Another problem for David Von Pein

[Ralph Cinque]

Uh-oh. Trouble.

David Von Pein: "Yes, Ruby was certainly wearing his jacket when he shot
Lee Oswald, and he's not wearing it when he was being escorted by the
police to the elevator in the jail office just a few minutes later."


That's impossible for reasons I have already stated, but mainly because
they would have cuffed him right away, and once cuffed, there was no
removing his jacket. But, look what happened when he gets to the elevator
a few seconds later.

Is he not in his jacket? What else could that darkness be? So, you figure
they put his jacket back on him? But, how could they when he was in
handcuffs?

His hands are cuffed behind his back there, right?

So, how could they put his jacket back on him? How could he get his arms
in the sleeves?

Here's the link to it. It's from David Von Pein.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1sKHbr4hL8&t=1517s

The first, without the jacket, occurs at 26:32, and the second, with the
jacket, occurs at 26:37. So, just 5 seconds between them. You couldn't get
a jacket on in 5 seconds even without handcuffs. With handcuffs, you
couldn't get it on in 5 hours- or at all. That's because of the handcuffs.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/uh-oh.html

[David Von Pein]

It looks to me as if Ruby is in the process of putting his jacket back on
when we first see him in the WFAA-TV footage, and when we see his back as
he gets in the elevator, he's got his jacket back on. So the police
obviously did not handcuff Ruby at all prior to taking him to the
elevator.

Why are you so insistent about the cops having to handcuff him? They
obviously didn't, as we can see by examining Ruby's movements in the WFAA
footage.

[Ralph Cinque]

That is nonsense, David, which I explain here:

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/david-von-pein-207-pm-43-minutes-ago.html

You have NO RIGHT to claim that Ruby wasn't handcuffed when there are
multiple testimonies from Dallas detectives who say that he was, and that
they did it. And there is no indication whatsoever that Ruby is putting
his jacket on as he's being led along in view of the camera. That is an
utterly outrageous untruth. Let's see the frame in which Ruby is in the
process of putting his jacket on. Post on your website, and then give us
the link. Because: I am telling everyone right now that it is not true.

Why am I so insistent that they must have handcuffed him? BECAUSE THEY
SAID THEY DID, UNDER OATH for one thing. But for two, considering that
"Ruby" had fatally shot one man and had tried to kill another man
(Leavelle) how, in the name of Almighty God, do you NOT handcuff a guy
like that? And what? Just walk him around the police station uncuffed
after he did all that? Where it took a dozen cops to contain and restrain
him? They weren't going to handcuff him AFTER THAT? That is ridiculous.

But, after 53 years, you have no right to even suggest it. You are just
rewriting the history. That's all your doing. What gives you the right?
Who do you think you are?

[David Von Pein]

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 10:40:47 AM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> That is nonsense, David, which I explain here:
>
> http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/david-von-pein-207-pm-43-minutes-ago.html
>
> You have NO RIGHT to claim that Ruby wasn't handcuffed when there are
> multiple testimonies from Dallas detectives who say that he was, and that
> they did it. And there is no indication whatsoever that Ruby is putting
> his jacket on as he's being led along in view of the camera. That is an
> utterly outrageous untruth. Let's see the frame in which Ruby is in the
> process of putting his jacket on. Post on your website, and then give us
> the link. Because: I am telling everyone right now that it is not true.
>
> Why am I so insistent that they must have handcuffed him? BECAUSE THEY
> SAID THEY DID, UNDER OATH for one thing.

Nice double standard you've got there, Ralph. Why don't you therefore
believe any of the police officers who swore (UNDER OATH) that the person
who shot Oswald was Jack Ruby? And that's a lot of officers. You think
they ALL lied---under oath.

> But for two, considering that
> "Ruby" had fatally shot one man and had tried to kill another man
> (Leavelle) how, in the name of Almighty God, do you NOT handcuff a guy
> like that? And what? Just walk him around the police station uncuffed
> after he did all that? Where it took a dozen cops to contain and restrain
> him? They weren't going to handcuff him AFTER THAT? That is ridiculous.
>
> But, after 53 years, you have no right to even suggest it. You are just
> rewriting the history.

The irony is so thick in here, we could cut it with a knife.

Imagine that, folks --- Ralph Cinque lecturing someone (anyone!) on
"rewriting history". Hilarious!

> That's all your doing. What gives you the right?
> Who do you think you are?

More irony at its finest.

[David Von Pein]

Ralph,

FYI / FWIW....

For the sake of clarity regarding which of your silly "It Wasn't Ruby" or
"The Film Is Fake" declarations that you were referring to, I've added the
excised portion of your 2016 post to my webpage (second paragraph from the
top)....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1247.html

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

I've got my popcorn. Ralph's making Dave famous again !!!

[David Von Pein]

RALPH CINQUE SAID:

Wait a second! There was a reporter and a cameraman. So, how could it be
when Ruby was brought in? You can't tell me that they had a camera crew
there then. Everything we are seeing here must be well after Ruby was
brought in. Only then could there be a camera crew in place.

[...]

The very fact that there is a camera crew there and a reporter speaking
into a microphone tells you that it has to be several minutes later. So,
what is Ruby doing there? They brought him back down precisely because of
the camera--to put him in front of it.

This was the moment at which they inserted the real Jack Ruby into the
story. We never saw him before this.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Ralph,

ABC had its camera set up in the jail office (or just behind the desks in
the jail office area) BEFORE Oswald ever got shot. They wanted their
camera to capture Oswald as he came out of the elevator. And it did
capture those images (20 minutes into this video below).

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2oJmFGgfM3zSHhjd3pMYWcxOWM/view

And that same camera then was moved a short distance to its right to film
Oswald going into the basement garage, and that's also in the video above,
which shows Oswald getting shot from behind.

That same camera then filmed Ruby a minute or two later as he was being
escorted by police to the same elevator that Oswald was just brought out
of.

A little more about the topic of Ruby's jacket....

It sure looks to me as though Ruby is moving in a manner so as to put his
jacket back on in the ABC jail office footage. But another possibility is
that Ruby is, indeed, handcuffed at that moment in time and his jacket is
only partially off of his body. Maybe the jacket got pulled partly off
(exposing only his white shirt in the brief glimpse we get of Ruby in the
ABC footage) and perhaps they did slap the cuffs on Ruby at a point in
time when Ruby was disheveled and had his jacket only partially on.

Then, a short time later in the jail office, probably with the help of the
officers to his left and right, Ruby's jacket was slid back into its
proper place on his body after it had slid part of the way down his back
in the struggle after Ruby shot Oswald. It's hard to tell in the ABC video
whether Ruby's jacket is completely off or whether it's just part of the
way off of his body.

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Vkga2pZNoJg/WTmpt-pBpQI/AAAAAAABL_M/B2mcToDTl5AB4w_Ndpg4H7xgu2qqGhg9gCLcB/s1600/Jack-Ruby-In-Jail-Office-11-24-63.jpg

So maybe it was more the actions of the police officers, rather than being
Ruby entirely on his own, who got the jacket back in place just before
entering the elevator. If he was handcuffed at that moment, then it was
almost certainly the policemen who did most of the work in getting Ruby's
jacket back into place on Ruby's back, rather than Jack doing it all
himself, which would indeed have been difficult (if not impossible) if he
had been in handcuffs at that moment.

I have no idea if the above scenario is accurate or not, but I really
don't care too much one way or the other --- and that's because no
rational person could possibly even BEGIN to believe in all the crazy
cloak-and-dagger stuff and "fake films" theories that Ralph Cinque has
been entertaining his audience with in recent months.

Regardless of whether Ruby was handcuffed or not in the jail office, and
regardless of how Ruby's jacket was situated on his body just after the
shooting of Oswald, the bottom-line fact still remains the same --- and
that fact is:

Jack Ruby was the man who shot and killed Lee Harvey Oswald. And no
sensible person could believe otherwise.

[Ralph Cinque]

David, the Dallas police officers were the real culprits. They are the
ones who actually did it. They fatally shot Oswald (though not in the
garage) and they conned Jack Ruby into thinking that he did it.

Once you're dealing with people who commit murder, the question of lying
under oath vanishes. Ipso facto: if you're capable of killing, you're
capable of lying, including under oath.

So yes, I do say that the Dallas Police lied under oath. And in the case
of some of them we know for an absolute fact that they lied under oath.
Leavelle said that he saw Ruby, jerked Oswald and then poked Ruby in the
shoulder, none of which he did, and it's plain as day in the film. Graves
said that Oswald wore his own handcuffs, in addition to the ones that
attached him to Leavelle. But, that was a lie, and you only have to look
at the Jackson photo to see it with your own eyes. Combest said that
Oswald was communicating with him in the jail office, shaking and nodding
his head to answer questions, and we know that's not true. When Dr.
Biberdorf saw Oswald in the jail office, it was his professional opinion
that he was dead. He obviously wasn't right about that, but neither was he
terribly wrong because Oswald was near-dead and soon to be dead. Nobody
whose aorta and vena cava are blown out is going to responding to
questions with head shakes. So, Combest lied too. So, you see, David,
there is NO DOUBT that Dallas policemen lied under oath.

[Ralph Cinque]

Ralph Cinque: David, that WFAA film crew followed the procession out. They
went into the garage. They didn't remain in the jail office. How do you
think we got this?



It's the same film crew, and they went out into the garage. Why would they
have left a film crew in the jail office when nothing else was expected to
happen there? Oswald was supposed to be put in a car and driven off, and
then it was going to be over. There was nothing else pending; nothing else
to happen in the jail office. So, why would they have left a film crew
there? They wouldn't They couldn't. They didn't.


David Von Pein:

A little more about the topic of Ruby's jacket....

It sure looks to me as though Ruby is moving in a manner so as to put his
jacket back on in the ABC jail office footage.

Ralph Cinque:

How can that be so if we don't even see the jacket?

David Von Pein:

But another possibility is that Ruby is, indeed, handcuffed at that moment
in time and his jacket is only partially off of his body. Maybe the jacket
got pulled partly off (exposing only his white shirt in the brief glimpse
we get of Ruby in the ABC footage) and perhaps they did slap the cuffs on
Ruby at a point in time when Ruby was disheveled and had his jacket only
partially on.

Ralph Cinque:

Why are you speculating like that when we don't see the jacket at all? How
dare you say that it's partially on him when we don't see it at all?

David Von Pein:

Then, a short time later in the jail office, probably with the help of the
officers to his left and right, Ruby's jacket was slid back into its
proper place on his body after it had slid part of the way down his back
in the struggle after Ruby shot Oswald. It's hard to tell in the ABC video
whether Ruby's jacket is completely off or whether it's just part of the
way off of his body.

Ralph Cinque:

What??? There is no sign of his jacket. It isn't visible at all. How dare
you? Put a circle around his jacket, as you see it. This is your image,
David. This is the image to which YOU are referring. So, circle the jacket
or the partial jacket.

David Von Pein:

So maybe it was more the actions of the police officers, rather than being
Ruby entirely on his own, who got the jacket back in place just before
entering the elevator.

Ralph Cinque:

If he's handcuffed, and we have to assume he was, neither he nor the cops
could get the jacket on him, and that's because he was handcuffed. He
could not have been wearing the jacket at all if he was handcuffed. So,
what are you saying? That he wasn't wearing the jacket but that the jacket
was draped over him like a shawl? Because that's all that's left.

David Von Pein:

If he was handcuffed at that moment, then it was
almost certainly the policemen who did most of the work in getting Ruby's
jacket back into place on Ruby's back, rather than Jack doing it all
himself, which would indeed have been difficult (if not impossible) if he
had been in handcuffs at that moment.

Ralph Cinque:

You are just making it up as you go. There is no jacket in sight until he
gets to the elevator. We see him walking across the jail office, and there
is no jacket, and no one is doing anything to put a jacket on him. All
that you are saying is entirely the product of your imagination.

There IS no jacket. Not while he's walking and not at the elevator either.
It's just a black partition that was added to the film. It has none of the
features of a jacket. Where are the sleeves? Where is the collar? It's
just flim-flam.




David Von Pein:

I have no idea if the above scenario is accurate or not, but I really
don't care too much one way or the other --- and that's because no
rational person could possibly even BEGIN to believe in all the crazy
cloak-and-dagger stuff and "fake films" theories that Ralph Cinque has
been entertaining his audience with in recent months.

Regardless of whether Ruby was handcuffed or not in the jail office, and
regardless of how Ruby's jacket was situated on his body just after the
shooting of Oswald, the bottom-line fact still remains the same --- and
that fact is:

Jack Ruby was the man who shot and killed Lee Harvey Oswald. And no
sensible person could believe otherwise.

Ralph Cinque:

That's all you've got, David: just stubborn insistence and nothing else.
The JFK assassination is the most photographically altered event of all
time, and it's hardly surprising that it would continue with the Oswald
assassination.

And despite what I have told you about 3 detectives stating that they
handcuffed Ruby upon getting him into the jail office, you still cling to
the possibility that Ruby wasn't handcuffed at all. It's amazing that you
have the nerve, the gall. Then, you speak of how Ruby's jacket was
situated on his body when it's obviously not on his body at all. There is
no jacket. There is no jacket.

And now, you're admitting that you're just tossing the lasso and hoping
that it snags something. Your sorry excuses to justify this have failed
miserably. The fact is that Jack Ruby is jacketless at a time when he
should definitely be in a jacket. So where was his jacket? It was up on
the 5th floor where he had already been. They brought him back down for
this. And they just forgot about his jacket.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/david-von-pein-said-ralph-abc-had-its.html

[Jason Burke]

On 6/9/17 1:31 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> David, the Dallas police officers were the real culprits. They are the
> ones who actually did it. They fatally shot Oswald (though not in the
> garage) and they conned Jack Ruby into thinking that he did it.

Who'd'a thunk it was possible to put so much crap into three little
sentences?

[David Von Pein]

On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 10:27:21 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> Ralph Cinque: David, that WFAA film crew followed the procession out. They
> went into the garage. They didn't remain in the jail office. How do you
> think we got this?
>
>
>
> It's the same film crew, and they went out into the garage. Why would they
> have left a film crew in the jail office when nothing else was expected to
> happen there? Oswald was supposed to be put in a car and driven off, and
> then it was going to be over. There was nothing else pending; nothing else
> to happen in the jail office. So, why would they have left a film crew
> there? They wouldn't They couldn't. They didn't.
>

Yes, there was only ONE film crew in that area. But why don't you just
look at ALL of the film in question. You seem to only be taking note of
some of it to support your arguments.

At the 21:00 mark in the video below, we can see the camera move from the
basement area back to an area inside the jail office....

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2oJmFGgfM3zSHhjd3pMYWcxOWM/view

And that footage at that point appears to be totally UNCUT, with no breaks
in it at all. And we can see the camera go from the wild scuffle in the
garage back to the exact place where ABC had just filmed Oswald coming out
of the elevator.

So it's the same camera alright. But there was no need for two camera
crews to be there in order to get all the footage that ABC got from those
jail locations. And you, Ralph, should have very easily been able to
figure that out yourself (since I provided the WFAA/ABC video for you),
but evidently you just couldn't seem to figure this out at all---even
though you surely had to have viewed the parts of the video I just
discussed above at the 21-minute mark.

Also --- From the looks of the ABC footage, it appears to be captured with
a handheld film camera, not a bulky TV type of camera, which means the
camera could be moved around from place to place very quickly and easily.
And as we can see in the video, that's just what the ABC cameraman
did---he moved with the action as it was happening--uncut.

But even if I'm wrong about the exact type of camera being utilized, it's
a moot point, since we can see for ourselves that the cameraman IS moving
along with the action---from an area near the jail doorway leading into
the basement garage and then back inside the jail office area while still
filming with the very same camera.

>
> David Von Pein:
>
>
> A little more about the topic of Ruby's jacket....
>
> It sure looks to me as though Ruby is moving in a manner so as to put his
> jacket back on in the ABC jail office footage.
>
> Ralph Cinque:
>
> How can that be so if we don't even see the jacket?
>

If the jacket had slipped down mostly behind his back in the struggle, you
wouldn't be able to see it in the very brief glimpse we get of Ruby in
that footage. I don't see any problem with that at all. Naturally, you do.
You see "problems" everywhere you look. You INVENT problems that aren't
there at all, in fact. You do that every day. Such as your newest hunk of
silliness regarding Blackie Harrison and the "felt pen" line you think
somebody drew onto his face in the NBC raw TV footage.

Now please tell the world, Ralph, WHY on God's green Earth anyone would
have any desire to mark up Harrison's eyes with a felt pen? Is there ANY
logical reason for someone to have wanted to alter the NBC videotape in
that manner? Of course there isn't. But you'll argue that such craziness
happened anyway. Won't you, Ralph.

And you'll continue to blow up already crappy images and make them much
more pixelated and distorted, and then you'll declare still more fakery.
Won't you, Ralph? Because that's what you apparently *like* to do as a
silly hobby 24/7.

What you're seeing, of course, as a result of your blow-ups is nothing
more than pixelization and various other anomalies that enter the
photographic equation when you attempt to enlarge areas of pictures. What
do you *expect* when you blow up images like that? You can't expect 1080p
HD clarity.

> David Von Pein:
>
> But another possibility is that Ruby is, indeed, handcuffed at that moment
> in time and his jacket is only partially off of his body. Maybe the jacket
> got pulled partly off (exposing only his white shirt in the brief glimpse
> we get of Ruby in the ABC footage) and perhaps they did slap the cuffs on
> Ruby at a point in time when Ruby was disheveled and had his jacket only
> partially on.
>
> Ralph Cinque:
>
> Why are you speculating like that when we don't see the jacket at all? How
> dare you say that it's partially on him when we don't see it at all?
>

The jacket is very likely *being put* on Ruby at the moment we see him in
his white shirt for those fleeting 2 seconds before he's put in the
elevator. Why you think that's an utter impossibility is yet another of
man's unsolved mysteries.

But you are apparently going to keep arguing this stupid "jacket off/on"
thing till the cows show up at your door, right Ralph? Even though all
sensible people know it means NOTHING --- because regardless of HOW the
jacket got back on Ruby's body, we know that it IS Jack Ruby in all of
that ABC footage. It's the SAME GUY in all the footage. And to believe
anyone put a "fake" coat on Ruby in the *one second* of "elevator" footage
is something only a person named Ralph Cinque could begin to advocate.

> David Von Pein:
>
> Then, a short time later in the jail office, probably with the help of the
> officers to his left and right, Ruby's jacket was slid back into its
> proper place on his body after it had slid part of the way down his back
> in the struggle after Ruby shot Oswald. It's hard to tell in the ABC video
> whether Ruby's jacket is completely off or whether it's just part of the
> way off of his body.
>
>
>
> Ralph Cinque:
>
> What??? There is no sign of his jacket. It isn't visible at all. How dare
> you? Put a circle around his jacket, as you see it. This is your image,
> David. This is the image to which YOU are referring. So, circle the jacket
> or the partial jacket.
>
> David Von Pein:
>
> So maybe it was more the actions of the police officers, rather than being
> Ruby entirely on his own, who got the jacket back in place just before
> entering the elevator.
>
> Ralph Cinque:
>
> If he's handcuffed, and we have to assume he was, neither he nor the cops
> could get the jacket on him, and that's because he was handcuffed. He
> could not have been wearing the jacket at all if he was handcuffed. So,
> what are you saying? That he wasn't wearing the jacket but that the jacket
> was draped over him like a shawl? Because that's all that's left.
>

See my previous comments. I can easily envision all the "jacket" scenarios
I have wasted my time pointing out to you in the last few days, Ralph.
Somehow, you can't envision any of them being even *remotely* possible.
Well, so be it.

> David Von Pein:
>
>
> If he was handcuffed at that moment, then it was
> almost certainly the policemen who did most of the work in getting Ruby's
> jacket back into place on Ruby's back, rather than Jack doing it all
> himself, which would indeed have been difficult (if not impossible) if he
> had been in handcuffs at that moment.
>
> Ralph Cinque:
>
> You are just making it up as you go.

Irony Alert #1!!!

> There is no jacket in sight until he
> gets to the elevator. We see him walking across the jail office, and there
> is no jacket, and no one is doing anything to put a jacket on him. All
> that you are saying is entirely the product of your imagination.
>

Irony Alert #2!!!!

(Let's see if Ralph goes for the coveted Hat Trick in this post....)

> There IS no jacket. Not while he's walking and not at the elevator either.
> It's just a black partition that was added to the film. It has none of the
> features of a jacket. Where are the sleeves? Where is the collar? It's
> just flim-flam.
>
>
>
>
> David Von Pein:
>
> I have no idea if the above scenario is accurate or not, but I really
> don't care too much one way or the other --- and that's because no
> rational person could possibly even BEGIN to believe in all the crazy
> cloak-and-dagger stuff and "fake films" theories that Ralph Cinque has
> been entertaining his audience with in recent months.
>
> Regardless of whether Ruby was handcuffed or not in the jail office, and
> regardless of how Ruby's jacket was situated on his body just after the
> shooting of Oswald, the bottom-line fact still remains the same --- and
> that fact is:
>
> Jack Ruby was the man who shot and killed Lee Harvey Oswald. And no
> sensible person could believe otherwise.
>
> Ralph Cinque:
>
> That's all you've got, David: just stubborn insistence and nothing else.

Yes, indeedy! Irony Alert #3 has been tallied!!! Good job, Ralph!

Let's see now....

...Making stuff up as you go.

and....

...Products of the imagination.

and finally....

...Stubborn insistence.

Hmmmm.......

Now who do we all know here at aaj who fits those above three
descriptions. Any ideas anybody?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/10/2017 8:49 AM, Jason Burke wrote:
> On 6/9/17 1:31 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>> David, the Dallas police officers were the real culprits. They are the
>> ones who actually did it. They fatally shot Oswald (though not in the
>> garage) and they conned Jack Ruby into thinking that he did it.
>
> Who'd'a thunk it was possible to put so much crap into three little
> sentences?
>

Did he say this orihiginally when he introduced his kooky theories?
He keeps embellishing and expanding his kookiness.