Juliette de la Bretoniere We cannot know whether this man was Ruby. But why would this man and the cops be in this together? Why would the DP ruin its reputation by letting the accused get shot in their own building? That doesn't make sense. The rule of law dictates that an accused should live in order to get a trial and let the public decide. So, if this was a set up, then it wasn't by the DP' doing. Not under their own roof. Unless there were darker forces ruling.

Like · Reply · 1 · 1 hr

Ralph Cinque I definitely think there were darker forces dictating it, but the Dallas Police went along with it. Why? It may have been because of one thing: Tippit. Cops don't like it when someone kills one of their own. Of course, Oswald didn't kill Tippit, but they believed he did. To this day, Jim Leavelle travels around the country talking about how he joked with Oswald and called him by his first name. Warm and folksy like. But, who does that with a double murderer? But, if Leavelle was leading him into a trap, he might have wanted to cover it up and still cover it up. The twisted friendliness, as in, "I hope he's as good a shot as you are, Lee." was overkill, in my opinion.

I believe I may have located the point where the new forehead was plopped down on top of Oswald. I pointed a white arrow to it.

You'll see why when I enlarge it.

Notice that above that line it looks mottled; below it, the skin looks smooth. There is a definite difference in the greyscale there. Notice that there is a slight zig-zag effect at that point, where it seems slightly misaligned, with the superior piece slightly recessed in relation to the inferior piece on our right. Notice also that you see the same kind of mottled forehead in the source photo of Young Lovelady.

I think there is an excellent chance that that is where the dividing line is between Dooman being Oswald and Doorman being Lovelady. So, below that line, he's Oswald; above that line he's Lovelady, Young Lovelady.

Read this very eloquent and insightful statement by French President Charles DeGaulle spoken shortly after JFK's funeral.

“What happened to Kennedy is what nearly happened to me. His story is the same as mine …. The security forces were in cahoots with the extremists …. But you’ll see. All of them together will observe the law of silence. They will close ranks. They’ll do everything to stifle any scandal. They will throw Noah’s cloak over these shameful deeds. In order not to lose face in front of the whole world. In order to not risk unleashing riots in the United States. In order to preserve the union and to avoid a new civil war. In order to not ask themselves questions. They don’t want to know. They don’t want to find out. They won’t allow themselves to find out.”

Juliette de la Bretoniere I agree with you, we cannot KNOW whether the man who shot Oswald was really Jack Ruby. No photograph or film footage by television reporters that we know of, proves this. However, there's one thing I'd like to say about the extra pair of hand cuffs you believe should have been there. The only people who were allowed to be in the basement, were police officers and television people. No other persons were allowed to be there, on orders of chief Curry. So, there wasn't any reason to have with them an extra pair of hand cuffs, since they didn't expect to make an arrest.

Like · Reply · 16 hrs

Ralph Cinque That's an interesting argument, Juliette. But, it does seem like amidst all those policeman that someone should have had a pair of handcuffs to put on "Ruby." And, it seems that someone would have called for a pair. "Who has handcuffs?" "We need handcuffs". Remember that Oswald was, supposedly, in grave danger. They were leading him to an armored Brinks truck. So, in that situation, why wouldn't you be prepared with handcuff/s in case something broke out? So, though I hear you, and I appreciate that you got me thinking about it, I don't think it justifies what we see: which is a mob of police wrestling a guy into a building without stopping to cuff him. And I'll tell you furthermore that I think what would happen in that situation- if cuffs weren't immediately available- is that they would push him down to the ground and just hold him there- face down with his hands behind his back, if necessary a boot to his neck- until someone showed up with cuffs. The whole idea of wrestling him into the building is weird and inexplicable. And how did they even know to do it? We never heard anyone say anything, like "Let's drag him inside." They all just did it. They all just did it.

This is an absolutely magnificent collage. What makes it so magnificent? I'll tell you. But first, see if you can read my mind. What makes this particular collage so outstanding? 

OK, have you studied it? Even if you are an enemy of mine, try to figure to out what I'm seeing, what I'm noticing. Treat it like a game. OK, now I'm going to tell you.

First, the image of Oswald is so clear and sharp. Most of the images of him are not as good as this, not even close. Of course, we are still stuck with the same, one and only image of Doorman. But, why not use the best image of Oswald that we can? It makes sense. 

And second, the angle is about the same. We are seeing both faces from the left, where the camera is capturing the right ear and the right side of the face but is mostly missing the left ear. On Doorman we are not seeing his left ear at all. In fact, there is a lot of distortion on the left margin of his face, which is on our right. But, that's the image we're stuck with; we have to use it; and there is no alternative. And as always, I have to advise you to ignore the hair and the top of the head. Do not include them in the comparison because they were altered on Doorman. 

But, what we wind up with between them is a PERFECT correlation of the eyes, nose, mouth, chin, and right ear. 

On the left, that is Oswald. Lee Harvey Oswald. And it pure denialism to deny it any longer. 

It's a new month, October. So, let's start it off with a song. This is a classic by Harold Arlen. 

Not too many people remember his name, but they remember his songs. Over the Rainbow has been heralded by musicologists as one of the greatest songs of all time. Stormy Weather. Let's Fall In Love.  Come On, Come on Get Happy. Come Rain Or Come Shine. 

The Man That Got Away, which was written for Judy Garland and whose performance of it in A Star Is Born, her comeback movie, is considered by many to be the greatest song performance in film history, and that includes me.  And, it was written by Harold Arlen. 

But then, at a much lower level of musicality, there is me performing another great Harold Arlen song, also a favorite of Judy Garland's, Last Night When We Were Young. It's from 1935.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG8-nvnglg4&feature=youtu.be

Backes is dealing with his ridiculous and contradictory attitude towards the Dallas Police about as well as Donald Trump is handling the Alicia Machado fiasco: meaning that he is making it worse for himself every time he opens his mouth or tweets his tweet.

Backes: it was impossible for the Dallas Police to fake Oswald's bus and cab ride. It is inconceivable that the had the time or inclination to do it. 

And, Stupid Backes acts as though the majority of the "JFK community" agrees with him. First, there isn't a single lonenutter who says they were faked. Every single one of them says that the rides were real. So, what percent of the "community" is that? I don't honestly know, but let's say it's 50%. And among the remaining 50% who are CTs, it doesn't matter how many believe the rides were real because any amount at all added to the LNs makes it a majority. So, the majority of the JFK community believes the bus and cab rides were real. 

But, you would never know that from reading Backes. He says that the bus and cab rides aren't taken as seriously as I take them. Are you serious? Seriously? It's either/or, Backes. Either you think they happened, or you think they didn't, and "as seriously" has no relevance. 

Backes keeps saying that the "public transportation story is false" but what does he say happened instead? He's not a Roger Craig guy, but what he has said is that some unknown person drove up in some unknown car and yelled at Oswald, "Hey, Oswald! Get in the fucking car!" And they drove off. What does he base it on from the evidence pool? Absolutely nothing. It's just like his other shit: the Loveladys providing photos to the HSCA; Oswald being an anti-Castro agitator in New Orleans; he says things based on no evidence at all. 

And he has the nerve to call me a liar? 

Why don't you take a poll among your friends, Backes? Ask Bud, Robin, Pink, and Klip. I bet you they don't even support your ridiculous story that the Dallas Police invented Oswald's bus and cab rides.

Who originated the plot to claim that Oswald rode a bus and cab? It had to start as an idea in someone's mind. Right? So, who would that have been? 

Look, Backes, I know you're stupid, but just try to grasp an elementary concept: You claim that Dallas Police knew that there was never going to be a trial because Oswald was going to be killed. OK, fine. But, if they knew he was going to be killed, doesn't that mean that they had to know that "Ruby" was going to kill him? Because: Ruby killing Oswald WAS the plan by which Oswald was going to be killed. Wasn't it? So, how could they have been innocent when it happened? 

But, even if you are right that Dallas police detectives Fritz, Simms, and Boyd knew that Oswald was going to be killed, they couldn't actually know it. By that, I mean that all they could have known is that an attempt to kill Oswald would be made. They couldn't know in advance whether it would succeed. And if it didn't succeed, it's not at though they could try again. How many attempts on a prisoner's life can you let happen before it looks just plain comical? If the first attempt had failed; say Oswald survived the surgery and recovered; wouldn't he have been safe after that? How could they expect the American public to believe it if another attack on him got through police defenses? So, they were only going to get one shot at killing Oswald. Well, the CIA took a lot of shots at killing Castro, and here it is 2016, almost 2017, and Fidel Castro is still alive. He's still kicking. So, there was no guarantee that Oswald would be killed in an assassination attempt. Therefore, it was extremely risky for them to frame him for a phony bus and cab ride, since he could still live to tell the tale of what he really did instead and expose their malfeasance. So, why would they take such a chance? IT IS RIDICULOUS, BACKES!   

Backes says that Dallas Police wrote their reports about what Oswald said after he was dead. But, they submitted his bus transfer ticket, which they claimed to find on his person, into evidence at 4:00 on that Friday afternoon, and THEY COULDN'T TAKE IT BACK, NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENED. And keep in mind that something could have surfaced which proved that Oswald did something else EVEN AFTER HE WAS DEAD. For instance, the mystery person whom you claim picked him up, could have come forward, and provided a convincing tale of the true odyssey. How would they explain the bus transfer ticket then? So, the risk was still there even if they had absolute certainty that Oswald would be dead, and they had no such certainty.

Oswald rode the bus and cab, Backes. And you take a magic carpet ride every time you venture into JFK-land.