How come no recoil after Ruby fired?

[Ralph Cinque]

If he shot a real bullet, and with just one hand and in a mobile,
flexible, unplanted state, he would have experienced a lot of recoil. But,
if he shot a blank, there wouldn't be any. Now watch this:

Ian Greenhalgh had a brilliant idea: check for Ruby's recoil. He shot with
just one hand. People usually shoot that gun with two hands and with their
arms extended- to get stable. It's how I do it with my Smith and Wesson
38- and it's still got a lot of kick. I can only imagine how much kick it
would have with one hand. Well, watch the footage and see if you can see
any kick on "Ruby".

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2016/06/ian-greenhalgh-who-is-british-columnist.html

[BT George]

So where are you going with this Ralph?

Is it your position that someone *else* shot Oswald? If so, why the
"frame up" on Ruby and how did they get all the reporters down there to go
along with the frame up?

Or are you saying Ruby shot him, but not this way? If not, why not?

[bigdog]

So where are you going with this Ralph. Are you saying Oswald faked his
own death with the cooperation of the DPD, Jack Ruby, the news media
covering the transfer, and the ER staff at Parkland. What would be the
purpose Ralph?

Of course this should be good news to you since you think he is innocent.
He didn't really die and he escaped prosecution. I guess you can shut down
the OIC now. Your work is done.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/6/2016 6:25 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> If he shot a real bullet, and with just one hand and in a mobile,
> flexible, unplanted state, he would have experienced a lot of recoil. But,
> if he shot a blank, there wouldn't be any. Now watch this:
>
> Ian Greenhalgh had a brilliant idea: check for Ruby's recoil. He shot with
> just one hand. People usually shoot that gun with two hands and with their

Stupid. He doesn't know what he's talking about.

[Ralph Cinque]

Either you two are the same guy or you're drones of each other.

First, where I'm going with it is quite secondary. The primary thing is
that there was no recoil. So, he must have shot a blank.

That holds no matter where I'm going. A is A.

But, where I'm going is that the whole thing was a hoax. It was a
made-for-tv spectacle. Oswald was definitely killed- just not there and
then.

And have you contemplated Oswald's movements after he got shot? They don't
make sense. First, he starts falling forward, but then, for some reason,
he reverses direction and starts veering backwards and even rises up on
his toes. That's after having his aorta and vena cava severed,
supposedly.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2016/06/lets-compare-falls-of-tim-mccarthy-and.html


Also, he does an awful lot of vocalizing for a guy who has had the
containment of his entire circulatory system dashed. It's amazing what you
can do without blood.

[Jason Burke]

I thought I saw Ozzie with Elvis last time I was in Ypsilanti.

Since Ralph's work is now done, can we expect some more comic books from
him?

[tims...@gmail.com]

QUOTE ON:

I'm satisfied that there is no sign of recoil.

QUOTE OFF

You're satisfied, eh?

Sure reckon your hero Oswald felt a bit of RECOIL as Ruby's bullet
destroyed his guts.

Case CLOSED!

Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X *marks* the spot where <snicker> SENIOR OIC Member Mark Lane LIED!

Stop the LIES! Oswald INSIDE!! Disband the OIC!!!

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 11:28:06 AM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> Either you two are the same guy or you're drones of each other.
>
> First, where I'm going with it is quite secondary. The primary thing is
> that there was no recoil. So, he must have shot a blank.
>
> That holds no matter where I'm going. A is A.
>
> But, where I'm going is that the whole thing was a hoax. It was a
> made-for-tv spectacle. Oswald was definitely killed- just not there and
> then.
>

So they faked killing him and then took him somewhere and killed him for
real. It looks like Oswald went along with the first part. Did he
cooperate with the second part.

> And have you contemplated Oswald's movements after he got shot? They don't
> make sense. First, he starts falling forward, but then, for some reason,
> he reverses direction and starts veering backwards and even rises up on
> his toes. That's after having his aorta and vena cava severed,
> supposedly.
>

So Oswald was part of the conspiracy to frame Oswald. I'm starting to
follow this and that has me worried.

> http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2016/06/lets-compare-falls-of-tim-mccarthy-and.html
>
>
> Also, he does an awful lot of vocalizing for a guy who has had the
> containment of his entire circulatory system dashed. It's amazing what you
> can do without blood.

Well the audio wasn't real clear but I thought I heard him say
"AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH".

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/8/2016 11:28 AM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> Either you two are the same guy or you're drones of each other.
>

Who? We don't know what you are talking about. Neither do you.

> First, where I'm going with it is quite secondary. The primary thing is
> that there was no recoil. So, he must have shot a blank.
>

Silly. You've never shot a blank in real life, although you are always
shooting blanks here.

> That holds no matter where I'm going. A is A.
>
> But, where I'm going is that the whole thing was a hoax. It was a
> made-for-tv spectacle. Oswald was definitely killed- just not there and
> then.
>

Why don't you just claim that the whole assassination was staged and JFK
is still alive and well and living in retirement in Miami?

> And have you contemplated Oswald's movements after he got shot? They don't
> make sense. First, he starts falling forward, but then, for some reason,

You don't make any sense. You've never been in the real world.

> he reverses direction and starts veering backwards and even rises up on
> his toes. That's after having his aorta and vena cava severed,
> supposedly.
>
> http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2016/06/lets-compare-falls-of-tim-mccarthy-and.html
>
>
> Also, he does an awful lot of vocalizing for a guy who has had the
> containment of his entire circulatory system dashed. It's amazing what you
> can do without blood.
>

Zombies can't talk. That's how you can tell they're Zombies.

[Ace Kefford]

Just Ruby's luck. One of this crackpot inventions or novelties finally
came to fruition, the recoil-less gun, and he has to go and shoot Oswald
and lose out on the market for that product. The guy was snakebitten.

[Steve Barber]

On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 11:28:06 AM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:

Ralph, admit it. You make bizarre posts strictly for attention. No one
could come up with the things you say unless.

[Ralph Cinque]

We have the video. We can see what happened. That gun should have jumped,
but it didn't. It doesn't matter to you because the truth doesn't matter
to you.

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

It's kinda like watching someone take a bowel movement, iddnit?

[BT George]

On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 10:28:06 AM UTC-5, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> Either you two are the same guy or you're drones of each other.
>

Yes. Logical questions often bring out "drone-like" responses from people
enamored with logic.

> First, where I'm going with it is quite secondary. The primary thing is
> that there was no recoil. So, he must have shot a blank.
>
> That holds no matter where I'm going. A is A.
>

Sure it matters. You see what *you* think is an anomaly and others who
don't see it, wonder why it would even occur to you that someone would
want/need to fake the picture.

> But, where I'm going is that the whole thing was a hoax. It was a
> made-for-tv spectacle. Oswald was definitely killed- just not there and
> then.
>

Good. So you think that somehow it matters to the plot when and where
Oswald gets it. Any ideas *why* that matter? Any opinion on them
choosing to fake a scene that was supposed to take place in the midst of
100's of reporters?

Don't you think that would complicate things by bringing them into the
plot, or hoping that no one complains that things are being shown to the
public that didn't happen?

> And have you contemplated Oswald's movements after he got shot? They don't
> make sense. First, he starts falling forward, but then, for some reason,
> he reverses direction and starts veering backwards and even rises up on
> his toes. That's after having his aorta and vena cava severed,
> supposedly.
>
> http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2016/06/lets-compare-falls-of-tim-mccarthy-and.html
>
>
> Also, he does an awful lot of vocalizing for a guy who has had the
> containment of his entire circulatory system dashed. It's amazing what you
> can do without blood.

Crying out "Awwahhhhhhh!" in the instant after being shot is the only
clear vocalization I remember. Doesn't sound like anything excessive to
me. But also, has it ever occurred to you that there are a lot doctors
that have heard about Oswald's injuries and seen that news footage, yet
there's been no public outcry among them that something is wrong here?
These things don't happen in a vacuum you know.

[Anthony Marsh]

They's had recoil-less guns before, but not that small.
Ralph makes up bizarre theories just to impress the gullible.

[donald willis]

Lots of amusing fluff here, but no one seems to have addressed the basic
point. Certainly, we have some gun aficionados on the newsgroup who can
address the recoil question. (Walt C, where are you?) But no point going
further, in any direction, until the technical issue is addressed....

dcw

[Steve Barber]

Provide, if you would, the link to the video that you have?

[Anthony Marsh]

Nonsense. You know nothing about guns.

[bigdog]

On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 10:15:52 AM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 10:28:06 AM UTC-5, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> > Either you two are the same guy or you're drones of each other.
> >
>
> Yes. Logical questions often bring out "drone-like" responses from people
> enamored with logic.
>

Do you suppose he meant "clones of each other"?

[Ralph Cinque]

You are wrong, BS George. In this video, you can hear Oswald's
vocalizations. that's plural. The first is at 25:16, the second is at
25:17; the 3rd is at 25:18. Then there are more faint ones after that
which continue to 25:20.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1sKHbr4hL8

[Jason Burke]

Don't give him any ideas...

[Bud]

Where is the video of Ruby shooting Oswald showing no recoil?

[Anthony Marsh]

Ok, since you don't have the video and don't know how to Google
anything. Try Bing instead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pv_viK8qOfw

[Steve Barber]

I have examined all of the footage showing Ruby shooting Oswald. Guess
what? None of the films show the gun because of either distance or blur.
Not a single piece of moving film captures the gun clearly enough to make
such a claim that there is no recoil of the gun, unless, of course, some
new film has surfaced.

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

Raff* sure does a lot of vocalizing, huh?

[Anthony Marsh]

what do mean 'kinda like"? Call it for what it is.
Think of it as recycling. Every citizen must do their duty to recycle.

[Anthony Marsh]

We know that. Don't be a Grammar Nazi.
Did you see that movie where they made clones of Hitler?

[Bud]

This is the video that Ralph linked to on his website that he claims
proves his point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYVlyuc5TK4

Very dark (except when flash bulbs are going off), and the gun is
obscured further by Oswald`s dark sweater.

I paused it at 1:45. It looks like Ruby brings the gun up with both
hands. I hit the arrow to play and hit the pause alternately to slow it
down further. A flashbulb, then right after the picture blurs from the
startle reaction to the shot. At 1:46 to 1:47 Ruby`s hand goes up, whether
this is recoil it is hard to say. Typical conspiracy hobbyist claim the
evidence doesn`t really support.

[Steve Barber]

Tony, don't be a dumb ass!! I have examined each and every one of the
videos of Ruby shooting O, and none of them are clear or bright enough to
show the gun! I want Ralph to provide the link to whatever video he is
using to make such a claim. To hell with Bing. I use DuckDuckGo!

[Steve Barber]

He makes three distinct sounds. "AYYYYYYYY! Oh... oh."

[Ralph Cinque]

Barber, we can see "Ruby's" hand, and the position of his hand would have
changed if the gun recoiled. There isn't the slightest indication of any
movement there. This is the best film to watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYVlyuc5TK4

[Ralph Cinque]

How dare you say that "Ruby" brought the gun up with both hands? He did
not.

http://tinypic.com/r/2rw83vd/9

Typical official apologist who Likes Inventing Erroneous Stuff.

[Anthony Marsh]

Not to blow your cover, but are you saying that you can see THROUGH
Ruby's body to actually see the gun. He was pretty heavy you know.
But in general you should not even dignify his nonsense by replying to
it with logic.

[BT George]

Look Cinque, don't start in on my name. I've not stooped to calling you
"Raff" or made fun of your name in any way---but that could change if you
insist on ad hominem.

Now I'll ask it again. *How* and *why* do you think they would fake
Oswald's death in a scene involving dozens, if not 100's of reporters?

Also, how did newsmen take two still shots in the instant before and after
Oswald was shot, in an event you are insisting never happened? And since
you need plotters at the networks who took the footage too, I've got to
ask just how many civilian conspirators you think were in on the plot with
the authorities?

And finally, if "they" could fake all this, what basis have you to believe
the *entire* assassination wasn't faked? (Maybe Kennedy just wanted to
step down and go down in history as a heroic martyr?). Heck. For that
matter, maybe *everything* including Oswald and JFK never really existed
and were faked too!

[David Von Pein]

What on Earth are you suggesting anyway, Cinque? That Oswald just
PRETENDED to get shot by Ruby? Is Oswald faking his own injuries on
national TV when we see him moan and crumple to the basement floor?

I think Ralph has set a new record for "The Most Bizarre Conspiracy
Theories Spouted By A Single Individual".

I think the number of such theories must have reached triple digits by
now.

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

Ralph draws his gun with both hands, uh………..

[bigdog]

There are no bad films of Oswald getting shot. I always enjoy watching him
get his from whatever angle is being shown. The only disappointing thing
is by the time they wheeled him to the ambulance he appears to have lost
consciousness and isn't suffering nearly enough.

Thank you again, Jack Ruby.

[Steve Barber]

On Sunday, June 12, 2016 at 7:40:30 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:

Nonsense. You are "seeing" things, Ralph. None of the films in the YT
video you shared the link to show any detail whatsoever of Ruby's "hand".
And, speaking of "Typical official apologist who Likes Inventing Erroneous
Stuff.", you wrote the book, Ralph.

[Anthony Marsh]

Wrong. You know nothing about guns.

Ed, in the still photo you posted, Ruby's left hand is back farther than
his right hand. I thought you said he used both hands.
So, do you mean he used his left hand for balance?
Not holding the gun?

[Anthony Marsh]

I thought the WC defender held that distinction. Magic Bullet, AR-15,
Magic Twig, Magic traffic light.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/13/2016 5:26 PM, BT George wrote:
> Look Cinque, don't start in on my name. I've not stooped to calling you
> "Raff" or made fun of your name in any way---but that could change if you
> insist on ad hominem.
>
> Now I'll ask it again. *How* and *why* do you think they would fake
> Oswald's death in a scene involving dozens, if not 100's of reporters?
>

Of course we know that's not a serious question. It's just kook baiting.
I can tell you some of the kook theories I have heard.
They could fake it with a blank or fake it by shooting a standin.
The idea might be that Oswald was their man and they didn't want to kill
the real Oswald. Or they were afraid the public would keep asking
questions and looking for conspiracy, so killing the suspect would kill
the questions.

> Also, how did newsmen take two still shots in the instant before and after
> Oswald was shot, in an event you are insisting never happened? And since

Jeez, why didn't any newsman take a photo at the exact instant DURING?
Must be a cover-up, eh? Why didn't Bob Jackson take a photo of the
shooter firing from the window? Must be a cover-up, eh? Maybe he wanted
someone else to get the Pulitzer Prize.

> you need plotters at the networks who took the footage too, I've got to
> ask just how many civilian conspirators you think were in on the plot with
> the authorities?
>

Why? The kooks can claim that they had fake newsmen and fake networks as
well. You are not giving them credit for extreme kookiness.

> And finally, if "they" could fake all this, what basis have you to believe
> the *entire* assassination wasn't faked? (Maybe Kennedy just wanted to
> step down and go down in history as a heroic martyr?). Heck. For that

Don't you ever watch those science fiction movies?
In one he was forced to retire to Florida. In another he had already
been poisoned (inside job) so the shooting was just to cover up that
they had already kill him and blame it on the Commies.
You got to try harder!

> matter, maybe *everything* including Oswald and JFK never really existed
> and were faked too!
>

Well, you can't prove that you exist.

[bigdog]

I don't know. There is some stiff competition for that honor.

[Ralph Cinque]

Well, you're spewing BS BT, so the name fits. And if you want to start
piling on "what ifs" and "what about that" questions, I've got a few of my
own.

How come not one speck of blood? How come the cameras didn't capture them
moving Oswald into the building? It was a horrendous thing to do if he was
shot because you should never move an abdominal gunshot victim unless you
absolutely have to, and only if medical help is waiting where you're
taking him. But, they just moved him from the ground outside to the floor
inside.

Furthermore, anyone with sense knows that if you are forced to move the
victim, that you don't just pick him up like a sack of potatoes; you get a
firm surface that you can gently slide him on. You get a board or you take
down a door. And then you scoot him on it as gently as possible and then
just pick the thing up. How did they do it? One guy grabbed the arms and
another guy grabbed the legs? That's a sure way to increase the bleeding.
Don't cops know that?

So, what was the purpose of moving Oswald? How did they do it? Why did
they do it so fast? How come in 52 years they have never even described
how they did it?

How come all these cops didn't neutralize "Ruby" by cuffing him before
dancing him into the building? When has that ever been done before or
since in police annals? Cops don't move an aggressive combative person
anywhere until they get him completely pacified. That means handcuffs. So,
why didn't they cuff him, right there in plain view?

These are much more compelling questions than the ones that you asked.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/13/2016 9:35 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Sunday, June 12, 2016 at 7:40:30 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>> Barber, we can see "Ruby's" hand, and the position of his hand would have
>> changed if the gun recoiled. There isn't the slightest indication of any
>> movement there. This is the best film to watch:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYVlyuc5TK4
>
> There are no bad films of Oswald getting shot. I always enjoy watching him
> get his from whatever angle is being shown. The only disappointing thing

But there are bad photos:

http://www.chazonmedia.com/guardians/images/Chris-Lee-Jack2a.jpg

http://www.calbuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/morningnews.jpg

> is by the time they wheeled him to the ambulance he appears to have lost
> consciousness and isn't suffering nearly enough.
>

Spoken like a true Christian.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/14/2016 11:17 AM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> Well, you're spewing BS BT, so the name fits. And if you want to start
> piling on "what ifs" and "what about that" questions, I've got a few of my
> own.
>
> How come not one speck of blood? How come the cameras didn't capture them

You have to translate them into English so we can understand what you
want to know.

What blood are you looking for? Oswald was wearing a sweater which
soaked up the blood at the entrance wound. There was no exit wound hence
no blood dripping out there. Maybe you want to see the blood on the
gurney or the floor of the ambulance. How about the blood at the hospital?

> moving Oswald into the building? It was a horrendous thing to do if he was

Yeah, why didn't they have cameras inside the elevator to show him being
brought down? How silly can you get?

> shot because you should never move an abdominal gunshot victim unless you
> absolutely have to, and only if medical help is waiting where you're

Sure, but did they really care? No. They aren't going to do emergency
surgery on the floor of the basement of the DPD.

> taking him. But, they just moved him from the ground outside to the floor
> inside.
>
> Furthermore, anyone with sense knows that if you are forced to move the
> victim, that you don't just pick him up like a sack of potatoes; you get a
> firm surface that you can gently slide him on. You get a board or you take
> down a door. And then you scoot him on it as gently as possible and then

Maybe they didn't have the board. Do you see them pick him up like a
sack of potatoes or are you just guessing, as usual?

> just pick the thing up. How did they do it? One guy grabbed the arms and
> another guy grabbed the legs? That's a sure way to increase the bleeding.
> Don't cops know that?
>

Why should cops know that? Did they have to pass a Red Cross test?

> So, what was the purpose of moving Oswald? How did they do it? Why did

To get him to the hospital as quickly as possible so that surgeons could
operate on him.

> they do it so fast? How come in 52 years they have never even described
> how they did it?
>

Of course they have. You never look at the evidence.

> How come all these cops didn't neutralize "Ruby" by cuffing him before
> dancing him into the building? When has that ever been done before or

Ruby was already in the building. It was in the basement of the police
building.

> since in police annals? Cops don't move an aggressive combative person
> anywhere until they get him completely pacified. That means handcuffs. So,
> why didn't they cuff him, right there in plain view?
>

Maybe they were camera shy? Maybe nobody had a spare pair of cuffs?
It doesn't matter. All your questions are nonsense.

[BT George]

If my questions are so much less compelling, it's strange why you keep
side-stepping them. Maybe if you could provide some *credible* answers to
my "un-compelling" questions, I'll feel the unction to respond to the
"oh-so-compelling ones" you are asking.