Another Jack Ruby impostor

[Ralph Cinque]

Do you think these two are the same guy? Why? Look how different the ears
are. Look how different the sideburns are. Look how phony the sunglasses
are on the left. And look at his hairline in back. Jack Ruby was scruffy
with hair growth back there. Why would you claim that that guy is Jack
Ruby? You just want him to be Jack Ruby, so you say that he is? Is that
how it works?

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2016/10/do-you-think-these-two-are-same-guy-why.html

[Jason Burke]

Raff*. Look at how crappy your youtube screen grabs are.

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

raff* grabs screens like trump grabs, uh……..

[Alex Foyle]

On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 6:19:32 AM UTC+2, Mark OBLAZNEY wrote:

> raff* grabs screens like trump grabs, uh……..

ha ha ... just grab em ...

[Ralph Cinque]

It's these images that grab people. And, they're going to grab a lot more
people.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2016/10/i-have-made-portfolio-of-10-images.html

It was Bookhout. Like it or not: Bookhout.

[Jason Burke]

So lemme get this straight, Raff*.

Everyone in a fedora is Jack Ruby. But only when it's convenient for him
to be so.

[David Von Pein]

Ralph thinks the NBC footage shows Ruby wearing sunglasses in the
basement. Hilarious.

[Anthony Marsh]

Hey, no one else in Dallas could wear such an ugly Fedora.

[Steve Barber]

Why the hell do you people give Cinque the time of day? He dingles the
bait, you guys take it, and he;s happy. He's playing every damned one of
you for a fool.

[bigdog]

Ralph, I've lost count. Were there more fake Rubys than fake Oswalds?

[Ace Kefford]

On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 10:45:18 AM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:

Who would have thought that in 1963 there were so many Ruby impersonators.
Ed Sullivan impersonators, sure. Likewise, John Wayne. But I'm surprised
there was such a market for a small time "nightclub" operator.

[Ralph Cinque]

On Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 9:27:10 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> Ralph thinks the NBC footage shows Ruby wearing sunglasses in the
> basement. Hilarious.

Then, what is it? It's a black disc around his eye, and there's a bridge
over his nose. What is it?

And you've got some nerve. You mock me, and you don't even say what it is.

You're getting more famous all the time.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2016/10/david-von-pein-oct-20-19-hours-ago.html

[Ralph Cinque]

McAdams takes forever and a day to get my posts up, but I have answered
David Von Pein. And in my answer, I expressed my outrage that he mocks
calling the black disc around "Ruby's" eye a sunglass, but he lacks the
decency to say what it is. Are we supposed to know what that disc is,
David? Is it supposed to be obvious? Is that it? Well, why don't you just
go ahead and say it anyway. What is the obvious thing causing inky black
coverage over his eye?

Enquiring minds want to know. And word of advice: don't try to say shadow.
Not a good idea. Somebody is not going to like that.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2016/10/david-von-pein-oct-20-19-hours-ago.html

[Jason Burke]

Nah. I just enjoy the humor.

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

Ralph's day of requaning is nigh.

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 4:21:32 PM UTC+2, Ralph Cinque wrote:

I think it's a shadow. A Dark Shadow.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/22/2016 3:30 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> McAdams takes forever and a day to get my posts up, but I have answered
> David Von Pein. And in my answer, I expressed my outrage that he mocks

Well, as smart as he is, he's not a mind reader. It takes him several
hours to figure out what the Hell you are talking about.

Especially when you intentionally snip out the context to mislead people.

> calling the black disc around "Ruby's" eye a sunglass, but he lacks the
> decency to say what it is. Are we supposed to know what that disc is,

False, he just did. He said he thinks it's sunglasses. Your question has
been answered. Don't you believe him? He would never lie about such an
important thing like that.

Why is it that you never ask the really important question? Where did Ruby
buy that ugly Fedora?

The whole world is anxiously waiting for your answer.

> David? Is it supposed to be obvious? Is that it? Well, why don't you just
> go ahead and say it anyway. What is the obvious thing causing inky black
> coverage over his eye?
>

A squid?

> Enquiring minds want to know. And word of advice: don't try to say shadow.

Only the Shadow knows.

[David Von Pein]

It's a shadow, Ralph. Simple as that. The same type of blackness (i.e.,
shadow) can be seen on Ruby's neck. What do you think is causing the
blackness on Ruby's neck?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9ckb6QPb-a8/Ukh_Kxls3SI/AAAAAAAAv5A/YbuxS-FRM6s/s1600/Jack-Ruby-On-Right-Via-NBC-TV-Raw-Footage-In-DPD-Basement-11-24-63.png

Plus, do you really think somebody would paint in a pair of sunglasses
onto a person's face without also painting in the frame for those
sunglasses? Where is the hinged frame that should extend over Ruby's left
ear? Are the glasses supposed to be just hanging there over his nose?

Isn't it time to give up this nonsense, Ralph?

[Ralph Cinque]

You would think that, Pink. And that's because of the condition of your
mind.

OK, a little lesson here in physics. See if you can follow.

Shadows are cast by objects, where an object is between the source of the
light and the surface on which the shadow is laid. The object blocks the
light, and that produces the shadow.

So, what is the object casting the disc-shaped shadow around his eye? I'm
looking for an object here. Object. Object. Object.

[Ralph Cinque]

WHAT?????

What did I tell you, David. I told you that every shadow is cast by
something; some object. So, you can't say it's a shadow without naming the
object that cast it, and how it was in position to cast it. It has to make
sense according to physics. But, you haven't even named the object.

The shadow on his neck is presumably cast by his chin, though what is
casting the shadow on the lower part of his face I do not know.

But, the inky black disc around his eye with the stripe across the bridge
of his nose, what could possibly be casting such a shadow?

And if you look closely, there does appear to be an eyeglass temple going
over his ear.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2016/10/david-von-pein-is-trying-to-say-that.html

Now, when you complain about the missing frame, don't blame me. There is a
lot of crude stuff they did, photographically speaking, thinking that no
one would care or even notice. They were very arrogant people who had
nothing but contempt and scorn for the common man and his inability to
observe details. So yes, I really do think they would paint in a pair of
sunglasses onto a person's face without also painting in the frame. And if
you look closely, you can see the "temple" of his glasses which is going
over his ear. Apparently, you're not too good at observing details
either.

Alright, now you know that you can't claim shadow for the black disc
without pointing to the object that is casting it. So, you can either cite
the object, which will then be scrutinized, OR you can retract the claim.
Take your pick. But, that's it. That's where you are at. That's the
crossroad that you are at.

So, what's it going be? Cite the casting object or retract the claim.

And if you won't retract it, I'll retract it for you.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2016/10/david-von-pein-213-pm-1-hour-ago-show.html

[Anthony Marsh]

The head of the photographer.

[betty...@gmail.com]

Mr.Cinque




You need a time out. Chill

[David Von Pein]

Here's another screen capture from the 11/24/63 NBC-TV coverage in the DPD
basement. Do you think the man on the right is wearing sunglasses too,
Ralph? If not, what's causing the same kind of blackness around his eyes
that we also see on Jack Ruby's face in the same NBC video?....

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MkhGWVbIMzY/WA4UYWWsnMI/AAAAAAABKwY/shIZ2IrPZhYdKwe3S2-kQYIpkgOcqRkxgCLcB/s1600/NBC-11-24-63.png

Here's the complete NBC video of the shooting:

http://www.nbcuniversalarchives.com/nbcuni/clip/51A02393_s01.do

The above video should keep Ralph busy for quite a while, as he "finds"
lots of additional things that he will insist are fake and phony.

[Jason Burke]

On 10/24/2016 2:34 PM, betty...@gmail.com wrote:
> Mr.Cinque
>
>
>
>
> You need a time out. Chill
>

No OIC senior membership for you!

[Ralph Cinque]

It's over for you, David. Because this "Ruby" is definitely wearing
sunglasses.

You asked about the frame? Well, now you can see it. You can also see the
arm of the glasses going over his ear.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2016/10/you-see-jfk-assassination-happened-in.html

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

You weren't listening, Dave…….. what did Ralph tell you
????? LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[betty...@gmail.com]

"No OIC senior membership for you! "

I will never join an organization that accepts members that are registered
sex offenders.

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

Look, he's done this crap with everything……… you
have been played, once again.

[Ralph Cinque]

Von PEin: It's NOT the same king of blackness. And, we don't have to go
beyond the frame in question to see how shadow manifested. There is a
reporter whose face is partially covered in shadow who is close to the
"Ruby" figure.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2016/10/in-very-same-image-with-ruby-figure-you.html

Alright, so let me dumb this down for you: On the left is the NBC reporter
Tom Petit, and his face is partially in shadow. That is what shadow looks
like. Understand? That's the density of it, the color of it, etc. But, the
guy on the right with the massive black disc over his eye, which has much
greater density, which has inky blackness, which has three-dimensionality
and form, that is NOT shadow. And if you think it's shadow, then show me
another photo from the entire history of photography in which someone
showed shadow that looked like that. What you submitted does not come
close to that.

[Anthony Marsh]

Infectious disease going around?
You're not trying hard enough. You did not find the worst possible
quality. I can still make out some of the people.

> Here's the complete NBC video of the shooting:
>
> http://www.nbcuniversalarchives.com/nbcuni/clip/51A02393_s01.do
>
> The above video should keep Ralph busy for quite a while, as he "finds"
> lots of additional things that he will insist are fake and phony.
>

What about Bigfoot in the background?

[Jason Burke]

How on earth can anyone take this foolish argument seriously?

Look at more than one frame from youtube, Raff*.

[betty...@gmail.com]

It is over for you...





Is it just me, or does that have a threatening tone to it?

[Jason Burke]

Uh, Raff*...
You're not working from a photograph now, are you?
C'mon. Tell the truth.

[David Von Pein]

Ralph,

I'm officially done with this foolishness about Ruby and the nonexistent
sunglasses. You can play your silly games by yourself from now on. I
joined in for a few posts merely for the fun of it.

As everyone can easily see, Ralph Cinque's imagination has now reached new
heights in the "fertile" and "ridiculous" departments.

The truth is (and always was, of course): the person who shot Lee Harvey
Oswald in the Dallas Police Department basement on 11/24/63 was Jack L.
Ruby, not FBI agent James W. Bookhout. And Mr. Ruby was definitely *not*
wearing any eyeglasses when he murdered Oswald.

[Kleep Klopp]

Don't worry Ralph's customer/friend Dale Thorn is
vying for the next OIC senior membership. He's battling
Lancelot Upperton on Debra Conway's page to defend Raff*'s
honour. Not that he has much regarding JFK research.

[Ralph Cinque]

Von Pein: I have demonstrated amply to any rational person that the black
disc around "Ruby's" eye cannot possibly be attributed to shadow.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2016/10/in-very-same-image-with-ruby-figure-you.html

It is laughable to call THAT shadow.

So, we're staying on this, whether you come along or not. Go ahead and
ignore it. You won't be missed, and you can't stop what is going to
happen.