Rachel White Funny. How that's Rubys chin..

1

Manage

LikeShow more reactions

 · Reply · 3h

Ralph Cinque You don't know how it works, Rachel. It's not what you think matches, it's what you know doesn't match. And it just takes one, what I call a deal breaker. His nose alone is a deal breaker: very narrow and aquiline on the right and more spread and bulbous on the left.  And that settles it, Rachel. You are ridiculing yourself if you say another word. He's not Ruby.

Richard Hooke is all excited about the likeness of the collars between the one on the far left and the one next to it, but how unlikely is it for a shirt to behave that way? And since James Bookhout on the left was masquerading as Jack Ruby, why wouldn't he wear a similar shirt? While you're looking at this collage, note that Ruby in November 63 seems to have a lot more hair than he did a few months later in March 64. Did he really lost that much hair? No. They doctored the earlier image to hide how bald he was, probably because of the image on the far left, and even the other images because in the Jackson photo, the shooter seems to have very thick hair in back- too thick to be as bald as Ruby actually was. And that began a permanent campaign of falsifying Ruby's hair which goes on to this day.

Juliette de la Bretoniere In my view, this is a suspicious image all together; the shooters’ face is blurred which is too much of a coincidence, so the photo could have been messed with. Then, the people look to have been ‘caught in the act’. Like in: ‘We’re posing out of politeness, but actually... we dón’t like to be photographed right now!

That is very well put, Juliette. Look at Detective Hall on the right, who seems much more concerned with the camera than he is with "Ruby" behind him. Remember that struggle in the garage? When it took a dozen large policemen to contain the mighty "Jack Ruby"? No worries any more. It's all friendly between them now. You might even think that they're working together. There isn't that much accord in my family photos. And yes, the image of the shooter is weirdly blurry, while the images of Boyd and Hall are not. And just to discount the shooter's blurriness, they went ahead and blurred up Sims, in back, even more. He looks like a ghost. I thought that blur was the characteristic of the photo overall. Since when can you have blurry parts and crisp parts in the same photo? I know it's possible when you have a moving object and a still object in the same photo, but here, it's just the opposite because, if anything, Hall looks like he's on the move, while "Ruby" looks as still as a lump on a log.  They look caught all right. They look guilty as sin. And what they are guilty of is hiding with James Bookhout who was masquerading as Jack Ruby.  Don't you get it that this was the forbidden image? The one that was never supposed to be seen? And that is exactly why it was only shown once, in the Fred Rheinstein retrospective. And he wasn't trying to do the truth movement a favor. On the contrary, he was trying to do just the opposite- keep the lie going. But, somehow this image got put in there, probably because some witless, brainless editor chose to put it in. It wasn't necessarily Fred himself. Who knows who it was, but he's the guy who, unwittingly, did the JFK truth movement a huge favor. 

That guy isn't Ruby. Look how bulbous Ruby's nose was, in comparison. Look how long his forehead was, in comparison. Compare their hair. These are different men.

This, the Garage Shooter of Lee Harvey Oswald, is not the face of Jack Ruby. It is a rounder face; a shorter face, a narrower nose, etc. But, putting that aside, try to answer this: Why isn't this image the mostly commonly seen image of him? It is the ONLY image of the shooter's face, so why don't we see it more often? Why do images of the back of the shooter's head get more air time than this? Why isn't this, the only image of his face, the most common image we see? The answer is that this was only shown by accident. It appeared in the Fred Rhinestein documentary "The Killing of Lee Harvey Oswald" which was made in 1993, 30 years later. But, that is the only place, and the only time it has ever been seen. And that's how I got it. But why wouldn't the image of the man's face not be the most prolific image of him? Since this image only occurred in Rhinestein's retrospective and nowhere else and no time else, you might as well say that, statistically speaking, it hasn't been seen at all. But, it makes no sense. This should be the go-to image of the shooter of Lee Harvey Oswald instead of all those obscure hat-covered images. So, why isn't it? It's because it's not the face of Jack Ruby. That is definitely not Ruby. They don't even look like they could be related. That is FBI Agent James Bookhout, and the match to Bookhout's earlier images is spot-on- if you extrapolate for the passage of time and the aging process. 

So, the plain truth is that this image slipped through the cracks. It was never supposed to be shown. It is a smoking gun. The truth is that the entire story of that horrible weekend is a lie- including the part about Ruby shooting Oswald. 

Hello,

I noticed something in the Three Shots That Changed America footage featuring ‘Lovelady’.

If you look closely when the cops enter the room you can see the fronts of all of the lockers on the back wall. No one is sitting there.

Note the lowest vent you can see on the lockers.

‘Lovelady’ only appears after linebacker moves out of frame, and he obscures the lockers well above the lowest vent seen in the first frames.

Linebacker was used as a splice-point because he conveniently blocked the entire frame. It’s a transitional technique used in film all the time to seamlessly and artfully change scenes.

I didn’t see this noted in the presentation.

Hope this helps

Best,

J

A person who is physically violent usually has a violent personality. He tends to be aggressive, combative, explosive, and abusive, just as matter of course. But, we got to witness Jack Ruby for three years, and I, personally, have never seen a more docile person. When someone corrected him, he never argued; he would just accept it. He never lost his temper. Violent people tend to lose their temper. One time in front of a judge, WHEN HIS LAWYER WAS TRYING TO CONVINCE THE JUDGE NOT TO LET HIM SPEAK BECAUSE HE WAS OUT OF HIS MIND, Ruby got a little irate with his lawyer. But, just imagine how you would react if YOUR lawyer did that. Ruby was gentle about it compared to how I would be. The first words out of my mouth to that lawyer would be, "You're fired!" But, Ruby didn't even say it in a nice way. Ruby was soft. He wasn't putting on an act for three years. It was his nature. The idea that he was killing people and throwing people down the stairs, male and female, is ridiculous. He was not aggressive. I'm aggressive. I know what it's like to be aggressive. So, you can take it from an aggressive guy that he was not aggressive. He was innocent. He didn't kill Oswald, and he didn't have it in him to kill Oswald. Jack Ruby was so non-aggressive, that he didn't even get aggressive when police told him he shot Oswald even though he had no memory and no awareness and no intention of doing it. The average person would have said, "What??? You are out of your mind! I did NOT shoot him. You are a fucking liar. You all are. I don't know what the hell this is about. I don't know why you are accusing me. But, if you think you are going to get me to admit it, you are insane. I know what I did and didn't do, and I did not shoot him."

But, Jack Ruby was so non-aggressive, he couldn't even defend himself when he was accused of a heinous act that he didn't do. He was SO SUBMISSIVE that he believed it just because his beloved Dallas Police told him so. Jack Ruby was spineless. He had no back bone. The idea that he could shoot anybody is preposterous. He'd be the last man on Earth who could.

Jack Ruby showed up early at the basement. There was no shot. They just jumped him and dragged him upstairs. Then they told him he shot Oswald, and he didn't have personal, constitutional foundation to fight them. I wish I could have given him some of mine.