun that way is ridiculous. It is patently absurd.

Look: Ruby didn't give any thought to shooting Oswald. He didn't think about doing it at all, let alone think about doing it with his middle finger. He didn't even expect to see Oswald, let alone shoot him. And why should he have, when the Jail Transfer was scheduled for 10 AM.

So, the idea that Jack Ruby plotted to shoot Oswald and decided to do it with his middle finger, because he thought it would look cool, is absolutely ludicrous.

So, why does it appear that way in the Jackson photo? It's because it was a staged photo, and someone had the wrong information. He thought that Ruby had an amputated index finger on his right hand and and would have to use his middle finger. And that's what he told James Bookhout to do. But, in reality, Ruby had an amputated left index finger. He would have had no reason not to use his right index finger.

So, it was a production error, and every movie has them. The guy in the photo masquerading as Ruby was FBI Agent James W. Bookhout.

 

Wait. Please. Just think. That figure in the Couch film, who was walking towards the railroad yard with another guy who was slender, wearing a suit, and had high pompadour hair, he was right where Lovelady said he was and doing what he said he was doing. And Bill Shelley was slender, in a suit, and had high pompadour hair.

So, that was definitely them. You can't say it was another couple of guys like them. And if you tried to say that, then they should also be there. But, there's just the one set. So, it's definitely them.

The most important thing to see in this collage is that Lovelady is in short-sleeves. You're seeing naked arm above his elbow. I put an arrow to it.

And by the way, I didn't discover this image. A female researcher named Gerda Dunkel did, and without any help or influence from me, she figured out that he was Billy Lovelady. She announced it.

The weekend of November 22-24, 1963 was horrific. Monstrous crimes were committed, and involved in committing them were two men who went on to become Presidents of the United States. A third man was involved in covering them up, and he also went on to become President. A fourth man also knew about it and lied about it, and he too went on to become President.

Do you realize that following the muder of JFK, it's not until you get to Jimmy Carter that you reach a President who didn't have blood on his hands?

The State will always try hard to cover up its crimes. How hard did the Bolsheviks try to cover up their murder of the Romanov family? They buried the bodies, but then they dug them up and submerged them in acid trying destroy them. For 75 years, it was a crime in the Soviet Union to accuse the government of killing the Tsar and his family. But then, the Soviet government collapsed, and instantly the truth came out.

Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent, and he was standing in the doorway during the shooting. That is the most complelling truth there is about the JFK assassination.

We are approaching the 60th anniversary. It's just 2 months away. Join me in telling the truth, that Oswald was outside; Oswald was outside; Oswald was outside.

 I want you to consider how corrupt the FBI was. Reportedly, they stormed the home of Billy Lovelady, the evening of Saturday, November 23, and according to his wife Patricia, they brought a picture of the Altgens doorway that was "as big as a desk."

But, the FBI was, supposedly, trying to solve a mystery: Which of two men was the Doorway Man? So, why wouldn't they speak to both of them? Why didn't they storm Oswald's cell with a picture of the Altgens doorway "as big as a desk?" Why only Lovelady? Why did they only want to know what he thought?

There is no innocent explanation for this. And I'm sure that when the FBI visited Lovelady that Saturday night, it wasn't to ask him if he was the Doorway Man, but to tell him that he was.

And why didn't they put Lovelady in front of a sea of cameras and let him tell the world himself that he was the Doorway Man? Do you know how many public interviews Lovelady did before his suspicious death in 1979? None. CBS interviewed Lovelady in 1967, but they never did broadcast it.

It's very clear that Lovelady did not like lying about being the Doorway Man, and he wasn't any good at it. He tried to gently tell Joseph Ball that he was another figure in the photo- the guy visoring his eyes with hands. And what I wonder most is: what did they threaten him with? They couldn't threaten me. And if they did threaten me, I would go public with their threats.

Yes, Billy Lovelady was in the doorway, and he was standing next to Oswald. He was the guy visoring his eyes.

It's over. We have a direct view of the face of the Garage Shooter, and we can plainly see that he is not Jack Ruby. We can see at a glance that he's not Ruby. His face was very round. Ruby's wasn't. His neck was very short. Ruby's wasn't. His forehead was very short. Ruby's wasn't. And he himself was quite short, and Ruby was average height.

No one can claim that these two are the same man. Sure, anyone can hit any keys on the keyboard, and stubbornness has no limits. But, no one can rationally claim that these two are the same man.

We are living at a time of increasing irrationality. A great many people do not know how to think. And it's scary because the degree of irrationality today may be as great as it was during the Dark Ages.

That's part of the problem, but the other part is that there are a lot of people who just don't want Ruby to be innocent, and for various reasons. But, it doesn't matter what anyone wants. Reality is what it is, and the reality is that Jack Ruby was framed and innocent. Any mature, intelligent, and honest person can see it just by glancing at this picture. That's all it takes. It jumps out at you that they are not the same man.

And nothing trumps this. You can't cite something else, such as: somebody saw Ruby sitting in a green car. This picture says that Ruby was not the Shooter.

And if you don't like it, that's tough. We don't always get what we want in life. And if you don't know that yet, then you're still a child.

Ruby was innocent. Oswald was innocent. And the State killed both of them.

 I refer to this guy with the cigar as Leonid Brezhnev, and I say it in mockery. I know he wasn't Brezhnev. Brezhnev was in Russia. But, the guy really does look like Brezhnev. So, why is that when he is supposed to be Blackie Harrison, who did not look like Brezhnev?

There is no doubt that he is supposed to be Blackie Harrison. After all, he's smoking a cigar, and Blackie smoked a cigar, so, it's not like there were two guys smoking cigars.

But, regardless of who he was, what the hell is he doing? We can see what he is doing with his left hand. He is holding his cigar as he's puffing on it. But, what is he doing with his right hand? We don't see his right hand, but we see his right arm, and it is extended like it's going somewhere. The purpose of your arm is to get your hand somewhere so that you can perform some task with it. He is extending his arm towards the Shooter. He's not extending it towards Oswald. He's too far away from Oswald. So, what is he trying to accomplish with the Shooter? Is he reaching for the Shooter's gun? But, he's a long way from it. You can see where the gun is, and his arm could never reach it without relocating his body.

So, there's no point to him reaching for the gun with his arm. He couldn't reach it. He needs to move his whole body to have any chance of getting the gun. But, he's not even trying to move. He's stationary. And he's devoting half his energy to smoking the cigar. So, since he can't possibly reach the gun, what the hell is he reaching for, which is to say, what the hell is he doing?

And why was this photo ever accepted as legitimate when it is nonsensical?

The truth is that there is no satisfactory explanation for what he's doing. There is no explanation that common sense won't shoot down. There is absolutely nothing that can rationally explain this.

So, what is going with it? How did this photo come to look like this?

Well first, Leonid does not look like Blackie, so he must have been somebody else. This photo was not taken at the Garage Spectacle that was televised at 11:20. If it were taken then, then we'd be looking at the real Blackie because he was there then.

When you read the testimony of Blackie Harrison, he said he was one of the detectives who wrestled Ruby into the jail office and took him upstairs to the 5th floor jail. However, I think the reality was that Blackie was involved in taking the real Ruby upstairs when he was apprehended. This was well before the Spectacle. And while Blackie was doing that, the others were busy taking the Jackson photo in the garage. They didn't have Blackie when they took the photo, so they used someone else instead. I think it's very possible, even likely, that they used James Hosty. Since the photo was taken before the Spectacle, it means that the idea of having him smoke a cigar was thought of beforehand.

I think those arrogant fools thought that, crude as the photo is, that people would believe that that was Blackie Harrison reaching for Ruby's gun, and trying to take it away from him while smoking a cigar. And I think they thought that if they made "smoking a cigar while trying to subdue a violent offender" Blackie's calling card, then all they had to do was get him to smoke a cigar while pretending to subdue Bookhout at the Spectacle, and people would make the association. Voila: he's Blackie!

So, were there no smart people at all in 1963? Was everyone in this country a blithering idiot? I don't believe that. But, here's what I do believe:

The State is a religion, and like all religions, it has dogmas. The official story of the JFK assassination, as well as the official story of the Oswald assassination, instantly became dogmas. And like in any religion, the members are trained to accept the dogmas of the religion. And that Jackson photo instantly became a sacred dogma. It showed Ruby shooting Oswald, and you accepted it without question because you were a loyal American. It was a time of national crisis. Everyone had to pull together. So, if the government, including its media arm, which is the mainstream media, said that this photo captured Jack Ruby shooting Lee Harvey Oswald. the minds of loyal Americans accepted it without question and witout any critical thinking. NO ONE LOOKED AT THE PHOTO CRITICALLY. You weren't supposed to look at it critically. You were supposed to be a good loyal obedient sheep.

So, even if you were smart overall, say because you were an engineer or an airline pilot, you didn't look at this photo with your brain working. The Jackson photo is a visual dogma, and people accept dogmas, including visual dogmas, without question.

But, the fact is: the photo is a monstrosity; it isn't real. And if you accept it today, in 2023, and especially after what I have told you, then that's on you. I'm not going to blame the rotten culture for that. Now, after what I've shown you, you should know better. You should snap out of the trance if you were in one.

The official story of the JFK assassination, as well as the official story of the Oswald assassination, are lies, State lies. So, now that you know that, what are you going to do about it? Whose side are you going to be on?

 This is weird. When you watch the KRLD footage, when you first see Blackie Harrison, it's at the 5 second mark, and he's got his hand on the cigar. We don't know how long he had his hand on it before that. Then, at the 6 second mark, though he's reaching for the Shooter, he's still got his hand on the cigar. At 7 seconds, his left hand is still preoccupied with the cigar. At 8 second, it is still preoccupied with the cigar. And at 9 seconds, it is still preoccupied with the cigar. Finally, at 10 seconds, he lets go of the cigar and uses two hands against the offender.

But, why did he need to hold the cigar for 5 seconds during a fight? How could he do that? Doesn't it seem like human nature would make him forget about the cigar and just concentrate on the fight? How could he be so cigar-focused at a time like that?

He couldn't possibly be so cigar-focused at a time like that. So, here's what I think happened: Blackie wasn't there for the Jackson photo-shoot. He was busy getting the real Jack Ruby squared away on the 5th floor. But, when he came back, they told him that they used Hosty as a surrogate for him, and that they had him holding a cigar as he reached for the "Ruby." So, in order to be consistent with that, they told him to hold his cigar and make a big deal of it in the beginning. And so he did.

Now, if you are going to dispute that, you have to explain how a cop who was struggling with a violent criminal could do it with just one hand for 5 seconds because he was busy holding his cigar with his other hand.

This collage is by Dennis Cimino, his explanation for why the guy on the stretcher in what is supposed to be the final living image of Oswald is not him.  

First, here is the whole image.

And here is Dennis' analysis:

RC: We have not seen a real image of Oswald at Parkland Hospital. Not one of them is real. 

 Here is a comparison of what one of the films captured in the split-second after the shot to what the Jackson photo captured. Notice that in the film, the Shooter is not in front of Oswald; he is off to the side. Notice that Oswald has not slapped his hand to his chest. Notice that Leavelle is completely behind Oswald. It's a completely different arrangement. They were two separate events.

 This photo is not real. Supposedly, it was taken just a split-second after the shot. Then, why isn't everyone startled? Not only is everyone not startled; no one is startled.

As for Oswald, he has supposedly reacted to being shot in the chest by slapping his left arm to his chest. But, no one does that in real life. It only happens when children are playing; or even when adults are playing, such as when David Carridine was playing with his daughter in Kill Bill. I put the image of him pretending to be shot in the lower right corner, slapping his arm to his chest. "You got me!"

This photo can't possibly be real. People don't calmly continue smoking cigars after a gunshot. People don't continue clasping their hands like a Jehovah's Witness at the door after a gunshot.

It was staged beforehand. There was no shot, no blood, and no trauma. So, they had to cover up that area with arms akimbo. "Nothing to see here, folks, because it's all covered up. But, take our word for it: he's been shot."

He wasn't shot. It's completely fake. It's a staged photo that was taken at a photo-shoot after they cleared the garage at 9:30 AM. And they didn't let people back into the garage until 10 minutes before the Spectacle.

And also during that time, the real Ruby showed up, whom they grabbed and hustled up to the 5th floor Jail. That's where he was, stripped to his underwear, during the televised spectacle.

That is really what happened. I kid you not.

 We have zero legitimate images of Oswald at Parkland Hospital. Every single one is fake. The collage below is by Dennis Cimino. The man on the gurney is supposed to be Oswald, but he isn't. I don't know who he was, but he wasn't Oswald. Oswald was already dead. It was shot at a reenactment whose purpose was to create phony footage of Oswald arriving at Parkland Hospital.