Was Oswald really shot in the garage on television?

[Ralph Cinque]

I had an interesting discussion tonight with someone concerning the Oswald
shooting. My position, of course, is that the garage shooting was a
made-for-television ruse, that Oswald was not shot there. He was
definitely shot afterwards but not in the garage.

But, I made a point that I want to share here, and that is that the burden
is really on the other side, meaning those who claim that the televised
spectacle was a real event. And that's because none of the features of a
real shooting can be cited. For instance:

1. There was a sound, but it's too soft, and nobody reacts to it. Not a
single person in that garage reacted startled to the blast. Nobody jumped.
Nobody made an involuntary startle sound. Nobody showed the shocked look
that one would expect from such an unexpected happening.

2. The existence of a muzzle flash is in serious doubt, despite the French
guy saying over and over and over: "I saw the flash against his sweater."
Amy Joyce did an excellent job in showing that the muzzle flash which they
finally showed us is fake.

2. There was no blood. Not a drop. Nobody reported seeing any blood.
Oswald left no blood on the ground even though he was lying there sprawled
after he was shot. Eventually, we were shown what is claimed to be blood
stains in the jail office, but even if those are genuine, and I doubt it,
it's irrelevant because we are talking about what happened in the garage,
and in the garage, there was no blood.

3. There is no sign of any violence to Oswald or his clothing. We never
got to see any bullet hole in his sweater and clothing. And remember that
from that close a range (practically a contact shot) the damage to the
clothing should have been extensive. In the Jackson photo, they have
Oswald's left arm slapped over the area, and SUPPOSEDLY that is why we
can't see any damage to him or his clothes. But, I have already
demonstrated very well that that left arm is fake. And it makes no sense
anyway. Who would respond to being shot in the abdomen by slapping his arm
to his chest? Why would anyone do that? And when has anyone done it except
for Lee Harvey Oswald? And, that's in the whole history of gunshot wounds
since the invention of the first gun.

4. Considering the damage that was instantaneously done to Oswald (again,
supposedly) including the rupturing of all his major blood vessels,
Oswald's response to that should have been to just go down; to just
collapse. The fact that he started collapsing forward but then veered back
and then went up on his toes like a ballerina, before going straight down
like a freight elevator at the TSBD, tells you that he was not so injured.
That's a lot of physical exertion for a guy whose circulatory system
collapsed.

5. If he was shot at 11:20, then he lived without blood for an awfully
long time. We don't know exactly what time he arrived at the hospital and
was put in medical hands. The first thing they presumably did in an
attempt to help him was to administer massive blood transfusion. I
understand they gave him 6 liters of blood, and the body only contains 5.
So, they more than replaced all his blood. I don't presume that they knew
his blood type, so I presume they gave him Type O blood, which is referred
to as universal donor. Even with Typo O blood, doctors prefer to do a
cross-match test before proceeding, but I'm thinking that in his case it
was so dire, that they just gave it to him. But, the point is to ask: what
time did blood start flowing in his vein? Remember, it's not as though
Parkland had a team of professionals waiting for Oswald outside. So, at
what time did blood start flowing into Oswald? I'm going to guess and say
11:40. So that would have been 20 minutes, and it doesn't seem possible
that he could have been shot at 11:20 WITH THOSE INJURIES and survived for
20 minutes. It's just too damn long.

Now, that is a lot of basis for doubt that Oswald was shot in the garage.
So, when people get brash and uppity at the very idea that anyone is
doubting that Oswald was really shot in the garage, they need to, as
Archie Bunker put it: stiffle it. Let them address all those issues, every
single one of them, plausibly. But, I'll tell you: even if they do, when
they're finished, there will still exist the alternative explanation: that
the whole thing was a ruse.

[Spence]

How do you feel about the mom landings Ralph?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/29/2017 5:54 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> I had an interesting discussion tonight with someone concerning the Oswald
> shooting. My position, of course, is that the garage shooting was a
> made-for-television ruse, that Oswald was not shot there. He was
> definitely shot afterwards but not in the garage.
>
> But, I made a point that I want to share here, and that is that the burden
> is really on the other side, meaning those who claim that the televised
> spectacle was a real event. And that's because none of the features of a
> real shooting can be cited. For instance:
>

False logic. It is not up to the critics to prove any thing, just point
out the flaws in your argument. You are trying to get away with
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.

> 1. There was a sound, but it's too soft, and nobody reacts to it. Not a

So what? Maybe someone did, but you didn't notice him.

> single person in that garage reacted startled to the blast. Nobody jumped.
> Nobody made an involuntary startle sound. Nobody showed the shocked look
> that one would expect from such an unexpected happening.
>

When? Within 3 milliseconds or minutes later?

> 2. The existence of a muzzle flash is in serious doubt, despite the French
> guy saying over and over and over: "I saw the flash against his sweater."
> Amy Joyce did an excellent job in showing that the muzzle flash which they
> finally showed us is fake.
>

No, YOU are a fake.

> 2. There was no blood. Not a drop. Nobody reported seeing any blood.

You mean Oswald? You claim he had all those wounds and never bled?

> Oswald left no blood on the ground even though he was lying there sprawled
> after he was shot. Eventually, we were shown what is claimed to be blood
> stains in the jail office, but even if those are genuine, and I doubt it,
> it's irrelevant because we are talking about what happened in the garage,
> and in the garage, there was no blood.
>

How long does it take him to bleed? You've been watching too many
Hollywood movies.

> 3. There is no sign of any violence to Oswald or his clothing. We never
> got to see any bullet hole in his sweater and clothing. And remember that

Oh really? Do you admit that JFK was shot in the back? Can you see the
bullet hole in the Zapruder film?

> from that close a range (practically a contact shot) the damage to the
> clothing should have been extensive. In the Jackson photo, they have

You have no way to know that. Do some tests.

> Oswald's left arm slapped over the area, and SUPPOSEDLY that is why we
> can't see any damage to him or his clothes. But, I have already
> demonstrated very well that that left arm is fake. And it makes no sense

With you everything has to be fake. Because YOU are a fake.

> anyway. Who would respond to being shot in the abdomen by slapping his arm
> to his chest? Why would anyone do that? And when has anyone done it except
> for Lee Harvey Oswald? And, that's in the whole history of gunshot wounds
> since the invention of the first gun.
>
> 4. Considering the damage that was instantaneously done to Oswald (again,
> supposedly) including the rupturing of all his major blood vessels,
> Oswald's response to that should have been to just go down; to just
> collapse. The fact that he started collapsing forward but then veered back
> and then went up on his toes like a ballerina, before going straight down
> like a freight elevator at the TSBD, tells you that he was not so injured.
> That's a lot of physical exertion for a guy whose circulatory system
> collapsed.
>
> 5. If he was shot at 11:20, then he lived without blood for an awfully

Not without blood. You can live for a while after losing a pint or two.

> long time. We don't know exactly what time he arrived at the hospital and
> was put in medical hands. The first thing they presumably did in an
> attempt to help him was to administer massive blood transfusion. I
> understand they gave him 6 liters of blood, and the body only contains 5.
> So, they more than replaced all his blood. I don't presume that they knew

He kept bleeding so they had to keep giving him more. You don't give all
the 6 liters all at the same time.

> his blood type, so I presume they gave him Type O blood, which is referred
> to as universal donor. Even with Typo O blood, doctors prefer to do a
> cross-match test before proceeding, but I'm thinking that in his case it
> was so dire, that they just gave it to him. But, the point is to ask: what
> time did blood start flowing in his vein? Remember, it's not as though

11:42 AM CST. Why are you afraid to read the official reports?
Why don't you make up a kook theory that they killed him intentionally
by giving him a tranfusion of the wrong blood type. Research which wrong
blood type causes death the quickest. And try to make up some really
really rare blood type that only Parkland would have. Try AO negative or
something.

> Parkland had a team of professionals waiting for Oswald outside. So, at
> what time did blood start flowing into Oswald? I'm going to guess and say
> 11:40. So that would have been 20 minutes, and it doesn't seem possible
> that he could have been shot at 11:20 WITH THOSE INJURIES and survived for
> 20 minutes. It's just too damn long.

Oh really? You are an expert on gunshot wounds. Want to show us your
case work? How about soldiers shot in wars. Do they always die within 20
minutes?

>
> Now, that is a lot of basis for doubt that Oswald was shot in the garage.

No, it's garbage.

> So, when people get brash and uppity at the very idea that anyone is
> doubting that Oswald was really shot in the garage, they need to, as
> Archie Bunker put it: stiffle it. Let them address all those issues, every
> single one of them, plausibly. But, I'll tell you: even if they do, when
> they're finished, there will still exist the alternative explanation: that
> the whole thing was a ruse.
>

You can't address the issues I brought up.

[bigdog]

I think he was shot in the gut.

[InsideSparta]

What's the point in re-hashing this again? All of your points have been
countered and destroyed on this site in multiple threads, including your
magnum opus James Bookhout fairy tale. You not only have the story of the
garage shooting wrong, you're also wrong as to how this debate is supposed
to work. The onus is not on us to prove you wrong. The onus is on you to
prove your theory. Thus far, you have failed miserably. You're going to
have to come up with something more than just muzzle flashes, the sound of
a gunshot, or questions about how long it took LHO to die. You need real
evidence of this grand charade. Like witnesses coming forward or actual
documentation that can prove the Dallas Police Department, FBI, Secret
Service, and the international press were all complicit in presenting a
fake shooting, and that they were willing to lie about what happened for
decades. Nitpicking about whether or not a muzzle flash is seen in film
footage isn't going to cut it. Give us some real evidence. Don't re-has
the same crap over and over that we've already debunked.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/30/2017 10:52 AM, Spence wrote:
> How do you feel about the mom landings Ralph?
>

Which mom landings?

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

I'm glad you posted this, Ralph. That's a lot of food for thinking men's
brains.

[BOZ]

Was Oswald really shot in the garage on television? No. He was killed by
Colonel Mustard in the billiard room with a candlestick.

[Ralph Cinque]

I wrote a follow-up to this. I am now 100% convinced that the televised
spectacle was a ruse and no shooting occurred in the garage. The evidence
for it is compelling. All you people have to offer are glib put-downs.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/09/look-garage-shooting-was-ruse-and-it.html

[Amy Joyce]

Out of 6 films only one of them actually depicts a gun explosion (a 4
second scene from a newsreel). This despite the fact that it should also
be visible in three of the other films. The only one having what looks
like a gun flash is phony. That's been proven and is a fact:

1. Not only does nobody else react to the startling sound of a gun
explosion, Oswald doesn't respond to getting shot. There is too long of a
delay for a mortally wounded gunshot victim that should have responded
instantly. Based upon other findings we know the reason is because they
inserted the fake flash at the wrong time.

2. The flash is also in the wrong place. It's inches below the barrel of
the gun (which was correctly pointed further above, where the actual
bullet wound ended up).

3. That flash can be seen in at least three different frames. Converted to
video or not, since other movement can be seen (the "shooter's" arm), it
means that there were several frames showing a gun "flash".

This is a big mistake because the scene was only filmed at 29 fps. A high
speed camera filming at over 1000 fps (about 70,000 fps actually), would
have been needed to catch more than one flash. *Anthony admitted to this
before he knew what it meant. Afterward he ignores the subject
completely.

4. Most importantly, there is a pre-edited version of the film available
for everyone's viewing and it absolutely does NOT have a gun flash.

Faking a gun shot is a big deal. It supports other evidence that a gun
wasn't fired into Oswald at that time and in that place. Other evidence
includes a picture of Detective Graves removing a long piece of metal (a
fake gun), from the shooter's hand. It's certainly wasn't a snub nose
revolver.

Oswald died from blood loss. There was no blood at the scene of the
incident. Only a small amount of what might be blood can be seen on the
floor of the jail office where they moved and laid down Oswald. There also
wasn't a speck of blood on the stretcher sheet that Oswald laid on for
quite a while on his trip to the hospital. BUT the victim's white collared
shirt, worn underneath the sweater and used as WC evidence, was completely
saturated and darkened by blood.

It doesn't end here. There are dozens of examples indicating that the
garage shooting was staged. Failed lie detector tests, conflicting
reports, inconsistent photographs and films, AND the questionable behavior
of officers. They not only covered the "shooter's" head (so witnesses
couldn't see him), they carried away the "mortally wounded" man (to the
same place they moved the suspect and for the same reason). Then they lied
about the events.

[Ralph Cinque]

No. When I point out the ridiculous behaviors and reactions, totally
contrary to human nature and real life, then the onus is on YOU to explain
it and justify it. There is nothing real about any aspect of the Garage
Shooting. No one is startled by the gun blast. Graves doesn't see someone
who goes directly across his visual field- right in front of him. Leavelle
says that he saw the shooter, saw the gun, identified the man as Jack
Ruby, and tried to protect Oswald but none of it is true. The films show
us that every bit of it is a lie.

This comes down to pure denialism- the stubborn refusal to see something
that is plainly visible. And I accuse you of denialism. I accuse McAdams'
of it. And I accuse the others here of it as well. But, outside this
place, people have no trouble seeing what I see. And that's your
nightmare.

[Anthony Marsh]

> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/KILDUFF-TEMPLE.jpg

Of course that theory is stupid, but you're just not trying hard enough.
You should make up a fake theory that it was filmed in Hollywood on a
sound stage with special effects (after all we wouldn't want anyone to
really get hurt).

Maybe it's your first time in a Newsgroup.

We have a time honored tradition here called Flogging the Dead Horse. I
don't know what they call it in your country where you don't have any
horses. Old theories are routinely like clockwork revived and rehashed,
especially by kooks who lost the argument 20-30 years ago, but hope that
everyone forgot.

As for you naivete you are not from here so you don't remember all the
other conspiracies that our government has covered up for many years. You
have an obligation to keep this going for another month or so. Think of it
as you civic duty to do your own recycling.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/30/2017 11:12 PM, bigdog wrote:
> I think he was shot in the gut.
>
>

I thought he was shot in the basement.

[OHLeeRedux]

InsideSparta
- show quoted text -

What's the point in re-hashing this again? All of your points have been
countered and destroyed on this site in multiple threads, including your
magnum opus James Bookhout fairy tale. You not only have the story of the

"Magnum opus". Hilarious!

garage shooting wrong, you're also wrong as to how this debate is supposed
to work. The onus is not on us to prove you wrong. The onus is on you to
prove your theory. Thus far, you have failed miserably. You're going to

Ralph belongs to the Robert Harris school of debate. "Prove me wrong or
else I'm right." [Proven wrong] [Ignores proof. Goes away for awhile.
Comes back.] "Prove me wrong or else I'm right."

[Spence]

I got to stop posting from my phone :-)

[Ralph Cinque]

Very well put, Amy. And let's be frank: if they faked a muzzle flash (and
they did) then obviously, there was no real shot. And if there was no real
shot, then there was no real trauma. And that means that all the cops and
Oswald were in on it. Now, as far as the reporters and cameramen, I don't
know. But, it's possible that some were in on it while others weren't. And
I'm absolutely sure that some of them weren't. And they were expected to
believe it on the same basis that the world was expected to believe it.
But, I wish I knew is: what did they see. All we see after the shot is
chaos and pandemonium. We don't see even a hint of Oswald being carried
into the jail office by two men. So, what did they see? One reporter, and
I forget his name, said that he saw Oswald being "dragged" into the jail
office. But, none of the cops said anything about dragging Oswald.
Leavelle said that he and another officer carried Oswald. And when he
reenacted it for the television movie RUBY AND OSWALD, he did it that way;
carried him in plain view. So, why did that reporter claim to see
dragging? The big question that remains, in my opinion, is: when did they
actually shoot Oswald? Was it in the jail office, presumably using a
silencer in a padded room? Or was it after they left the jail office in
route to the hospital? And if it was the latter, I don't presume it was
done in the ambulance. I presume that they stopped somewhere and did it.

The weird things Amy mentioned about Oswald's arrival at Parkland are
indeed inexplicable. It makes me wonder if they are showing us something
phony, and the the real thing looked much different. And what happened to
Wolfe, the other attendant? We see him briefly as they are unloading
Oswald, but after that, he is gone with the wind.

[InsideSparta]

On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 3:39:24 PM UTC-7, Amy Joyce wrote:
> Out of 6 films only one of them actually depicts a gun explosion (a 4
> second scene from a newsreel). This despite the fact that it should also
> be visible in three of the other films. The only one having what looks
> like a gun flash is phony. That's been proven and is a fact:

If the one film that shows the gun flash was fake, why didn't those sneaky
film manipulators fake the others too? You've fallen into Ralph's weak
argumentative tactic of calling any evidence that doesn't support your
dreamland fantasy fake.

>
> 1. Not only does nobody else react to the startling sound of a gun
> explosion, Oswald doesn't respond to getting shot. There is too long of a
> delay for a mortally wounded gunshot victim that should have responded
> instantly. Based upon other findings we know the reason is because they
> inserted the fake flash at the wrong time.

And just exactly how long should it take a mortally wounded man to react?
Oswald's loud moan is heard almost simultaneous to the sound of the
gunshot. Don't believe me? Watch and listen to the multiple sound
recordings. Are they all fake? Oswald also went down immediately after
having been shot. To suggest there was any length of time between the shot
and Oswald's reaction is just plain ludicrous.

>
> 2. The flash is also in the wrong place. It's inches below the barrel of
> the gun (which was correctly pointed further above, where the actual
> bullet wound ended up).

There was an actual bullet wound? I thought the shooting was faked?

>
> 3. That flash can be seen in at least three different frames. Converted to
> video or not, since other movement can be seen (the "shooter's" arm), it
> means that there were several frames showing a gun "flash".
>
> This is a big mistake because the scene was only filmed at 29 fps. A high
> speed camera filming at over 1000 fps (about 70,000 fps actually), would
> have been needed to catch more than one flash. *Anthony admitted to this
> before he knew what it meant. Afterward he ignores the subject
> completely.
>
> 4. Most importantly, there is a pre-edited version of the film available
> for everyone's viewing and it absolutely does NOT have a gun flash.
>
> Faking a gun shot is a big deal. It supports other evidence that a gun
> wasn't fired into Oswald at that time and in that place. Other evidence
> includes a picture of Detective Graves removing a long piece of metal (a
> fake gun), from the shooter's hand. It's certainly wasn't a snub nose
> revolver.
>
> Oswald died from blood loss. There was no blood at the scene of the
> incident. Only a small amount of what might be blood can be seen on the
> floor of the jail office where they moved and laid down Oswald. There also
> wasn't a speck of blood on the stretcher sheet that Oswald laid on for
> quite a while on his trip to the hospital. BUT the victim's white collared
> shirt, worn underneath the sweater and used as WC evidence, was completely
> saturated and darkened by blood.

first you say there was no blood; then you say there was. Oswald's bleeding was internal. Why do you have trouble understanding that? What blood came out of the bullet hole in his abdomen was absorbed by both the shirt he wore and the black sweater. The fact remains, when he was wheeled into the ambulance on the stretcher, the man had a bullet wound. Witnesses saw the bullet hole in his sweater, and Oswald was pale as a ghost. Did those sneaky conspirators apply white make-up to Oswald too?

>
> It doesn't end here. There are dozens of examples indicating that the
> garage shooting was staged. Failed lie detector tests, conflicting
> reports, inconsistent photographs and films, AND the questionable behavior
> of officers. They not only covered the "shooter's" head (so witnesses
> couldn't see him), they carried away the "mortally wounded" man (to the
> same place they moved the suspect and for the same reason). Then they lied
> about the events.

By moving the injured Oswald from the garage to the jail office area, they
separated him from the crowd that nearly surrounded them in the garage.
For all they knew, there could have been more than just Ruby in on the
killing. They had to get Oswald out of there in case there was another
shooter. Ruby had been subdued and disarmed, and he was immediately taken
up the elevator, so he was no longer a threat to the injured Oswald. And,
OBTW, Ruby passed the lie-detector test that he took.

This whole fake shooting is pure science fiction. How did the DPD get
Oswald to agree to fake having been shot? What possible reason would
Oswald have for doing that? If Oswald wasn't shot in the garage, as shown
on television, when exactly did he get shot, and by whom? If the DPD
wanted to shoot Oswald themselves, they could have done so upstairs, away
from the press and cameras, and claimed Ruby snuck up there and pulled the
trigger. Trying to pull off a fake shooting on live television would have
been an un-necessary risk, especially from individuals with no experience
whatsoever with doing something like that. How did the DPD manage to
silence the international press that witnessed the shooting for 50+ years.
Any one of those reporters, cameramen, photographers, or law enforcement
members could have exposed such a charade. Yet none over did. Why? Because
the shooting was a real event. As I pointed out to Ralph, you need to
provide real evidence of this grand conspiratorial charade. And I'm not
talking about muzzle flashes, and things you think you see in the film
footage. All you're providing is "evidence" (and I use the work lightly)
that is on par with Badgeman evidence in the Moorman photo. As has been
proven in this case, anyone can look at a photo or film footage and see
whatever it is they want to see. That doesn't necessarily make it so.
You've chosen to see things that simply aren't there and interpret the
visual record to suit your fantasy. You conveniently dismiss any counter
evidence as being fake or forged, rather than come up with a legitimate
argument to account for the reason why that evidence doesn't support your
narrative. You and Ralph have provided zero evidence of this supposed
grand charade outside of your interpretation of the images. For a
conspiracy of this magnitude to have occurred, there would have to have
been some other evidence to support it. Documents? Witness testimony of a
conspiracy to murder Oswald? A deathbed confession? None of those things
exist. In all honesty, this kind of silliness makes the rest of the CT
community look foolish. Harold Weisberg and Penn Jones are rolling in
their graves. Shame on the both of you for peddling this total load of
horse manure.

[Anthony Marsh]

You mean that anyont on this planet who does not accept your pet theory
must be in denial?

[Anthony Marsh]

WOW, not all films show the same thing. It's called perspective.

> be visible in three of the other films. The only one having what looks
> like a gun flash is phony. That's been proven and is a fact:
>

No, it has not. That is only a kook theory.

> 1. Not only does nobody else react to the startling sound of a gun
> explosion, Oswald doesn't respond to getting shot. There is too long of a
> delay for a mortally wounded gunshot victim that should have responded
> instantly. Based upon other findings we know the reason is because they
> inserted the fake flash at the wrong time.
>
> 2. The flash is also in the wrong place. It's inches below the barrel of
> the gun (which was correctly pointed further above, where the actual
> bullet wound ended up).
>

Yeah, depends on which direction the gun was pointed.

> 3. That flash can be seen in at least three different frames. Converted to
> video or not, since other movement can be seen (the "shooter's" arm), it
> means that there were several frames showing a gun "flash".
>
> This is a big mistake because the scene was only filmed at 29 fps. A high
> speed camera filming at over 1000 fps (about 70,000 fps actually), would
> have been needed to catch more than one flash. *Anthony admitted to this
> before he knew what it meant. Afterward he ignores the subject
> completely.
>

Actually 73,000 frames per second.
You want to talk about camera frame rates? Name the camera.

> 4. Most importantly, there is a pre-edited version of the film available
> for everyone's viewing and it absolutely does NOT have a gun flash.
>

You don't always get a gun flash.

> Faking a gun shot is a big deal. It supports other evidence that a gun
> wasn't fired into Oswald at that time and in that place. Other evidence
> includes a picture of Detective Graves removing a long piece of metal (a
> fake gun), from the shooter's hand. It's certainly wasn't a snub nose
> revolver.
>

No one faked anything, it was broadcast live.

> Oswald died from blood loss. There was no blood at the scene of the
> incident. Only a small amount of what might be blood can be seen on the
> floor of the jail office where they moved and laid down Oswald. There also
> wasn't a speck of blood on the stretcher sheet that Oswald laid on for
> quite a while on his trip to the hospital. BUT the victim's white collared
> shirt, worn underneath the sweater and used as WC evidence, was completely
> saturated and darkened by blood.
>

So what. Do you understand the concept of time?

> It doesn't end here. There are dozens of examples indicating that the
> garage shooting was staged. Failed lie detector tests, conflicting
> reports, inconsistent photographs and films, AND the questionable behavior
> of officers. They not only covered the "shooter's" head (so witnesses
> couldn't see him), they carried away the "mortally wounded" man (to the
> same place they moved the suspect and for the same reason). Then they lied
> about the events.
>

Silly.

>

[Anthony Marsh]

Did they fake the sound also?
On live TV?
Maybe somebody shouted BANG?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/1/2017 8:23 PM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> InsideSparta
> - show quoted text -
> What's the point in re-hashing this again? All of your points have been
> countered and destroyed on this site in multiple threads, including your
> magnum opus James Bookhout fairy tale. You not only have the story of the
>
>

What site? This is not a site.
This is not a blog.
This is not a forum.
This is an UseNet Newsgroup,

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

Oh we have NO trouble "seeing" what YOU see, DOCTOR Cinque. And you're
right, it IS a nightmare…..but a very funny one. You've supplied
hours of entertainment for us.

Soon, Ralph………. soon. +

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

It's always Groundhog Day for Anthony and Robert. Shadow-boxing?

[Jason Burke]

That does seem to be what ol' Ralph is claiming.

Kinda sad.

[OHLeeRedux]

On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 1:56:08 PM UTC-7, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 10/1/2017 8:23 PM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> > InsideSparta
> > - show quoted text -
> > What's the point in re-hashing this again? All of your points have been
> > countered and destroyed on this site in multiple threads, including your
> > magnum opus James Bookhout fairy tale. You not only have the story of the
> >
> >
>
> What site? This is not a site.
> This is not a blog.
> This is not a forum.
> This is an UseNet Newsgroup,

Keep clinging obsessively to trivialities, Anthony, as long as it keeps
the demons at bay.

I'll bet you buy your boxer shorts at K-Mart in Cincinnati.

[Ralph Cinque]

Soon. Pink..... soon.-

[Jason Burke]

Your fairy tales don't even deserve glib putdowns any more, Ralph.

[Anthony Marsh]

Are you using Cockney swears to slip this past the Censor in Chief?

[Anthony Marsh]

Another Russian troll who knows nothing about US geography. I live near
Boston. There is a KMart here, but I try not to buy anything from KMart
if I can find it online or in a catalog.

[Anthony Marsh]

There is a technical term for that in psychology, but it's been 50 years
since college so I forget what it is called.

>

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 7:32:56 PM UTC+2, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> Soon. Pink..... soon.-

How original. Got those new platform crocs yet, Ralphie? They come in
pink, y'know.

[Amy Joyce]

Ralph, there is no doubt that the ambulance and hospital scene didn't go
down as depicted in the films and the final report. The lack of any blood
is just one indication. Police and FBI reports are also contradictory.

You once astutely mentioned the insanity of them moving the dying Oswald
back into the jail office (out of view) before calling ambulance, when
they shouldn't have been moving him at all. If they were going to do that
they might as well have moved him into the waiting car, located just three
feet away from where he fell, and then followed up by driving him to the
hospital straight away. That could have saved his life and protected him
from further victimization. As we all know they unnecessarily picked him
up and carried him back 30 feet into the office, just to lay him on a
different floor. That was obviously just to keep him hidden from unwanted
eyes!

If that wasn't bad in enough they laid him down a few feet from where they
brought the supposed perpetrator, a non handcuffed and supposed madman
that was trying to murder him! It was senseless, illogical, and
dangerous. According to police reports the officer's moving the "shooter"
didn't know that he had been disarmed by Graves, so he could have
potentially continued to shoot. We obviously need to add insane to the
list if we are going to believe the DPD was simply just too incompetent to
protect their prisoner and care for him after he was gunshot.

Additionally, the so called ambulance service was just a couple of guys
with an emergency transport vehicle, a service offered by the local
funeral home. They weren't equipped to give a gunshot victim any medical
expertise and they didn't; it was just a stretcher and a ride in a station
wagon. Incidentally, detective Wilbur Cutschshaw reported that the shooter
was brought into the jail office FIRST, and he was told to guard the door.
The only people he let enter were the detectives carrying Oswald back into
the office on a stretcher. They already had a stretcher handy!? That's
completely opposite of what a picture shows - detectives dragging the
shooter (face unseen of course) to the jail door, after Oswald had already
been moved from the scene.

[Jason Burke]

Uh, nooo Anthony Anthony.
Where on*earth* did you get that idea.

Or does "fairy tales" mean hairy males?

I don' see nuffin like you favorite Cockney swear!

[Amy Joyce]

On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 11:23:23 AM UTC-5, InsideSparta wrote:
> On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 3:39:24 PM UTC-7, Amy Joyce wrote:
> > Out of 6 films only one of them actually depicts a gun explosion (a 4
> > second scene from a newsreel). This despite the fact that it should also
> > be visible in three of the other films. The only one having what looks
> > like a gun flash is phony. That's been proven and is a fact:
>
> If the one film that shows the gun flash was fake, why didn't those sneaky
> film manipulators fake the others too? You've fallen into Ralph's weak
> argumentative tactic of calling any evidence that doesn't support your
> dreamland fantasy fake.

You tell me, Sparta. If the newsreel was actually of the same scene it
should match the other films, but it doesn't. The other films match each
other so why doesn't the Newsreel? Don't the discrepancies bother you at
all?

>
> >
> > 1. Not only does nobody else react to the startling sound of a gun
> > explosion, Oswald doesn't respond to getting shot. There is too long of a
> > delay for a mortally wounded gunshot victim that should have responded
> > instantly. Based upon other findings we know the reason is because they
> > inserted the fake flash at the wrong time.
>
> And just exactly how long should it take a mortally wounded man to react?
> Oswald's loud moan is heard almost simultaneous to the sound of the
> gunshot. Don't believe me? Watch and listen to the multiple sound
> recordings. Are they all fake? Oswald also went down immediately after
> having been shot. To suggest there was any length of time between the shot
> and Oswald's reaction is just plain ludicrous.

A mortally wounded man should respond within a reasonable amount of time.
In this case instantly, as was depicted in the other films. Just as the
supposed muzzle explosion occurred in the other films, Oswald reacted. He
grimaced in pain, exclaimed "OH", and he tensed in the shoulder appearing
to about double over.

"Oswald also went down immediately after having been shot". Look at the
Newsreel clip in slow motion. There are no less than five frames that he
doesn't respond! There is no instant anything except for movement of the
shooter's arm. The point is that in the Newsreel doesn't match the other
films in regards to Oswald reacting. The location of the gun also doesn't
match and the background doesn't match. It was filmed at a different time
and manipulated to reflect a live shooting.

>
> >
> > 2. The flash is also in the wrong place. It's inches below the barrel of
> > the gun (which was correctly pointed further above, where the actual
> > bullet wound ended up).
>
> There was an actual bullet wound? I thought the shooting was faked?

Perhaps be service and address the issue, Sparta. There was autopsy, a
funeral, and a burial. At some point Oswald was shot, just not when the
film and reports depict (so obviously it was done somewhere else as well).

I never said there wasn't any blood! I said there wasn't blood on the
(supposed) scene of the incident. I also said that there wasn't a speck of
blood on the gurney sheet and no substantial amount on Oswald or his
clothing (picture and films of the post "shooting" show this). If he was
shot at the time and in the place they say, and if he was bleeding enough
to have it absorbed into his clothing, we would have seen indications of
that. That would mean blood carrying over onto the sheet and right on his
stomach which we see in the up close picture and films of him with his
abdomen exposed.

If his bleeding was just internal there wouldn't have been blood on the
floor in the jail office and his white dress shirt wouldn't have been
soaked with it. You can't have it both ways. If he bled so much that his
shirt was soaked then both he and the sheet would have obvious blood
stains on it. If he just bled internally then his shirt shouldn't have
completely soaked with blood. Same goes for the apparent blood on the
jail office floor.

> >
> > It doesn't end here. There are dozens of examples indicating that the
> > garage shooting was staged. Failed lie detector tests, conflicting
> > reports, inconsistent photographs and films, AND the questionable behavior
> > of officers. They not only covered the "shooter's" head (so witnesses
> > couldn't see him), they carried away the "mortally wounded" man (to the
> > same place they moved the suspect and for the same reason). Then they lied
> > about the events.
>
> By moving the injured Oswald from the garage to the jail office area, they
> separated him from the crowd that nearly surrounded them in the garage.
> For all they knew, there could have been more than just Ruby in on the
> killing. They had to get Oswald out of there in case there was another
> shooter. Ruby had been subdued and disarmed, and he was immediately taken
> up the elevator, so he was no longer a threat to the injured Oswald. And,
> OBTW, Ruby passed the lie-detector test that he took.

They brought Oswald and the supposed shooter into the same jail office,
not 10 feet from each other (so the story goes). Shooter also wasn't
cuffed and they didn't even know if he had been disarmed when they brought
him back there (read the reports). To bring them together is insanity.

Actually, Ruby's test was inconclusive because they didn't follow proper
procedures. They asked him twice as many questions which causes fatigue
and poor results. They also asked him improper baseline questions which
are used to determine truthfulness of the actual test questions. Blackie
Harrison's test was also inconclusive because he took Benzos beforehand!
Former officer Daniels (who said he saw a Ruby lookalike enter the garage
from Main Street ramp) failed his polygraph test. He lied. The one officer
(Vaughn) that was guarding the Main Street ramp said Ruby did not get in
that way. He passed his non manipulated test and didn't take drugs prior
to taking it either! Another officer (Red Davis) saw Ruby being escorted
on a jail elevator by Batchelor an hour before the shooting. He passed
FOUR polygraph tests.

There was also another witness (Ray Rushing) that saw Ruby in the jail and
by Batchelor's office within an hour of the shooting. Ruby's defense
wasn't told about the witness and the WC failed to question him, despite
believing the FBI report regarding the sighting. The entire reason for
their investigation into the garage shooting was to try and determine
exactly how he got into the basement but they blew off any real leads.
They just went along with the story the cops fed them, just like Ruby (who
maintained he didn't remember) did!

Most were NOT in on it and that's evident in the documents and testimony.
It appears that it was set up to look like there were more witnesses than
there actually were. That 6 films failed to catch the shooter's face and a
handful of photographs hardly took any pictures, after waiting around for
hours, is a hint. Since viewers don't get a chance to see much it doesn't
take a leap to realize that most folks present didn't either. Most cops
didn't see the perp and had to be told who he was. No press saw him and
none of the press even saw a gun.

There are possible explanations regarding those questions but that'd be
speculation. Perhaps you can explain the points I brought up first and not
ignore them. I am exposing errors and inconsistencies and don't have all
the answers. Heck, I would like answers. I'd like to know what really
happened because it's obvious that the official story is crap.

[OHLeeRedux]

I didn't expect you to get the reference, Anthony, because your thinking
is excessively literal. It's one of the spectrum symptoms.

Speaking of which . . .

Raymond Babbitt always bought his boxer shorts at K-Mart in Cincinnati.

[Ralph Cinque]

Amy, you make an excellent point that since in those days ambulances were
just glorified taxis, providing no medical care, that if they were going
to move Oswald at all, they should have moved him into that police car
that was right there, Fritz' car, and driven him straight to the hospital.
A police car has got a siren, and it can travel every bit as fast as an
ambulance. There was no need to wait for an ambulance. And, I'll add at
this juncture that the cops had the ambulance turn left on Commerce, when
all it had to do was jog right on Commerce a hundred feet, and it would
have been at the intersection of Hardin which went north- directly to
Parkland Hospital. Traffic was already stopped, so it was no problem. If
Sam "Rio" Piece could drive the wrong way on the Main Street ramp, why
couldn't the ambulance drive the wrong way on Commerce Street a few feet?
They were practically at the intersection. There is no excuse about
this.

Of course, what you say is true about it being theoretically dangerous to
lie the shooter and Oswald next to each other, but in reality, we don't
know what transpired. I will restate for the record that I don't think
Oswald was shot in the garage. So, exactly what happened to him once taken
back inside the jail office is wide open to speculation. Was he even lying
on the floor in the WFAA footage in which officers are supposedly hovering
around him? Was he actually there at that time? How do we know? How can we
be certain? The fact is: WE DON'T SEE HIM.

Amy, I need a reference for Cutchshaw saying that Oswald was moved into
the jail office on a stretcher. Of course, he wasn't. Leavelle claimed
that he carried Oswald in with another officer. The stretcher idea is
preposterous, but if Cutchshaw said it, I would like to know when and to
whom.

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

Why is Amy Joyce not an 'executive senior member' of the OIC, Ralph? I'd
say she's "earned her bending bones", wouldn't you?

[Jason Burke]

I'm so glad we have SuperSleuth Nancy Drew to figure out what everyone
else failed at for 50+ years.

[Anthony Marsh]

More information that anyone needed to know. You had a crush on him?

[Jason Burke]

On 10/4/2017 10:05 AM, Amy Joyce wrote:
> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 11:23:23 AM UTC-5, InsideSparta wrote:
>> On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 3:39:24 PM UTC-7, Amy Joyce wrote:
>>> Out of 6 films only one of them actually depicts a gun explosion (a 4
>>> second scene from a newsreel). This despite the fact that it should also
>>> be visible in three of the other films. The only one having what looks
>>> like a gun flash is phony. That's been proven and is a fact:
>>
>> If the one film that shows the gun flash was fake, why didn't those sneaky
>> film manipulators fake the others too? You've fallen into Ralph's weak
>> argumentative tactic of calling any evidence that doesn't support your
>> dreamland fantasy fake.
>
> You tell me, Sparta. If the newsreel was actually of the same scene it
> should match the other films, but it doesn't. The other films match each
> other so why doesn't the Newsreel? Don't the discrepancies bother you at
> all?
>

Say "Amy"!
You looking at the same crappy nth generation youtube versions as Ralph?
Or are you going back a generation or two?

[Jason Burke]

Mebbe she don' want her picture took?

It would be hilarious if she did make up there and her picture had an
obvious watermark from shutterstock or something like that on it.

Be careful Ralph!

[InsideSparta]

On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 10:05:48 AM UTC-7, Amy Joyce wrote:
> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 11:23:23 AM UTC-5, InsideSparta wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 3:39:24 PM UTC-7, Amy Joyce wrote:
> > > Out of 6 films only one of them actually depicts a gun explosion (a 4
> > > second scene from a newsreel). This despite the fact that it should also
> > > be visible in three of the other films. The only one having what looks
> > > like a gun flash is phony. That's been proven and is a fact:
> >
> > If the one film that shows the gun flash was fake, why didn't those sneaky
> > film manipulators fake the others too? You've fallen into Ralph's weak
> > argumentative tactic of calling any evidence that doesn't support your
> > dreamland fantasy fake.
>
> You tell me, Sparta. If the newsreel was actually of the same scene it
> should match the other films, but it doesn't. The other films match each
> other so why doesn't the Newsreel? Don't the discrepancies bother you at
> all?

The news reel matches all of the other films in the critical measurable
features, like body positioning and movements of the individuals. Just
because one showed a flash and the others didn't really means nothing.

>
> >
> > >
> > > 1. Not only does nobody else react to the startling sound of a gun
> > > explosion, Oswald doesn't respond to getting shot. There is too long of a
> > > delay for a mortally wounded gunshot victim that should have responded
> > > instantly. Based upon other findings we know the reason is because they
> > > inserted the fake flash at the wrong time.
> >
> > And just exactly how long should it take a mortally wounded man to react?
> > Oswald's loud moan is heard almost simultaneous to the sound of the
> > gunshot. Don't believe me? Watch and listen to the multiple sound
> > recordings. Are they all fake? Oswald also went down immediately after
> > having been shot. To suggest there was any length of time between the shot
> > and Oswald's reaction is just plain ludicrous.
>
> A mortally wounded man should respond within a reasonable amount of time.
> In this case instantly, as was depicted in the other films. Just as the
> supposed muzzle explosion occurred in the other films, Oswald reacted. He
> grimaced in pain, exclaimed "OH", and he tensed in the shoulder appearing
> to about double over.

"A mortally wounded man should respond within a reasonable amount of

time"? Really? You watch too many Hollywood movies. Take a look at the
reactions of these two mortally wounded men in this real footage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drXHgd9XOJ4

> "Oswald also went down immediately after having been shot". Look at the
> Newsreel clip in slow motion. There are no less than five frames that he
> doesn't respond! There is no instant anything except for movement of the
> shooter's arm. The point is that in the Newsreel doesn't match the other
> films in regards to Oswald reacting. The location of the gun also doesn't
> match and the background doesn't match. It was filmed at a different time
> and manipulated to reflect a live shooting.

"Five frames"? Really? Even Abraham Zapruder's home Bell & Howell movie
camera filmed at 18 frames per second. So five frames would be less that
0.33 seconds. That's not fast enough for you?

> >
> > >
> > > 2. The flash is also in the wrong place. It's inches below the barrel of
> > > the gun (which was correctly pointed further above, where the actual
> > > bullet wound ended up).
> >
> > There was an actual bullet wound? I thought the shooting was faked?
>
> Perhaps be service and address the issue, Sparta. There was autopsy, a
> funeral, and a burial. At some point Oswald was shot, just not when the
> film and reports depict (so obviously it was done somewhere else as well).

Where else other than when the cameras were rolling? The ambulance picked
Oswald up within five minutes of the shooting. He certainly wasn't shot in
the jail house, there was a cameraman in that area the entire time. He
most certainly had been shot when they wheeled him into the ambulance.
Witnesses even saw the bullet hole in his sweater at that point. There was
no other opportunity for him to have been shot at any other time, other
than when the film footage shows it. And again, your theory means that
Oswald would have had to have been willing to fake having been shot. Why
would he do that? Why would the DPD choose to fake an Oswald shooting and
then actually shoot him at some other point? Why wouldn't they have simply
shot him upstairs, away from the press? What was the point of risking a
fake shooting?

>
> >
> > >
> > > 3. That flash can be seen in at least three different frames. Converted to
> > > video or not, since other movement can be seen (the "shooter's" arm), it
> > > means that there were several frames showing a gun "flash".
> > >
> > > This is a big mistake because the scene was only filmed at 29 fps. A high
> > > speed camera filming at over 1000 fps (about 70,000 fps actually), would
> > > have been needed to catch more than one flash. *Anthony admitted to this
> > > before he knew what it meant. Afterward he ignores the subject
> > > completely.
> > >
> > > 4. Most importantly, there is a pre-edited version of the film available
> > > for everyone's viewing and it absolutely does NOT have a gun flash.
> > >
> > > Faking a gun shot is a big deal. It supports other evidence that a gun
> > > wasn't fired into Oswald at that time and in that place. Other evidence
> > > includes a picture of Detective Graves removing a long piece of metal (a
> > > fake gun), from the shooter's hand. It's certainly wasn't a snub nose
> > > revolver.
> > >
> > > Oswald died from blood loss. There was no blood at the scene of the
> > > incident. Only a small amount of what might be blood can be seen on the
> > > floor of the jail office where they moved and laid down Oswald.

"Might be blood"? What else was it, Jim Leavelle's coffee? Stop being obtuse. Of course it was blood. That's why the cameraman made a point to film it, and zoom in on it.

There also
> > > wasn't a speck of blood on the stretcher sheet that Oswald laid on for
> > > quite a while on his trip to the hospital. BUT the victim's white collared
> > > shirt, worn underneath the sweater and used as WC evidence, was completely
> > > saturated and darkened by blood.
>
> first you say there was no blood; then you say there was. Oswald's
> bleeding was internal. Why do you have trouble understanding that? What
> blood came out of the bullet hole in his abdomen was absorbed by both the
> shirt he wore and the black sweater. The fact remains, when he was wheeled
> into the ambulance on the stretcher, the man had a bullet wound. Witnesses
> saw the bullet hole in his sweater, and Oswald was pale as a ghost. Did
> those sneaky conspirators apply white make-up to Oswald too?
>
> I never said there wasn't any blood! I said there wasn't blood on the
> (supposed) scene of the incident. I also said that there wasn't a speck of
> blood on the gurney sheet and no substantial amount on Oswald or his
> clothing (picture and films of the post "shooting" show this). If he was
> shot at the time and in the place they say, and if he was bleeding enough
> to have it absorbed into his clothing, we would have seen indications of
> that. That would mean blood carrying over onto the sheet and right on his
> stomach which we see in the up close picture and films of him with his
> abdomen exposed.

When he arrived at Parkland, he had a bullet hole in his abdomen. So,
without any doubt whatsoever he had indeed been shot. If there was no
blood on the stretcher sheet, it simply means he bled internally. Lack of
blood on the stretcher sheet has no bearing, because we know he was indeed
laying on that sheet after having been shot.

> If his bleeding was just internal there wouldn't have been blood on the
> floor in the jail office and his white dress shirt wouldn't have been
> soaked with it. You can't have it both ways. If he bled so much that his
> shirt was soaked then both he and the sheet would have obvious blood
> stains on it. If he just bled internally then his shirt shouldn't have
> completely soaked with blood. Same goes for the apparent blood on the
> jail office floor.

Are you an expert on how injured people bleed? There's the topical
bleeding that takes place due to the skin having been perforated, and then
there's the massive internal bleeding that takes place due to the injuries
sustained to the major vessels, arteries, etc. It would not be unusual for
a person to bleed topically to a limited degree and on a massive scale
internally.

I'm LMAO had you trying to negate the polygraph test that Ruby took.
Please provide proof that Red Davis took and passed four polygraph tests.
That sounds like a CT factoid.

Two cameramen filmed Ruby's face. One did so seconds before the shooting,
in profile, and the other filmed his face in the act of shooting Oswald
because he was the only cameraman that filmed the event from behind
Oswald. Given that every photographer or film cameraman were situated
facing Oswald, as one would expect, (with the exception of the one
cameraman behind him) it's not surprising that none of them captured
Ruby's face.

>
> There are possible explanations regarding those questions but that'd be
> speculation. Perhaps you can explain the points I brought up first and not
> ignore them. I am exposing errors and inconsistencies and don't have all
> the answers. Heck, I would like answers. I'd like to know what really
> happened because it's obvious that the official story is crap.

Correction, you don't have any of the answers. You have no real evidence
of the grand charade, other than trying to look for inconsistencies in the
film record. That's no different than those people that think they have
proof of a second shooter in Dealey Plaza because they think they see
Badgeman in the Mary Moorman photo. Give us real evidence of this grand
charade. Documentation; witness testimony; monetary payoff records. Give
us one single member of the media that has come forward and said the event
was a shame. Give us a logical explanation as to why Lee Harvey Oswald
would have ever agreed to fake his own shooting. Prove he was shot
anywhere else other than when he entered the basement garage. You can try
and locate things in the films and photographs until you're blue in the
face. Without a logical explanation as to why the event would have been
faked, and how it was kept silent for 50+ years, you really have nothing.
I repeat....NOTHING.

[Amy Joyce]

On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 3:47:05 PM UTC-5, InsideSparta wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 10:05:48 AM UTC-7, Amy Joyce wrote:
> > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 11:23:23 AM UTC-5, InsideSparta wrote:
> > > On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 3:39:24 PM UTC-7, Amy Joyce wrote:
> > > > Out of 6 films only one of them actually depicts a gun explosion (a 4
> > > > second scene from a newsreel). This despite the fact that it should also
> > > > be visible in three of the other films. The only one having what looks
> > > > like a gun flash is phony. That's been proven and is a fact:
> > >
> > > If the one film that shows the gun flash was fake, why didn't those sneaky
> > > film manipulators fake the others too? You've fallen into Ralph's weak
> > > argumentative tactic of calling any evidence that doesn't support your
> > > dreamland fantasy fake.
> >
> > You tell me, Sparta. If the newsreel was actually of the same scene it
> > should match the other films, but it doesn't. The other films match each
> > other so why doesn't the Newsreel? Don't the discrepancies bother you at
> > all?
>
> The news reel matches all of the other films in the critical measurable
> features, like body positioning and movements of the individuals. Just
> because one showed a flash and the others didn't really means nothing.

You are missing a major point or just ignoring it. A copy of the same
short film was used to make at least TWO different Newsreels. One Newsreel
has the faulty gun flash and the other DOESN'T.

This means everything! It's ultimate proof of fakery and dishonesty. I'm
pretty sure it's also against the law to manipulate evidence. It so
happens that the Newsreel film with the fake gun flash was used for WC
exhibits.

>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 1. Not only does nobody else react to the startling sound of a gun
> > > > explosion, Oswald doesn't respond to getting shot. There is too long of a
> > > > delay for a mortally wounded gunshot victim that should have responded
> > > > instantly. Based upon other findings we know the reason is because they
> > > > inserted the fake flash at the wrong time.
> > >
> > > And just exactly how long should it take a mortally wounded man to react?
> > > Oswald's loud moan is heard almost simultaneous to the sound of the
> > > gunshot. Don't believe me? Watch and listen to the multiple sound
> > > recordings. Are they all fake? Oswald also went down immediately after
> > > having been shot. To suggest there was any length of time between the shot
> > > and Oswald's reaction is just plain ludicrous.
> >
> > A mortally wounded man should respond within a reasonable amount of time.
> > In this case instantly, as was depicted in the other films. Just as the
> > supposed muzzle explosion occurred in the other films, Oswald reacted. He
> > grimaced in pain, exclaimed "OH", and he tensed in the shoulder appearing
> > to about double over.
>
> "A mortally wounded man should respond within a reasonable amount of
> time"? Really? You watch too many Hollywood movies. Take a look at the
> reactions of these two mortally wounded men in this real footage.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drXHgd9XOJ4

I see an instant reaction by both men Sparta; those victims didn't stop
moving. It would be best if there were comparable films, like with the
garage shooting (or even a fake gun flash) to determine when the shots
occurred. Having that is what proves the non reaction in the Newsreel
clip.

In the other films of the garage incident, the supposedly mortally wounded
Oswald reacted instantly to having a gun thrust into his belly and the
noise of a gun muzzle explosion. Oswald should have reacted at the same
time and in the way as the "victim" in the Newsreel. It doesn't match up.
The lack of reaction isn't the only differences between the Newsreel and
the other films and wasn't taken at the same time.

>
> > "Oswald also went down immediately after having been shot". Look at the
> > Newsreel clip in slow motion. There are no less than five frames that he
> > doesn't respond! There is no instant anything except for movement of the
> > shooter's arm. The point is that in the Newsreel doesn't match the other
> > films in regards to Oswald reacting. The location of the gun also doesn't
> > match and the background doesn't match. It was filmed at a different time
> > and manipulated to reflect a live shooting.
>
> "Five frames"? Really? Even Abraham Zapruder's home Bell & Howell movie
> camera filmed at 18 frames per second. So five frames would be less that
> 0.33 seconds. That's not fast enough for you?

Seeing that JFK responded to his injury within one frame and there were
other instant responses to gunfire within the same film, no - it's not
good enough. Leeway of a couple of frames is reasonable, but not 5 frames
with a slow speed camera. More importantly, correlating films of the same
event (garage shooting) exhibit an instantaneous response by the same
supposed victim. Btw, it's actually at least 8 frames without a reaction
but I didn't count three with the gun flash. Yes, the Newsreel has three
different frames showing a gun flash and it was shot with camera speed of
only 29 fps. It's absurdity at it's best.

The logical explanation is that Oswald was wanted dead, but murdering him
outright and without blame on someone else would have resulted in too much
heat.

Why argue against the evidence of alteration and staged scenes if it's
"nothing"? It obviously matters, especially since they went through an
awful lot of trouble to do it. There are also dozens of proven lies and
contradictions by the same people presenting the evidence. It's the same
scenario used with JFK - a set up for murder with a predesignated patsy,
followed by a cover-up. Can't help not trusting the same people involved
in both.

Fear of life imprisonment or the death penalty often keep people quiet for
years on end.

[bpete1969]

You're arguing that a film was used to make addition copies and then
complaining that they don't show the same thing. You have no idea how
anything was edited or reproduced and immediately, scream fraud.

It doesn't work that way. Your way conflates to a multi-scene,
multi-player conspiracy, when it comes down to, you don't know if you're
supposed to see the same thing, in different films.

You have determined that a slow speed camera cannot capture a gun flash
when it is obvious by the footage that it occurred.You are claiming that
there is no way a shutter on a random camera caught a muzzle flash, at any
point of it's visible existence. That's absurd.

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

You have a really bad case of paredolia, Ermy. Aren't you lucky you get
to share your views here? Thank you, John, for your parity.

[InsideSparta]

I'm not the one missing the point, nor ignoring the obvious. That person
is you. In order for the event to have been faked/staged, the DPD, FBI,
Secret Service, news reporters, cameramen, photographers, and (most
importantly) Lee Harvey Oswald himself would have had to be complicit in
the charade. You expect us to believe that law enforcement officials
approached Oswald, who had been charged with two homicides, one being that
of a police officer, and asked him to feign having been shot when he was
to be escorted through the garage? And that Oswald agreed to do just that?

The conversation must have gone like this...

"Hey Lee, when we get down into the garage this guy is going to leap out
from the press pool and fire a pistol into your abdomen. We want you to
pretend that you've been shot and fall to the floor. And, oh by the way,
can you let out a loud groan on your way down to the floor too, just to
make it look real for the live television audience?"

Or better yet, this request to the press...

"OK boys. We know you've been spending a lot of time here at police
headquarters the past two days covering these events, and we've granted
you a lot of access to not only the investigators, but also to the suspect
himself. So, we need a favor from you guys. When we escort Oswald down
into the garage, we're going to stage a fake shooting. This guy is going
to come out of the crowd and shoot Oswald while we're live on television.
Can you guys, like, pretend to be shocked and surprised by it all, and go
along with the ruse? We'll have a couple of practice takes with Oswald
before we go live, so feel free to film those as well. And, this is the
most important part of it all, you can't say anything about this to
anyone, ever. You guys game?"

And after all that, Oswald and the press all agreed to go along with the
charade. But, alas, poor Lee Oswald, was duped. After having brilliantly
given an Academy Award winning performance in the basement garage, those
sneaky Dallas Policemen went and shot him for real anyway. Poor Lee.

Ditto Academy Award performances by NBC newsman Tom Pettit, CBS newsman
Ike Pappas, and KRLD newsman Bob Huffacker for not only their perfect
reactions to the shooting, but to also stay in character for so long after
the fake shooting as they pretended to go about finding out just exactly
what had happened. And, how about the French newsman who provided the
improvisational comment about having seen the gun flash against Oswald's
black sweater. Brilliant. That was the most support by the French since
Lafayette.

Yes, I know, it all sounds rather ludicrous. Which is exactly what it is.
Yet, that is the story you're expecting people to believe. You want to try
and point out what you perceive to be inconsistencies in the visual
record, and from that leap to the conclusion that there must have been
some grand charade pulled over on the entire world, live on television,
and that it was all orchestrated by law enforcement officials. You expect
us to believe that accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald agreed to fake
having been shot. You expect us to believe that the international press
not only went along with the charade, but every single one of them has
kept quiet about since then, and not a single one even confessed on his
death bed.

Your silly fairy tale just doesn't stand up when logic and reality are
introduced into the equation. You can try and point to what you perceive
to be anomalies in the film footage and photographs to your heart's
content. But, in order to do so, you'll have to continue to ignore the
2000 pound elephant in the room, namely the questions as to how the grand
charade was actually pulled off, why those involved would ever have agreed
to go along with it, and why after 50+ years no real evidence (save your
film interpretations) has ever surfaced that any such charade actually
occurred.

You're peddling a cart full of horse manure.

[Amy Joyce]

LOL. Copying a film doesn't change the content. Gun flashes don't
magically appear.

The original was filmed the using standard aspect ratio and that one
didn't have any gun flashes. The copy after the change to High Definition
did. Besides that addition and the appearance of everyone looking a bit
heavier, it's the same. It now makes sense why the flash was so much lower
than the barrel and why LHO doesn't respond immediately.

Incidentally, it was the HD version used in exhibit.

> It doesn't work that way. Your way conflates to a multi-scene,
> multi-player conspiracy, when it comes down to, you don't know if you're
> supposed to see the same thing, in different films.
>
> You have determined that a slow speed camera cannot capture a gun flash
> when it is obvious by the footage that it occurred.You are claiming that
> there is no way a shutter on a random camera caught a muzzle flash, at any
> point of it's visible existence. That's absurd.

Lie, lie, lie and more straw man arguments.

I didn't say it was impossible to catch a gun flash with a low speed
camera. I said that a low speed camera wouldn't catch the same flash on
three different frames. Three! In the third one the shooter's arm had even
moved which shows just how ridiculous it is.

"You have determined that a slow speed camera cannot capture a gun flash
when it is obvious by the footage that it occurred."

bwahahahah - So lame, lol. That you have actually dropped so low as to
use the footage in question as proof indicates that you are grasping.
It's typical. I've seen you using the same kind of fallacy argument
before. That's like saying the Altgens photo can't have Oswald in it
because he was on the 6th floor firing a gun. That's a High School debate
class type of failure.

[Jason Burke]

It just amazes me how the CT crowd has no ability to step back for just a
second and see how gol' durn silly ALL of their ideas are.

[Ralph Cinque]

No, Sparta. Indeed, the cops were all in on it but not necessarily the
reporters. It's possible that some of them were. But, I certainly don't
assume that all of them were or that most of them were. They were expected
to buy the story the same way the viewers were.

And the way Oswald got involved was probably that he cited intelligence
people that he knew. We know he tried to call John Hurt in NC the Saturday
night. I doubt he kept it a secret. "I will call one of my contacts, and
he'll tell you that I have worked with US Intelligence for years. He'll
vouch for me." He may have cited Hurt, and he may have cited others. It
wasn't reported, but neither did they report his alibi, that he was out
with Bill Shelley in front during the shooting. So, they said to him,
"Lee, we believe you, and we are going to get you out of this. But, we
have to feign your death first because otherwise, people will come gunning
for you. That's a certainty. So, to call off the dogs, we have to make
them think you are dead."

None of the reporters claimed to recognize Ruby in the garage at the time.
And listen carefully to what I mean: I mean that when Pettit and them were
talking about what happened, nobody claimed to recognize Jack Ruby. The
name Jack Ruby did not enter their consciousness until Dallas Police
announced that Ruby was the shooter. Pappas had conversed with Ruby on
Friday night and taken a business card for him. Hugh Aynesworth knew Ruby
well and had seen him several times that weekend, and he didn't recognize
him either. Nobody but police claimed to recognize Ruby in process.

So, the ONLY ones we know of who were aware of it in process were the ones
doing it: the law enforcement people. And why would they go along with it
when it involved murdering someone? Because they believed that Oswald
killed Tippit. Plus, LBJ and Hoover must have told them that it was for
the good of the country, that the country needed closure, so that it
could, you know, get back to work.

Your 2000 pound elephant is actually a 20 ounce rat; large, ugly, and very
dirty, but not taking up a whole room.

[Amy Joyce]

A lot of other people have made the same mistake - assuming the "obvious",
that all those you named were present and witnesses, but it's not true at
all. There were no FBI OR SS even present at the time. Accident? Not
after being around him like glue all weekend, no it's not. In theory it
would have been nice to have real trained professionals there that were
willing to do there job. Especially after all of the threats, yet the
security was a joke. The FBI were supposedly up in Fritz and Curry's
office doing paperwork. Others were interviewing potential witnesses away
from the scene. Again, not a single FBI agent was present during the
Oswald transfer.

As to the others, not a single member of the press was an actual witness
to Oswald taking a bullet. At most a few saw a "blur" of movement, heard a
loud pop, and Oswald yelp but that's it. The same goes for the DPD. I went
through and charted all of potential witnesses and compared their police
report and testimony (if there was any). About 20 that were in a position
to see the incident didn't and had to be told who the perp was. So the "so
many" witnesses you say there was and claim would have needed to be in on
it suddenly dwindles down to a mere half dozen. From them are the ones
that brought the shooter through the jail office door and rode with Oswald
in the ambulance. It's quite interesting to read what they have to say.
Lies and contradictions are exposed. It is that which made up half of the
reason for a mistrial.

True that. Pettit and the other "witnesses" had to try and figure out what
happened because they didn't see it. The ONE person that claimed to see
the gun flash again could have been confused with a flash from a camera or
the breaking car lights coming on. Viewers of the film can see the same as
well glare against his and the shooter's clothing.

Along with the Frenchmen, who didn't mention that in his police interview,
there were initial reports that the shooter was short and elderly - that
doesn't match the description of Ruby. Another said he came from a parked
car and jumped over the railing - that doesn't match the film or the WC's
final report.

The film showing that fake, cartoonish Ruby lookalike standing behind
Blackie Harrison is contradicted by two policemen who were actually
standing behind Harrison. Arnett testified that the shooter was never
there - because they were! He was also insistent that the shooter didn't
come from that area. It's not surprising that there is an early
comparable NBC film showing the exact same scene and the cartoonish man
can't be seen. They indeed got too confident and arrogant with their
manipulations.

>
> Yes, I know, it all sounds rather ludicrous. Which is exactly what it is.
> Yet, that is the story you're expecting people to believe. You want to try
> and point out what you perceive to be inconsistencies in the visual
> record, and from that leap to the conclusion that there must have been
> some grand charade pulled over on the entire world, live on television,
> and that it was all orchestrated by law enforcement officials. You expect
> us to believe that accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald agreed to fake
> having been shot. You expect us to believe that the international press
> not only went along with the charade, but every single one of them has
> kept quiet about since then, and not a single one even confessed on his
> death bed.

It could have gone done similar to the way you described (without the
punches, of course). It could also be that it wasn't actually LHO that was
brought into the garage for that staged scene. There are several pictures
that are supposed to be him, which should have been taken at the same time
of the incident, but weren't.

I've never claimed to have all of the answers and I don't. There is much
more that doesn't make sense, that which you ignore. That is what's
ludicrous. The reason I started researching it is because of the bizarre
circumstances. That leads to the evidence showing it wasn't Jack Ruby that
shot Oswald as well as the evidence showing that the incident didn't occur
the way they claim. You don't know the half of it and what you do know,
you pretend doesn't exist.

Get real, later witness confessions or recollections from JFK's
assassination all get dismissed as fairy tales. But now, that's what you
expect? It wouldn't happen anyway because as I previously said, the
multitude of people you think would of had to be in on it, weren't. That
includes the press which didn't see or know anything to confess to. They
ALL had to be told it was Jack Ruby and saw no more than what films depict
today. You are just assuming that all of the people you claim saw the
incident, actually did. Perhaps you can provide a list of all of those
witnesses you claim saw the incident, and confirmed it was Jack Ruby.
Let's see it. Keep in mind that Detective Miller rushed forward and
covered up the shooter's head in order to keep his identity hidden, that
we can see that in the KRLD film, and that a DPD witness can confirm it.
People saw what we can see - an unidentifiable man rush forward with what
they assume is a gun.

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

Your imaginary dialogue is far superior than Dr. Cinque's cart full, Mr.
Sparta.

He done you in, Ralph. You can go home now, little fella. It's OK, we
all make mistakes. Yours was just a little long errorr in time than
others.

[Jason Burke]

On 10/9/2017 2:33 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> No, Sparta. Indeed, the cops were all in on it

Better hope some of 'em ain't still alive, eh, Ralph?

> but not necessarily the
> reporters. It's possible that some of them were. But, I certainly don't
> assume that all of them were or that most of them were. They were expected
> to buy the story the same way the viewers were.
>
> And the way Oswald got involved was probably that he cited intelligence
> people that he knew. We know he tried to call John Hurt in NC the Saturday
> night. I doubt he kept it a secret. "I will call one of my contacts, and
> he'll tell you that I have worked with US Intelligence for years. He'll
> vouch for me." He may have cited Hurt, and he may have cited others. It

Ah, Ralph's little screenplay again!

> wasn't reported, but neither did they report his alibi, that he was out
> with Bill Shelley in front during the shooting. So, they said to him,
> "Lee, we believe you, and we are going to get you out of this. But, we
> have to feign your death first because otherwise, people will come gunning
> for you. That's a certainty. So, to call off the dogs, we have to make
> them think you are dead."

Ah, Ralph's little screenplay again!

>
> None of the reporters claimed to recognize Ruby in the garage at the time.
> And listen carefully to what I mean: I mean that when Pettit and them were
> talking about what happened, nobody claimed to recognize Jack Ruby. The
> name Jack Ruby did not enter their consciousness until Dallas Police
> announced that Ruby was the shooter. Pappas had conversed with Ruby on
> Friday night and taken a business card for him. Hugh Aynesworth knew Ruby
> well and had seen him several times that weekend, and he didn't recognize
> him either. Nobody but police claimed to recognize Ruby in process.
>
> So, the ONLY ones we know of who were aware of it in process were the ones
> doing it: the law enforcement people. And why would they go along with it
> when it involved murdering someone? Because they believed that Oswald
> killed Tippit. Plus, LBJ and Hoover must have told them that it was for
> the good of the country, that the country needed closure, so that it
> could, you know, get back to work.
>
> Your 2000 pound elephant is actually a 20 ounce rat; large, ugly, and very
> dirty, but not taking up a whole room.
>

The 20 ounce rat thang pretty much describes EVERYTHING you've ever had
to say on this matter, Ralph.

[Anthony Marsh]

It amazes me that you can't see that many times I am the only one who
can shoot down those kooky theories. You slacker!

[InsideSparta]

Nice of you to answer for Amy Ralph. You've already stated in the past
that you believe members of the press were in on it, specifically
photographer Bob Jackson and the cameraman that testified that he saw Ruby
come down the ramp, and that he was the same man that did the shooting.
But, of course, you claim the man was lying, even though you have no
evidence that he lied, nor that he ever committed perjury in any case
before or after. So, in order to make your silly theory believable, you
have to provide evidence as to how members of the press could have been
complicit in this grand charade, and remained silent about it for all
these years.

Regarding the lack of recognition of Ruby: Aynesworth is on record saying
he was a good distance away, up on the Commerce Street ramp, and could not
see the Ruby's face at anytime during the event. Ike Pappas entered the
garage about 30 seconds prior to the shooting. Ruby was behind him and he
stated was simply a blur that ran past him when he shot Oswald. It's not
like Ike Pappas knew Ruby well. In fact, he spoke briefly with him two
nights earlier, and never saw him again until the shooting. Not surprising
at all that Pappas wouldn't make the connection between the blur that ran
passed him and one of the dozens, perhaps hundreds of individuals he spoke
with for the first time over the preceding 48 hours.

Your speculation as to Oswald being approached by the Dallas PD and asked
to pretend being shot is absolutely laughable. Oswald never once said
anything about having "contacts" in intelligence. You're totally making
that conversation up, just like I made up my version of the conversation.
Yours is just as silly as mine. To believe that an accused political
assassin, also charged with killing a police officer, is going to agree to
pretend he was shot on live television is quite simply asinine. I really
can't fathom that anyone could convince themselves that something like
that happened in this case.

All you have to back your fairy tale up are your own interpretations of
the filmed event and photographs taken. Which isn't much. You only have
pure guesswork at any of the rest; conversations, motives, participants,
etc. You have no real evidence whatsoever that this grand charade ever
took place. And I mean no evidence. None. Nada. Zilch. Squat.

[Jason Burke]

Hell, it's obvious that you don't even understand the questions.
This whole matter was settled hore'n half a century ago, "Amy".

> more that doesn't make sense, that which you ignore. That is what's
> ludicrous. The reason I started researching it is because of the bizarre

You haven't researched anything, "Amy".
You've bought hook, line, and sinker a couple whack-job conspiracy sites.

> circumstances. That leads to the evidence showing it wasn't Jack Ruby that

Ain't any evidence showing it wasn't Ruby what shot Ozzie, "Amy". You
been listenin' to ol' Ralph too much.

> shot Oswald as well as the evidence showing that the incident didn't occur
> the way they claim. You don't know the half of it and what you do know,
> you pretend doesn't exist.

Alls the CT clowns gots is "pretend". And idiots been falling for it for
more'n half a century.

>
> Get real, later witness confessions or recollections from JFK's
> assassination all get dismissed as fairy tales. But now, that's what you

Fairy tales. Ralph's whole reason for breathing.

> expect? It wouldn't happen anyway because as I previously said, the
> multitude of people you think would of had to be in on it, weren't. That
> includes the press which didn't see or know anything to confess to. They
> ALL had to be told it was Jack Ruby and saw no more than what films depict
> today. You are just assuming that all of the people you claim saw the
> incident, actually did. Perhaps you can provide a list of all of those
> witnesses you claim saw the incident, and confirmed it was Jack Ruby.
> Let's see it. Keep in mind that Detective Miller rushed forward and
> covered up the shooter's head in order to keep his identity hidden, that

What a load of horseshit, "Amy".

> we can see that in the KRLD film, and that a DPD witness can confirm it.
> People saw what we can see - an unidentifiable man rush forward with what
> they assume is a gun.
>

T'weren't a gun. It was a beer bottle held horizontally.

Geez, can the CT crowd come up with ANYTHING more foolish?

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

Oswald can't have been in any of the Altgens photos because he WAS on the
6th floor of the TSBD

FIRING A GUN !!! Get over it, you poor creature. Took a while, but i did.
Go ahead, Amy……. take the

plunge.

[Amy Joyce]

All you can do is attack and stay in denial. No wonder your posts are
limited to doing just that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5khMFFKslw

@ 14:08 Miller calmly walks over and covers up the shooter, hiding his
identity. Watson corroborates it:

"I never saw the suspect or the gun before the shot was fired, then the
officers covered the suspect and took him to the jail office." ~Detective
James Watson

Of course Miller lied in his report and said only that another officer hit
the shooter from behind and "propelled him" in his direction. Not only
was nobody even behind the shooter, we can see that it was the shooter
himself that lunged forward toward the cops by his own effort.

So, can you explain why Miller covered up the shooter. Further, explain
why he was prepared to do so and why that was his main concern in those
critical moments, instead of helping the victim or trying to apprehend the
suspect. Normally that's what police officer's do and it is how they are
trained to respond. There was no reason to cover him up unless he wanted
to hide his real identity. There's also absolutely no reason he should be
prepared to do it unless he was specifically assigned to that task.

Miller's actions provide a lot of information. He knew in advance that
the incident was going to occur and at the least, he didn't want the
shooter to be seen (conspiracy and collaboration). If it was Jack Ruby,
hiding his face wouldn't have protected his identity for long, so covering
him up makes no sense. If there was a logical reason for his actions,
Miller would have certainly mentioned it in his report and also not lied
about the shooter getting pushed his way. There would have been no reason
for any of the officer's to lie had it gone down the way they claim it
did, yet lies get exposed left and right.

[bpete1969]

People saw Jack Ruby rush forward with a gun and shoot Oswald.

From the person that claims actual proof of something is a high school
argument. Pay attention....you have supported Raff*'s claim the Bookhout
shot Oswald. Bookhout was an FBI Agent.

You reasoning skills are as developed as your photo interpretation skills.
They suck.

we are still waiting for you, or Raff* or anyone else to produce actual
evidence that Ruby didn't shoot Oswald.

[Ralph Cinque]

Sparta, as usual, you are wrong on all counts. Just because certain
attendees gave very cooperative testimony later on doesn't mean that they
saw and recognized Ruby at the time. No one except Dallas police claimed
to recognize Ruby at the time. No one. Nada. Zilch. Squat.

And no, I never claimed to know that Bob Jackson was in on it. And you
should know that I get pretty testy with people who put words in my mouth.
What I know about Bob Jackson is that he was extremely cooperative with
authorities and extremely supportive of the official narrative from the
beginning. But, that doesn't mean that I think someone tapped him on the
shoulder and said, "You know, we're killing Oswald today." They didn't
have to do that. He took his picture, and then according to him, he had to
hang around the PD for several hours "until a replacement could be sent."
Then, he supposedly took his film back to the office to develop. But, I
think what must have happened is that he was told that for "national
security" reasons, they had to review the images he captured, but there
was no need to broadcast it. That's what he was hanging around for: to get
his film back. And when he got it back, he got the monstrosity that we
know as the Jackson photo. But, I'm not saying that at any time he was
informed that something happened other than what they said happened. So, I
think he is keeping a secret about the handing of his film, but I don't
think he was in on the plot to kill Oswald and frame Ruby.

Now listen: it is physically and photographically impossible for Robert
Jackson to have taken the Jackson photo as it exists. And that means one
of two things with absolute certainty: either they altered his photo or
they replaced it. One or the other. And there is no give on that.

And what gives you the right to make excuses for Pappas and Aynesworth not
recognizing Ruby in the garage? You don't know them. You never talked to
them. You weren't there yourself. Your conjectures mean nothing to me.
What I know is that multiple cops said they recognized Ruby but no
reporters did. And why speak of what Pappas could see? Look at the Beers
photo. Pappas had a much better view of the shooter's face than Jim
Leavelle did, who wasn't even looking his direction, yet Leavelle claimed
to see Ruby coming. And as well as Aynesworth knew Ruby, which was very
well, he should recognized him from behind. He would have had enough
visual information for it to occur to him, "Is that Jack?"

How do you know that Oswald didn't mention having contacts in US
intelligence? He underwent 13 hours of interrogation, and we can't account
for even half that much time with the information provided. Obviously,
there is a lot that was said that was never recorded. We were never even
told Oswald's alibi for the Tippit murder. We were never told how he said
he got from the boarding room to the theater. Now, do you think they asked
him that? Or do you prefer to assume that they didn't ask him that? That
they had no interest in what he had to say about how he got there? That
they didn't ask, and he didn't tell?

Oswald tried to call an intelligence agent, John Hurt, in North Carolina
on Saturday night. Why wouldn't he tell them that he was going to do that?
So, that's one intelligence connection right there.

And it's obvious that Oswald was in on it. He made eye contact with the
shooter, and then he deliberately looked away as the shooter rushed in.
Then, after being shot, he started to crumble forward, he suddenly veered
back and went up on his toes. How does a guy with a burst aorta do that?
It is physiologically impossible. It is medically impossible, if you like
that term better.

It's over, Sparta. The garage shooting was a ruse, and Oswald was shot
afterwards. That is an undeniable fact, and your spewings have done
nothing to challenge it. Damage to the official story is as irreparable as
the damage that was (eventually) done to Oswald.

[Anthony Marsh]

> Go ahead, Amy??????. take the
>
> plunge.
>


Circular reasoning.

[Ralph Cinque]

So, Amy, how many detectives are known to have lied? I count Leavelle,
Graves, Combest, Miller, McMillon, so far. I'm sure there are more. This
was a DPD operation.

[Amy Joyce]

Saying that he did it isn't proof which is what he offered. Just like
you.

Pay attention....you have supported Raff*'s claim the Bookhout
> shot Oswald. Bookhout was an FBI Agent.

I did? I'm looking forward to seeing that quote. Again you are just making
shit up.

>
> You reasoning skills are as developed as your photo interpretation skills.
> They suck.

I can feel how desperately you'd like this to become a name calling match.
It's all ya got.

> we are still waiting for you, or Raff* or anyone else to produce actual
> evidence that Ruby didn't shoot Oswald.

You aren't waiting for evidence. I've brought up a couple of points in
this thread and your only response was, "you suck". It's still making me
laugh.

[InsideSparta]

On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 12:18:15 PM UTC-7, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> Sparta, as usual, you are wrong on all counts. Just because certain
> attendees gave very cooperative testimony later on doesn't mean that they
> saw and recognized Ruby at the time. No one except Dallas police claimed
> to recognize Ruby at the time. No one. Nada. Zilch. Squat.

Ralph, the freelance cameraman testified under oath that he say Ruby come
down the ramp, and that Ruby was the person that shot Oswald. Of course,
since the witness' sworn testimony blows your silly fantasy apart, your
only recourse is to call him a liar. Any testimony that doesn't support
your fairy tale are lies, and any photographic or film evidence is fake.
You got yourself quite a case there Ralphie.

>
> And no, I never claimed to know that Bob Jackson was in on it. And you
> should know that I get pretty testy with people who put words in my mouth.
> What I know about Bob Jackson is that he was extremely cooperative with
> authorities and extremely supportive of the official narrative from the
> beginning. But, that doesn't mean that I think someone tapped him on the
> shoulder and said, "You know, we're killing Oswald today." They didn't
> have to do that. He took his picture, and then according to him, he had to
> hang around the PD for several hours "until a replacement could be sent."
> Then, he supposedly took his film back to the office to develop. But, I
> think what must have happened is that he was told that for "national
> security" reasons, they had to review the images he captured, but there
> was no need to broadcast it. That's what he was hanging around for: to get
> his film back. And when he got it back, he got the monstrosity that we
> know as the Jackson photo. But, I'm not saying that at any time he was
> informed that something happened other than what they said happened. So, I
> think he is keeping a secret about the handing of his film, but I don't
> think he was in on the plot to kill Oswald and frame Ruby.

If you claim that Bob Jackson allowed his undeveloped roll of film to
leave his possession and he has since lied about it, you're basically
accusing him of being an accomplice in murder of Lee Harvey Oswald by
virtue of his lying about what you think really happened. To suggest your
Dallas Police boogeymen confiscated Bob Jackson's roll of film, reviewed
it, then created a replacement roll of exposed undeveloped film, and then
handed that back to Jackson a couple of hours later, you're out of your
mind. There is no way that would have even been possible. Jackson has
stated in interviews that he wouldn't even let anyone else develop the
roll. Not only is there no way he would have given that roll of film up,
it would have been impossible for another (faked) roll of film to have
been created and then switched with the real roll before Jackson took to
film to the DMN and developed it. After reading what you wrote, I have to
ask you if you actually read the crap that spews from your fingertips?
It's laughable.

>
> Now listen: it is physically and photographically impossible for Robert
> Jackson to have taken the Jackson photo as it exists. And that means one
> of two things with absolute certainty: either they altered his photo or
> they replaced it. One or the other. And there is no give on that.

You've just proven one thing: you're a poor judge of what is possible and
impossible in the wonderful world of photography.

>
> And what gives you the right to make excuses for Pappas and Aynesworth not
> recognizing Ruby in the garage? You don't know them. You never talked to
> them. You weren't there yourself. Your conjectures mean nothing to me.
> What I know is that multiple cops said they recognized Ruby but no
> reporters did. And why speak of what Pappas could see? Look at the Beers
> photo. Pappas had a much better view of the shooter's face than Jim
> Leavelle did, who wasn't even looking his direction, yet Leavelle claimed
> to see Ruby coming. And as well as Aynesworth knew Ruby, which was very
> well, he should recognized him from behind. He would have had enough
> visual information for it to occur to him, "Is that Jack?"

I'm not putting words into the mouths of Pappas and Aynesworth. In fact,
I'm only repeating what they themselves have stated in interviews.

>
> How do you know that Oswald didn't mention having contacts in US
> intelligence? He underwent 13 hours of interrogation, and we can't account
> for even half that much time with the information provided. Obviously,
> there is a lot that was said that was never recorded. We were never even
> told Oswald's alibi for the Tippit murder. We were never told how he said
> he got from the boarding room to the theater. Now, do you think they asked
> him that? Or do you prefer to assume that they didn't ask him that? That
> they had no interest in what he had to say about how he got there? That
> they didn't ask, and he didn't tell?

How do you know Oswald ever said he had intelligence contacts during his
13 hours of interrogation? There is certainly no evidence or testimony
that he ever made any such statement. So, what evidence do you have that
he ever said anything about intelligence contacts to his interrogators?
That's pure fairy tale guesswork on your part.

>
> Oswald tried to call an intelligence agent, John Hurt, in North Carolina
> on Saturday night. Why wouldn't he tell them that he was going to do that?
> So, that's one intelligence connection right there.

Did he? There's a lot of debate about whether or not the NC number,
retrieved from the trash, was the actual number that he requested.

>
> And it's obvious that Oswald was in on it. He made eye contact with the
> shooter, and then he deliberately looked away as the shooter rushed in.
> Then, after being shot, he started to crumble forward, he suddenly veered
> back and went up on his toes. How does a guy with a burst aorta do that?
> It is physiologically impossible. It is medically impossible, if you like
> that term better.

Stick to bending bones Ralph. You haven't a clue what a person taking a
bullet in the abdomen is capable of doing in the half second after he is
shot, before he crumples to the floor.

>
> It's over, Sparta. The garage shooting was a ruse, and Oswald was shot
> afterwards. That is an undeniable fact, and your spewings have done
> nothing to challenge it. Damage to the official story is as irreparable as
> the damage that was (eventually) done to Oswald.

It was over when Jack Ruby was subdued and arrested immediately after he
shot Oswald. It was over for you when your Bookhout theory was blown to
smithereens with the recent photo revelation (not that the Bookhout theory
hadn't already been debunked by numerous individuals on this site (excuse
me, news group). Your theory is a joke; only its not a funny one at all.

[Amy Joyce]

The lies didn't stop at framing Ruby. They also tried to show that Ruby
had prior intent in order to ensure that he got the death penalty. Dean
and Archer were proven liars during cross at Jack Ruby's trial. Both
testified that they were upstairs and on the 5th when Ruby told Agent Hall
that he'd been planning the murder since Friday after seeing Oswald smirk.
Hall admitted that wasn't the case. Dean was also busted because he was
actually down in the garage being interviewed by reporters and couldn't
have been there at the time.

Lowery lied when first saying he saw Ruby seconds before the shooting.
Realizing that this made it look like he had done nothing to prevent the
murder, he changed his story and said he didn't see Ruby before the
incident at all.

Bieberdorf lied several times and never did get his story straight! Even
during his WC testimony when trying to correct the lies from his police
interview, he lied some more. There is no way 6 other adults (not
including Oswald on the gurney) could have even fit inside the ambulance,
and they weren't in the positions he claimed.

Graves and Leavelle also claimed that six people - Wolf, Hardin, and Bieb,
along with three detectives, were inside the ambulance, but at least they
didn't forget that there was only one seat available in the second row.

Bieberdorf first reported he rode in the rear, but then he told the WC
that he was sitting in the passenger side backseat and that Jim Leavelle
rode next to him. Only two detectives (one of them Leavelle) got into the
rear next to Oswald's gurney (a tight fit if possible at all), and only
one unidentifiable person entered the side door. That's five.

Bieb may not have even rode in the ambulance at all! The man entering the
side door was wearing a hat and Bieb was not wearing one. So were the
only two men that got into the rear. In the films of the ambulance
arriving at Parkland, young Bieberdorf is nowhere to be seen but Dhority,
Graves, and Leavelle were. This would account for his confusion about the
seating arrangements and also the lack of room.

[Ralph Cinque]

How could the cameraman have recognized Jack Ruby at the time? How would
he have known of Jack Ruby? What, do you think Jack Ruby was a celebrity
like John F. Kennedy? Instantly recognizable by anyone who saw him? He
wasn't THAT big a celebrity in Dallas. And I don't give a flying fluck
about testimonies. HE DID NOT CITE SEEING JACK RUBY BEFORE POLICE CITED
THE NAME OF JACK RUBY.

You are not smart; it's your problem.

And my claims have recently been corroborated by the silence of Jim
Bookhout. He could have confirmed your ridiculous claim that Bob Crowder
was James Bookhout, and he could have denounced my claim that the short
shooter by the elevator with the detectives was his father. But, he did
neither. Why didn't he do either? Because apparently, he is an honest man
who does not cotton to lying.

But still, the sounds of silence can be deafening. And they are here.

[Amy Joyce]

On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 3:04:46 PM UTC-5, InsideSparta wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 12:18:15 PM UTC-7, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> > Sparta, as usual, you are wrong on all counts. Just because certain
> > attendees gave very cooperative testimony later on doesn't mean that they
> > saw and recognized Ruby at the time. No one except Dallas police claimed
> > to recognize Ruby at the time. No one. Nada. Zilch. Squat.
>
> Ralph, the freelance cameraman testified under oath that he say Ruby come
> down the ramp, and that Ruby was the person that shot Oswald. Of course,
> since the witness' sworn testimony blows your silly fantasy apart, your
> only recourse is to call him a liar. Any testimony that doesn't support
> your fairy tale are lies, and any photographic or film evidence is fake.
> You got yourself quite a case there Ralphie.

If you are referring to Jimmie Turner, he gave a detailed account of what
he witnessed to the police months before his WC testimony. He was
specifically questioned to help determine how and when Ruby got into the
basement, and he said nothing about seeing Ruby on the ramp.

In fact the report states the opposite, that Turner "does not recall
seeing this man in basement". Further, it states the Turner only saw the
shooter "a split second before the shot was fired". A split second
indicates that he saw no more than the back of the shooter's head, just as
he approached Oswald. Since Turner was filming at the time, we get to see
what he saw - nothing but the backside of a man that he was later told was
Jack Ruby's.

Ralph didn't just say that Turner lied, there is proof! There is also
Vaughn's insistence that Ruby didn't enter the basement from the Main
street ramp, which is backed up by a polygraph test that Vaughn passed.
Former officer Daniel's claim of seeing someone (that "might" have been
Ruby) enter from the same ramp got debunked when he failed his polygraph.
The outfit didn't even match what the shooter was wearing.

Many lies were told about that day.

[David Emerling]

On Friday, September 29, 2017 at 4:54:28 PM UTC-5, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> My position, of course, is that the garage shooting was a
> made-for-television ruse, that Oswald was not shot there. He was
> definitely shot afterwards but not in the garage.

That is such a ridiculous position that it deserves no discussion. What
color is the sky in your world?

I'm convinced that there is a cult of conspiracy believers who are lonely
people and are just seeking a "pen pal", basically, somebody (ANYBODY!)
who will "talk" to them. So, they take outrageously preposterous positions
in order to get noticed - like a child holding his breath, turning blue,
so people will say, "What are you doing? Stop holding your breath!"

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Ralph Cinque]

That was excellent, Amy. You are really honing in. And I agree that the
Bieb was a very suspicious character. Let's consider: he said that when he
first saw Oswald, he thought he was dead. He said that he could detect no
heartbeat or respiration. Then, he said he performed "sternal massage". I
presume he meant sternal compressions. But, if he detected no respiration,
why didn't he also perform mouth to mouth resuscitation? It was invented
in 1956, so I presume he knew about it in 1963, him being a doctor and
all. Then, it became part of his story that he continued doing "sternal
massage" on Oswald in the ambulance, which no one else reported, and that
he used an oxygen cup resuscitator on Oswald, by which I presume he meant
a bag valve mask. But, where did it come from? Was it just sitting in the
back seat? Neither Hardin or Wolfe had any medical training, so presumably
it wasn't there for their use. So, why would it be there at all? And if
it was there for their use, why didn't they take it with them into the
jail office? If the victim isn't breathing, isn't that something that you
HAVE to deal with on the spot? Detective Dhority said that HE was taking
Oswald's pulse the entire time that they were traveling to the hospital,
so how could he not mention the things that the Bieb was doing? And since
the Bieb was the doctor, why didn't he just let the Bieb tend to Oswald
and not intrude? But, Dhority didn't even mention the Beib being there in
the ambulance, never mind doing anything. Here, see for yourself:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/dhority1.htm

And this is all that the driver Michael Hardin said about the Bieb:

Mr. HUBERT. Do you know who they were?
Mr. HARDIN. I believe they were police officers and I believe one of them
was Leavelle.
Mr. HUBERT. Yes.
Mr. HARDIN. I am not sure. And then there was a doctor riding in the seat
in the back, there, and then my assistant was in the front seat.
Mr. HUBERT. How did you know the man was a doctor?
Mr. HARDIN. I have seen him at Parkland Hospital several times and city
hall, too, and recognized him as being a doctor.

Don't you think that Hardin would have noticed it if the Bieb was performing
life-saving emergency procedures on Oswald in his ambulance? But, he didn't
say a word about it. Here's his testimony:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hardin.htm

Then, the Bieb claimed that just 5 blocks from the hospital, Oswald
started thrashing around, resisting his efforts, and that he tried to
remove the resuscitator from his mouth. I DO NOT BELIEVE IT. If you
consider the condition that Oswald was in when he reached the hospital,
according to the Parkland doctors, which is that he had no blood pressure
whatsoever, and only the most feeble and infrequent heartbeat, and they
immediately gave him a blood transfusion that amounted to total body
replacement of blood- replacing every bit of blood in his body. This was
an ambulance traveling at ambulance speed, so how long did it take them to
go 5 blocks? And how long did it take them to get him inside? So, how is
it possible that just two minutes before that, Oswald was thrashing around
and trying to remove something from his mouth? He was practically dead,
for Christ's sake. In fact, it may be accurate to say that he was dead,
that the scanty signs of life remaining in him were absolutely hopeless
and futile. I've said before that JFK was definitely dead before Parkland
doctors started working on him- as much so as a chicken with its head cut
off. The same may be true of Oswald. I don't believe for one second that
he was thrashing and trying to remove something from his mouth in the
ambulance.

We have no sighting of the Bieb at the hospital. There is no image of him.
There is no reference to anyone seeing him. And how could the Bieb claim
that Leavelle rode with him in the middle seat when he would have known
that no one could have rode with him in that seat since Oswald was taking
up half of it?

It was in his FBI statement that the Bieb claimed to treat Oswald with
emergency methods in the ambulance. He made no mention of it in his
testimony to the Warren Commission, nor did anyone else mention it.

[bpete1969]

We expect nothing less from the pivot man.

[Jason Burke]

Or - and this is MUCH more likely, Ralph - he thinks of you much as he
does a piece of lint on his sleeve and just brushed you off, Ralph.

But keep up the illusion of grandeur, Ralph.

Besides, even if he told you the truth, Ralph, you'd claim it was fake,
Fake, FAKE.

[Jason Burke]

Difference here is that everyone is laughing at Ralph.

[Jason Burke]

Calling Dr. (note: he eventually became a *real* doctor...) Beiberdorf
"the Beib" makes you look even more foolish than usual, Ralph.

I know it's a challenge, but you've done it, Ralph.

[Anthony Marsh]

Brilliant!
So you don't care about the truth.
Anyone who questions the government must be a kook.
So Watergate was really just a third rate burglary.
And Saddam really did have nuclear weapons.

[Ralph Cinque]

Emerling, you are way late playing psychoanalyst to JFK truthers. And
that, by the way, is the term that I prefer, not conspiracy theorists. It
is standard operating procedure to psychoanalyze those who dispute
official government stories and cast them as nut cases. Over 2000
certified architects and engineers say that the government's official
story of 9/11 is bull crap. So, are they all nutjob cases too?

I see it as an act of desperation on your part. You can't fight back on
the basis of evidence, so you start playing psychiatrist. Well, you're no
good as psychiatrist or as researcher.

[Jason Burke]

But, BUt, BUT...
Amy's a girl!

[Jason Burke]

On 10/11/2017 12:18 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> Sparta, as usual, you are wrong on all counts. Just because certain
> attendees gave very cooperative testimony later on doesn't mean that they
> saw and recognized Ruby at the time. No one except Dallas police claimed
> to recognize Ruby at the time. No one. Nada. Zilch. Squat.

So all the cops were in on it, eh, Ralph?
Do you have *any* idea how stupid that sounds?

>
> And no, I never claimed to know that Bob Jackson was in on it. And you
> should know that I get pretty testy with people who put words in my mouth.

This is too easy.
If'n I make a reply, this ain't ever gonna make it.
So let's stop right here, huh, Ralph?

> What I know about Bob Jackson is that he was extremely cooperative with
> authorities and extremely supportive of the official narrative from the
> beginning. But, that doesn't mean that I think someone tapped him on the
> shoulder and said, "You know, we're killing Oswald today." They didn't
> have to do that. He took his picture, and then according to him, he had to
> hang around the PD for several hours "until a replacement could be sent."
> Then, he supposedly took his film back to the office to develop. But, I
> think what must have happened is that he was told that for "national
> security" reasons, they had to review the images he captured, but there
> was no need to broadcast it. That's what he was hanging around for: to get
> his film back. And when he got it back, he got the monstrosity that we
> know as the Jackson photo. But, I'm not saying that at any time he was
> informed that something happened other than what they said happened. So, I
> think he is keeping a secret about the handing of his film, but I don't
> think he was in on the plot to kill Oswald and frame Ruby.
>
> Now listen: it is physically and photographically impossible for Robert
> Jackson to have taken the Jackson photo as it exists. And that means one
> of two things with absolute certainty: either they altered his photo or
> they replaced it. One or the other. And there is no give on that.

Well, wait...
Over the past five years you've proven that you don't know sh*t about
EITHER physiology or photogrammetry, Ralph.

Give it up.

You've lost.

Badly.

And I'm glad I never got my bones bent by you.

Silly, silly, silly.
Ain't even gonna make a good screenplay, Ralph.

[Jason Burke]

"you, *or* Raff*"

???

Ummm...

[OHLeeRedux]

Anthony Marsh
- hide quoted text -

Anthony Strawman Marsh strikes again.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On Friday, September 29, 2017 at 5:54:28 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> I had an interesting discussion tonight with someone concerning the Oswald
> shooting. My position, of course, is that the garage shooting was a

> made-for-television ruse, that Oswald was not shot there. He was
> definitely shot afterwards but not in the garage.
>

Was Oswald shot in the garage on 11/24/63?

Yes.

There's an autopsy report to prove it.

His wife, mother, and brother saw the body and attended the funeral.

There was a follow-up autopsy when his body was disinterred and
re-examined. The conclusion was he was still dead.


> But, I made a point that I want to share here, and that is that the burden
> is really on the other side, meaning those who claim that the televised
> spectacle was a real event.

Nonsense. The burden is on those making the extraordinary claim, and the
extraordinary claim is that the shooting of Oswald was a fraud and didn't
really happen when televised. The shooting of Oswald was witnessed live by
many newsman and police in the garage and millions worldwide. Jack Ruby
was arrested, tried, and convicted of shooting Oswald.

You are apparently just an attention-seeker looking for attention.

You've gone from claiming Oswald was on the steps during the shooting -
another bizarre claim you never could prove - to now this.

Hank

[Anthony Marsh]

I think he was trying for an obscure 50's TV reference to belittle him.
you may not be old enough to remember the 50's.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/13/2017 11:40 PM, Jason Burke wrote:

Time to invoke the Marsh Rule. If both the WC defenders AND Marsh call
him a kook that proves that he is a kook.

[Anthony Marsh]

Prove it.

[Anthony Marsh]

But rightwing posters here did actually say those things.

[Ralph Cinque]

You are missing the point, Seinzant. (not his real name) I did not mean to
imply that Oswald wasn't shot. He as shortly after he appeared to be shot.
And how could he not be shot when Parkland doctors worked on him and
declared him dead. So, he was definitely shot and killed. But none of what
you said establishes that he was shot in the garage. The autopsy couldn't
distinguish whether he was shot at 11:21 or a few minutes later. Same for
the second autopsy. His wife, his (pretend) mother, and his (pretend)
brother saw him dead, but ditto. And no one who witnessed the spectacle
saw any blood or any trauma. They didn't even see Oswald being removed
from the garage. Leastways, none of the cameramen saw it since their
cameras didn't see it. And Jack Ruby was framed and manipulated into
thinking that he shot Oswald. He didn't know he shot Oswald until he was
told he shot Oswald. And you left out the fact that he was also sentenced:
to death. And it's quite bizarre when you consider that the victim was
someone that the State was going to try to put to death.

And Oswald WAS on the steps during the shooting, and that has been proven
beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt. My appearance on InfoWars was a
huge success. Truth is rising, Sienzant, and you can't stop it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LT5CDgdj-Y

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/14/2017 9:39 PM, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> On Friday, September 29, 2017 at 5:54:28 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>> I had an interesting discussion tonight with someone concerning the Oswald
>> shooting. My position, of course, is that the garage shooting was a
>> made-for-television ruse, that Oswald was not shot there. He was
>> definitely shot afterwards but not in the garage.
>>
>
> Was Oswald shot in the garage on 11/24/63?
>
> Yes.
>
> There's an autopsy report to prove it.
>

But does it prove WHERE he was shot?

> His wife, mother, and brother saw the body and attended the funeral.
>

Doesn't prove WHEN he was killed.

> There was a follow-up autopsy when his body was disinterred and
> re-examined. The conclusion was he was still dead.
>

Son of a gun. There goes the Zombie theory.

>
>> But, I made a point that I want to share here, and that is that the burden
>> is really on the other side, meaning those who claim that the televised
>> spectacle was a real event.
>
> Nonsense. The burden is on those making the extraordinary claim, and the
> extraordinary claim is that the shooting of Oswald was a fraud and didn't

But only YOu get to decide what is an extraordinary claim.
I think the SBT is an extraordinary claim and you won't prove it.

> really happen when televised. The shooting of Oswald was witnessed live by
> many newsman and police in the garage and millions worldwide. Jack Ruby
> was arrested, tried, and convicted of shooting Oswald.
>
> You are apparently just an attention-seeker looking for attention.
>

They think live TV can be faked.

> You've gone from claiming Oswald was on the steps during the shooting -
> another bizarre claim you never could prove - to now this.
>

One kook theory requires another and so on and so on.

> Hank
>
>
>

Nice to see you still around. Wish you'd revive all your Family Jewels
aliases. They were fun.
What happened to Amethyst?

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 9:00:12 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> You are missing the point, Seinzant. (not his real name)

You're right. My real name is Henry (Hank) Sienzant. Always has been.
Learn to spell, Ralph.

> I did not mean to
> imply that Oswald wasn't shot. He as shortly after he appeared to be shot.

He was shot when he appeared to be shot. You have no evidence to the
contrary.

> And how could he not be shot when Parkland doctors worked on him and
> declared him dead. So, he was definitely shot and killed.

Good of you to admit that.

> But none of what
> you said establishes that he was shot in the garage. The autopsy couldn't
> distinguish whether he was shot at 11:21 or a few minutes later.

Good of you to admit the autopsy cannot establish your argument.

> Same for
> the second autopsy.

Good of you to admit the second autopsy cannot establish your argument
either.

> His wife, his (pretend) mother, and his (pretend)
> brother saw him dead, but ditto.

I'm pretty certain Robert Oswald and Marguerite Oswald could recognize the
guy who was their younger brother and youngest child. Let's hear your
evidence -- not your assertions or opinions or interpretations, your
evidence -- that he had a "pretend brother" and a "pretend mother".

> And no one who witnessed the spectacle
> saw any blood or any trauma. >>>

Oka, and given there was a small entry wound and the bullet didn't exit,
and he was wearing a sweater, how much blood would you expect? The trauma
is described in the autopsy report.

> They didn't even see Oswald being removed
> from the garage. Leastways, none of the cameramen saw it since their
> cameras didn't see it.

I'm pretty sure I saw Oswald put into the ambulance on a stretcher and
taken from the garage in an ambulance live on TV.

> And Jack Ruby was framed and manipulated into
> thinking that he shot Oswald.

You make a lot of claims. But you never have any evidence to support those
claims. Assertions that are made without evidence can be dismissed without
evidence.

> He didn't know he shot Oswald until he was
> told he shot Oswald. And you left out the fact that he was also sentenced:
> to death.

The sentence isn't germane. The verdict is. 12 jurors sat in a courtroom
and heard the evidence raised by both the prosecution and defense. They
found him guilty of murder.

> And it's quite bizarre when you consider that the victim was
> someone that the State was going to try to put to death.

It's called vigilante justice, Ralph. It does happen from time to time.

>
> And Oswald WAS on the steps during the shooting, and that has been proven
> beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt. My appearance on InfoWars was a
> huge success.

Haven't a clue what Infowars is, nor do I care. Apparently you save your
press clippings. The only thing you've proven is you have no idea how to
assess evidence.

> Truth is rising, Sienzant, and you can't stop it.

Hot air rises, too. Keep that in mind.

Hank

[OHLeeRedux]

Anthony Marsh

On 10/13/2017 11:40 PM, Jason Burke wrote:

- hide quoted text -

You're a legend in your own mind.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 9:04:10 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 10/14/2017 9:39 PM, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> > On Friday, September 29, 2017 at 5:54:28 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> >> I had an interesting discussion tonight with someone concerning the Oswald
> >> shooting. My position, of course, is that the garage shooting was a
> >> made-for-television ruse, that Oswald was not shot there. He was
> >> definitely shot afterwards but not in the garage.
> >>
> >
> > Was Oswald shot in the garage on 11/24/63?

No. Nor does it prove Ralph's argument. But Oswald was determined to be
dead, and millions (including myself) saw him shot on live TV.

> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > There's an autopsy report to prove it.
> >
>
> But does it prove WHERE he was shot?

Doesn't prove he wasn't shot in the garage, Tony.

>
> > His wife, mother, and brother saw the body and attended the funeral.
> >
>
> Doesn't prove WHEN he was killed.

Doesn't prove he wasn't shot in the garage, Tony.

>
> > There was a follow-up autopsy when his body was disinterred and
> > re-examined. The conclusion was he was still dead.
> >
>
> Son of a gun. There goes the Zombie theory.

Thank you for your support. One down.

>
> >
> >> But, I made a point that I want to share here, and that is that the burden
> >> is really on the other side, meaning those who claim that the televised
> >> spectacle was a real event.
> >
> > Nonsense. The burden is on those making the extraordinary claim, and the
> > extraordinary claim is that the shooting of Oswald was a fraud and didn't
>
>
>
>
> But only YOu get to decide what is an extraordinary claim.

Not in the least. When something is witnessed on live TV by millions of
people and someone says then says that didn't really happen, that's the
extraordinary claim. There is nothing extraordinary in claiming what
everyone saw is what actually happened.

> I think the SBT is an extraordinary claim and you won't prove it.

Why do I need to prove your claim?

>
> > really happen when televised. The shooting of Oswald was witnessed live by
> > many newsman and police in the garage and millions worldwide. Jack Ruby
> > was arrested, tried, and convicted of shooting Oswald.
> >
> > You are apparently just an attention-seeker looking for attention.
> >
>
> They think live TV can be faked.

Ralph thinks almost everything is faked.

>
> > You've gone from claiming Oswald was on the steps during the shooting -
> > another bizarre claim you never could prove - to now this.
> >
>
> One kook theory requires another and so on and so on.
>

I find it amusing that Ralph thinks he's some kind of undiscovered genius
who can solve the JFK assassination without reading any of the evidence
and by just asserting a lot of things never happened.

> > Hank
> >
> >
> >
>
> Nice to see you still around. Wish you'd revive all your Family Jewels
> aliases. They were fun.

I had one alias, to make my first wife happy, because she was afraid the
conspiracy theorists weren't just harmless nuts as I assured her. It was
Joe Zircon. I posted under that alias for about five years or so.

Joe Zircon was a play on the name of the vigilante who killed the
presidential assassin in the novel WINTER KILLS, who was called Joe
Diamond in that novel. Joe Diamond was of course a play on the name of
Jack Ruby. Even Richard Condon couldn't conceive of a 'big reveal' at the
end of his book more bizarre than Ralph's latest theory (and the ending IS
pretty bizarre).


> What happened to Amethyst?

You tell me. I have no clue. Maybe he (or she) is dead. Don't know who
used that alias. Maybe it was you.

Hank

[OHLeeRedux]

False. Anthony "Alternative Facts" Marsh.

[Jason Burke]

Are you just (pretend)ing to be this desperate, Ralph?
Or are you *honestly* this clueless, Ralph?

[Jason Burke]

On 10/14/2017 6:39 PM, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> On Friday, September 29, 2017 at 5:54:28 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>> I had an interesting discussion tonight with someone concerning the Oswald
>> shooting. My position, of course, is that the garage shooting was a
>> made-for-television ruse, that Oswald was not shot there. He was
>> definitely shot afterwards but not in the garage.
>>
>
> Was Oswald shot in the garage on 11/24/63?
>
> Yes.
>
> There's an autopsy report to prove it.
>
> His wife, mother, and brother saw the body and attended the funeral.
>
> There was a follow-up autopsy when his body was disinterred and
> re-examined. The conclusion was he was still dead.
>
>
>> But, I made a point that I want to share here, and that is that the burden
>> is really on the other side, meaning those who claim that the televised
>> spectacle was a real event.
>
> Nonsense. The burden is on those making the extraordinary claim, and the
> extraordinary claim is that the shooting of Oswald was a fraud and didn't
> really happen when televised. The shooting of Oswald was witnessed live by
> many newsman and police in the garage and millions worldwide. Jack Ruby
> was arrested, tried, and convicted of shooting Oswald.
>
> You are apparently just an attention-seeker looking for attention.
>

Ralph does seem to be looking for someone - anyone - to pay attention to
him.

Kinda sad.

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

And what about me? What about the Pink Panther Diamond?

[Ralph Cinque]

Hmmm. So, your name really is Hank Sienzant, huh? But, I asked you if you
were the Hank Sienzant who was the VP for Customer Relations with Enhanced
Retail Solutions, and you said no. And that was after I found a
communication between you and another member of Education Forum in which
you said that you worked in the video game marketing business, which is
what ERS does. Very weird.

http://pages.omkt.co/archive/bWVzc2FnZV8xNjQyMzk2XzkwXzEwMjZfNDU2OTg=?type=103&channel=1

But, moving on:

It cannot be assumed that Oswald was shot when he appeared to be shot, for
the following reasons:

1) there was no blood and no trauma, to him or his clothing. When you
consider what could be shown in a shooting hoax, no more than that was
shown in this case. So, unless you are going to argue that shooting
hoaxes are impossible, period, then you have to admit that this could
be one.

2) the damage from the shot was instantaneous, and that damage was
devastating; it was catastrophic. But, after the shot, Oswald crumpled
forward and down, and then he veered backwards, and then he went up on
his toes like a ballerina, and then he went straight down like a
freight elevator at the TSBD. That's a lot of activity for a guy with a
burst aorta. It is medically impossible.

3) the speed by which Oswald was evacuated from the garage, and the fact
that no cameraman captured the sight of two men carrying another
stricken man makes the claim that he was shot very suspicious.

I pointed out that neither autopsy could distinguish between Oswald being
shot at 11:21 or shortly thereafter, and therefore YOU can't use the
autopsy to establish that he was shot at 11:21.

And regarding the "pretend" brother and "pretend mother" John Armstrong's
1000 page book HARVEY AND LEE can answer all your questions. But, the
thing is: you have to read it.

www.harveyandlee.net

And just so you know: you can't dismiss a thousand page book with a
wisecrack.

How much blood would I expect? Well, since they claim that Oswald left an
extensive blood stain on the floor of the jail office, which you can see
below, I'd say quite a lot. All of the blood left on the floor had to come
out the whole in Oswald's body and pass through his sweater.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/10/that-is-reportedly-blood-from-oswalds.html

And what is wrong with you, Hank? I said that no one saw Oswald being
carried into the jail office after the shooting, even though it would have
been hard for eyes and cameras to miss it. And you cite him being loaded
into the ambulance minutes later? What does one have to do with the other?

And the point is that Jack Ruby had no direct knowledge or memory of
having shot Oswald. His own lawyer said so on television the day it
happened, after speaking to him. Ruby didn't know he shot Oswald until
Dallas Police told him that he shot Oswald. And it was depicted exactly
that way in the RUBY AND OSWALD television movie, which starred Jim
Leavelle. So, the story has always been that Ruby shot Oswald with no
awareness of doing so, and I propose, as an alternative, that he had no
awareness of it because he didn't do it.

And no: it wasn't vigilante justice. Vigilante justice is when you
exterminate someone who murdered an innocent or innocents, and it's the
innocence of the victim or victims AND YOUR LOVE FOR THEM that creates the
outrage which demands immediate retribution. None of that applied to
Oswald, the most hated man in America.

You haven't gotten any smarter, Hank, but on the bright side, I am making
you famous.

https://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/10/hank-sienzant-aka-joe-zircon-oct-15-12.html

[John McAdams]

On 16 Oct 2017 20:33:49 -0400, Ralph Cinque <buda...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>It cannot be assumed that Oswald was shot when he appeared to be shot, for
>the following reasons:
>
>1) there was no blood and no trauma, to him or his clothing. When you
> consider what could be shown in a shooting hoax, no more than that was
> shown in this case. So, unless you are going to argue that shooting
> hoaxes are impossible, period, then you have to admit that this could
> be one.
>
>2) the damage from the shot was instantaneous, and that damage was
> devastating; it was catastrophic. But, after the shot, Oswald crumpled
> forward and down, and then he veered backwards, and then he went up on
> his toes like a ballerina, and then he went straight down like a
> freight elevator at the TSBD. That's a lot of activity for a guy with a
> burst aorta. It is medically impossible.
>
>3) the speed by which Oswald was evacuated from the garage, and the fact
> that no cameraman captured the sight of two men carrying another
> stricken man makes the claim that he was shot very suspicious.
>

I suppose a photo of Oswald being removed from the ambulance at
Parkland Hospital wouldn't prove anything in your world.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/lee_shot.htm

Let me guess: shot at some entirely different time. Faked.



.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/16/2017 12:03 AM, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 9:00:12 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>> You are missing the point, Seinzant. (not his real name)
>
> You're right. My real name is Henry (Hank) Sienzant. Always has been.
> Learn to spell, Ralph.
>

But why don't you tell him ALL your aliases? They're so beautiful.
Do you remember when we had to use our real names on CompuServe and one
CIA agent kept using an alias and pretending to be a journalist?

>
>> I did not mean to
>> imply that Oswald wasn't shot. He as shortly after he appeared to be shot.
>
> He was shot when he appeared to be shot. You have no evidence to the
> contrary.
>
>
>> And how could he not be shot when Parkland doctors worked on him and
>> declared him dead. So, he was definitely shot and killed.
>
> Good of you to admit that.
>

I wish these kooks would come up with a theory that Oswald is still
alive. See what I mean about DNA solving an old case?

>
>> But none of what
>> you said establishes that he was shot in the garage. The autopsy couldn't
>> distinguish whether he was shot at 11:21 or a few minutes later.
>
> Good of you to admit the autopsy cannot establish your argument.
>
>
>> Same for
>> the second autopsy.
>
> Good of you to admit the second autopsy cannot establish your argument
> either.
>

Why stop at 2? Maybe new science can give us new answers.

>
>> His wife, his (pretend) mother, and his (pretend)
>> brother saw him dead, but ditto.
>
> I'm pretty certain Robert Oswald and Marguerite Oswald could recognize the
> guy who was their younger brother and youngest child. Let's hear your
> evidence -- not your assertions or opinions or interpretations, your
> evidence -- that he had a "pretend brother" and a "pretend mother".
>

Which Oswald? I think they're up to 3 now.

>
>> And no one who witnessed the spectacle
>> saw any blood or any trauma. >>>
>
> Oka, and given there was a small entry wound and the bullet didn't exit,
> and he was wearing a sweater, how much blood would you expect? The trauma
> is described in the autopsy report.
>

Maybe it was a special Kevlar sweater?

>
>> They didn't even see Oswald being removed
>> from the garage. Leastways, none of the cameramen saw it since their
>> cameras didn't see it.
>
> I'm pretty sure I saw Oswald put into the ambulance on a stretcher and
> taken from the garage in an ambulance live on TV.
>

Ah, but you only THINK you saw that. Maybe it was all mass hallucination.
Yeah, that's it.

>
>> And Jack Ruby was framed and manipulated into
>> thinking that he shot Oswald.
>
> You make a lot of claims. But you never have any evidence to support those
> claims. Assertions that are made without evidence can be dismissed without
> evidence.
>

Same with the WC.

>
>> He didn't know he shot Oswald until he was
>> told he shot Oswald. And you left out the fact that he was also sentenced:
>> to death.
>
> The sentence isn't germane. The verdict is. 12 jurors sat in a courtroom
> and heard the evidence raised by both the prosecution and defense. They
> found him guilty of murder.
>

Which a court vacated. He quickly died of cancer before he could get a
new trial.

>
>> And it's quite bizarre when you consider that the victim was
>> someone that the State was going to try to put to death.
>
> It's called vigilante justice, Ralph. It does happen from time to time.
>

It's called a mob hit to silence a witness. It happens all the time.

>
>>
>> And Oswald WAS on the steps during the shooting, and that has been proven
>> beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt. My appearance on InfoWars was a
>> huge success.
>
> Haven't a clue what Infowars is, nor do I care. Apparently you save your
> press clippings. The only thing you've proven is you have no idea how to
> assess evidence.
>

First time on the InterNet, Amethyst?
Infowars is the Alex Jones program. He is an extreme right winger who
believes in any conspiracy theory as long as it involves the government.
In other words, garbage.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/15/2017 9:00 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> You are missing the point, Seinzant. (not his real name) I did not mean to

You can call him Amethyst.

> imply that Oswald wasn't shot. He as shortly after he appeared to be shot.
> And how could he not be shot when Parkland doctors worked on him and
> declared him dead. So, he was definitely shot and killed. But none of what
> you said establishes that he was shot in the garage. The autopsy couldn't
> distinguish whether he was shot at 11:21 or a few minutes later. Same for
> the second autopsy. His wife, his (pretend) mother, and his (pretend)
> brother saw him dead, but ditto. And no one who witnessed the spectacle
> saw any blood or any trauma. They didn't even see Oswald being removed
> from the garage. Leastways, none of the cameramen saw it since their
> cameras didn't see it. And Jack Ruby was framed and manipulated into
> thinking that he shot Oswald. He didn't know he shot Oswald until he was
> told he shot Oswald. And you left out the fact that he was also sentenced:
> to death. And it's quite bizarre when you consider that the victim was
> someone that the State was going to try to put to death.
>
> And Oswald WAS on the steps during the shooting, and that has been proven
> beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt. My appearance on InfoWars was a

InfoWars is right-wing garbage.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/16/2017 11:14 AM, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 9:04:10 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 10/14/2017 9:39 PM, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
>>> On Friday, September 29, 2017 at 5:54:28 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>>>> I had an interesting discussion tonight with someone concerning the Oswald
>>>> shooting. My position, of course, is that the garage shooting was a
>>>> made-for-television ruse, that Oswald was not shot there. He was
>>>> definitely shot afterwards but not in the garage.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Was Oswald shot in the garage on 11/24/63?
>
> No. Nor does it prove Ralph's argument. But Oswald was determined to be
> dead, and millions (including myself) saw him shot on live TV.
>

But you didn't see him die.

>
>
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> There's an autopsy report to prove it.
>>>
>>
>> But does it prove WHERE he was shot?
>
> Doesn't prove he wasn't shot in the garage, Tony.
>

Don't try to prove a triple negative. You'll give yourself a headache.

>
>>
>>> His wife, mother, and brother saw the body and attended the funeral.
>>>
>>
>> Doesn't prove WHEN he was killed.
>
> Doesn't prove he wasn't shot in the garage, Tony.
>
>
>>
>>> There was a follow-up autopsy when his body was disinterred and
>>> re-examined. The conclusion was he was still dead.
>>>
>>
>> Son of a gun. There goes the Zombie theory.
>
> Thank you for your support. One down.
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>> But, I made a point that I want to share here, and that is that the burden
>>>> is really on the other side, meaning those who claim that the televised
>>>> spectacle was a real event.
>>>
>>> Nonsense. The burden is on those making the extraordinary claim, and the
>>> extraordinary claim is that the shooting of Oswald was a fraud and didn't
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> But only YOu get to decide what is an extraordinary claim.
>
> Not in the least. When something is witnessed on live TV by millions of
> people and someone says then says that didn't really happen, that's the
> extraordinary claim. There is nothing extraordinary in claiming what
> everyone saw is what actually happened.
>

I am not questioning live TV. I am questioning your arrogance to be the
sole arbiter of what is an extraordinary claim. You do that only for
things you can't disprove. Don't be a Harris.

>
>> I think the SBT is an extraordinary claim and you won't prove it.
>
> Why do I need to prove your claim?
>

It's not MY claim. Learn English. It is the WC's claim and if you are
really a WC defender it must also be YOUR claim. But they couldn't prove
it and you're not even brave enough to try. So you try Pee-Wee Herman
tricks.

>
>
>>
>>> really happen when televised. The shooting of Oswald was witnessed live by
>>> many newsman and police in the garage and millions worldwide. Jack Ruby
>>> was arrested, tried, and convicted of shooting Oswald.
>>>
>>> You are apparently just an attention-seeker looking for attention.
>>>
>>
>> They think live TV can be faked.
>
> Ralph thinks almost everything is faked.
>

I think Ralph is faked.

>
>>
>>> You've gone from claiming Oswald was on the steps during the shooting -
>>> another bizarre claim you never could prove - to now this.
>>>
>>
>> One kook theory requires another and so on and so on.
>>
>
> I find it amusing that Ralph thinks he's some kind of undiscovered genius
> who can solve the JFK assassination without reading any of the evidence
> and by just asserting a lot of things never happened.
>

Evidence? Whose evidence? He makes up his own evidence.
You mean the evidence that you destroyed?

>
>
>>> Hank
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Nice to see you still around. Wish you'd revive all your Family Jewels
>> aliases. They were fun.
>
> I had one alias, to make my first wife happy, because she was afraid the
> conspiracy theorists weren't just harmless nuts as I assured her. It was
> Joe Zircon. I posted under that alias for about five years or so.
>

Exactly. Thank you for explaining it to the newbies.
It wasn't because you were a CIA disinformation agent.
It was because you didn't want your wife to find out what you were doing
on the computer all night instead of spending quality time in bed with her.

> Joe Zircon was a play on the name of the vigilante who killed the
> presidential assassin in the novel WINTER KILLS, who was called Joe
> Diamond in that novel. Joe Diamond was of course a play on the name of

I just objected to you cheapening yourself by saying that you were just a
cheap substitute for a Diamond.

But you once listed all your aliases and explained that your inspiration
was The Family Jewels. I liked that. And I miss Amethyst.

> Jack Ruby. Even Richard Condon couldn't conceive of a 'big reveal' at the
> end of his book more bizarre than Ralph's latest theory (and the ending IS
> pretty bizarre).
>

But it was clever and Ralph isn't even clever.
Hiding the rifle in the pipes?

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=winter+kills+1979+movie&&view=detail&mid=A489F2E31EE30006FC17A489F2E31EE30006FC17&FORM=VRDGAR

He looked so much younger then.

>
>> What happened to Amethyst?
>
> You tell me. I have no clue. Maybe he (or she) is dead. Don't know who
> used that alias. Maybe it was you.
>

No, I used Ned Dolan's alias to play a trick on him.

> Hank
>

[Ralph Cinque]

What is the problem with the cognitive ability of people here? I have no
doubt that Oswald was brought to the hospital shot. The question is: when
and where was he shot? It was some time between the Garage Spectacle and
his arrival at the hospital. We are trying to figure it out.

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

You are obviously suffering from 'The Cinque Effect'.

It happens on the best of worlds.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 8:33:51 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> Hmmm. So, your name really is Hank Sienzant, huh? But, I asked you if you
> were the Hank Sienzant who was the VP for Customer Relations with Enhanced
> Retail Solutions, and you said no.

I asked the agency to, ahem, 'eliminate' the other guy, and they did.

I am truly sorry you cannot figure it out, especially since there were
like seven other guys named Ralph Cinque in the state of Texas alone -
where you live (or lived, last time we discussed this under your alias of
Linda Hadley on Amazon).

You kept getting banned from Amazon and popping up anew with different
aliases. What was all that about?

> And that was after I found a
> communication between you and another member of Education Forum in which
> you said that you worked in the video game marketing business, which is
> what ERS does. Very weird.
>
> http://pages.omkt.co/archive/bWVzc2FnZV8xNjQyMzk2XzkwXzEwMjZfNDU2OTg=?type=103&channel=1

Yes, that's part of the process of elimination, Ralph. Hank Sienzant has
been "retired" since December of 2015.

But it's not the communication on the education forum you mention. Where's
the link to that?

>
> But, moving on:
>
> It cannot be assumed that Oswald was shot when he appeared to be shot, for
> the following reasons:
>
> 1) there was no blood and no trauma, to him or his clothing.

According to whom? Did you inspect his actual clothing and body? What is
your source for this claim?

> When you
> consider what could be shown in a shooting hoax, no more than that was
> shown in this case. So, unless you are going to argue that shooting
> hoaxes are impossible, period, then you have to admit that this could
> be one.

You need to provide the evidence.

>
> 2) the damage from the shot was instantaneous, and that damage was
> devastating; it was catastrophic. But, after the shot, Oswald crumpled
> forward and down, and then he veered backwards, and then he went up on
> his toes like a ballerina, and then he went straight down like a
> freight elevator at the TSBD.

I see him drop like a lead weight after a grunt. Again, your claims are
according to what analysis, where? What's your source?

> That's a lot of activity for a guy with a
> burst aorta. It is medically impossible.

Thank you for your layman's opinion. You have asserted he did something
medically impossible. You haven't established he did something medically
impossible. Do you even understand the point I am making? You had a hard
time understanding the difference between your assertions and proof back
on Amazon, so I am trying to determine whether you've learned how to tell
the difference yet. Have you?

>
> 3) the speed by which Oswald was evacuated from the garage, and the fact
> that no cameraman captured the sight of two men carrying another
> stricken man makes the claim that he was shot very suspicious.

Say what? Are you complaining he was moved too quickly or too slowly? It's
impossible to tell from your language. Your complaint is not evidence of
anything. It's just your opinion, registered as a complaint. Apparently
you still don't understand the difference between opinion and fact. And
why on earth should two men be removed from the garage after being shot?
Pray tell, what nonsense are you trying to sell now?

>
> I pointed out that neither autopsy could distinguish between Oswald being
> shot at 11:21 or shortly thereafter, and therefore YOU can't use the
> autopsy to establish that he was shot at 11:21.

You have one autopsy. Of Oswald. Verified to be of Oswald. There is no
need for a hoax here. You haven't begun to establish a hoax here. Why
would Ruby step up to the plate and pretend to shoot Oswald, and get tried
and convicted for it? And sentenced to death.

>
> And regarding the "pretend" brother and "pretend mother" John Armstrong's
> 1000 page book HARVEY AND LEE can answer all your questions.

No, it can't. Did both Harvey and Lee have living arrangements with
Marina, and couldn't she tell the difference? What did Lee say when he
came home from work and found "Harvey" eating his dinner?

Does John Armstrong mention that? And when Harvey showed up with Marina at
the Oswald Thanksgiving bash in 1962, nobody noticed it wasn't Lee?

Armstrong believes every false recollection or case of mistaken identity
that furthers his argument ever recorded in an FBI memo that furthers his
nonsense.

And you bought into it. I can't help you think, Ralph. You have to do some
of it on your own.

And we're back to extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Not
the recollection of some woman who after the assassination recalled Lee
and his Mom living with Lee's dad in New York City and the mom and dad
being communists.

That recollection is not evidence of anything. Except Armstrong's ability
to spin a tale and get people to buy into it.

> But, the
> thing is: you have to read it.
>
> www.harveyandlee.net

But the thing is, I have. Armstrong's case is no more solid that the
spider webs you brush aside when you engage your thinking cap.

>
> And just so you know: you can't dismiss a thousand page book with a
> wisecrack.

He has no evidence. He has a theory supported by recollections recorded in
FBI memos and testimony.

>
> How much blood would I expect? Well, since they claim that Oswald left an
> extensive blood stain on the floor of the jail office,

Who is "They" and where do they say it? You're asserting stuff again,
Ralph. Your assertions are not evidence.

> which you can see
> below, I'd say quite a lot. All of the blood left on the floor had to come
> out the whole in Oswald's body and pass through his sweater.
>
> http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/10/that-is-reportedly-blood-from-oswalds.html

Who says this is blood? Who says it's blood from Oswald? Cite the test
results.

It's a garage floor, right? I could go into any garage in this country and
find dark stains on the floor. Did Oswald bleed in all of them?

>
> And what is wrong with you, Hank? I said that no one saw Oswald being
> carried into the jail office after the shooting, even though it would have
> been hard for eyes and cameras to miss it. And you cite him being loaded
> into the ambulance minutes later? What does one have to do with the other?

No, you said no one saw him removed from the garage.

Let me quote it back to you: "They didn't even see Oswald being removed

from the garage. Leastways, none of the cameramen saw it since their
cameras didn't see it."

That's what you said. That's what I responded to. There is film of Oswald
being put in the ambulance. You cited it yourself. It shows him being
removed from the garage.


>

> And the point is that Jack Ruby had no direct knowledge or memory of
> having shot Oswald.

Doesn't mean he didn't do it. Does he have a memory of sticking a weapon
in Oswald's gut and NOT firing? No. Your argument fails. Same thing
happened to Sirhan Sirhan. Maybe you should learn how memory works for a
change? Nah. Just go with your gut.

> His own lawyer said so on television the day it
> happened, after speaking to him. Ruby didn't know he shot Oswald until
> Dallas Police told him that he shot Oswald. And it was depicted exactly
> that way in the RUBY AND OSWALD television movie, which starred Jim
> Leavelle. So, the story has always been that Ruby shot Oswald with no
> awareness of doing so, and I propose, as an alternative, that he had no
> awareness of it because he didn't do it.

Did he have an awareness of approaching Oswald in the garage, sticking a
gun in Oswald's belly, and NOT shooting? Did he have an awareness of being
asked (or told) to pretend to shoot Oswald by conspirators? Did he have an
awareness of pretending to shoot Oswald?

Your argument fails, because it relies on your pretense that Ruby should
have a memory of shooting Oswald, otherwise he didn't.

But the same argument can be advanced for the flip side, he should have a
memory of pretending to shoot Oswald, and he didn't. Therefore that didn't
happen, because he doesn't remember it.

>
> And no: it wasn't vigilante justice. Vigilante justice is when you
> exterminate someone who murdered an innocent or innocents, and it's the
> innocence of the victim or victims AND YOUR LOVE FOR THEM that creates the
> outrage which demands immediate retribution.

I love how when the facts don't support you, you simply make up new facts.

Definition of vigilante: a member of a volunteer committee organized to
suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are
viewed as inadequate); broadly :a self-appointed doer of justice

"A self-appointed doer of justice". i.e, Ruby.

> None of that applied to
> Oswald, the most hated man in America.

Which is exactly why Ruby extracted vigilante justice.

>
> You haven't gotten any smarter, Hank, but on the bright side, I am making
> you famous.
>
> https://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/10/hank-sienzant-aka-joe-zircon-oct-15-12.html

I have no need to be famous. Unlike Oswald. Or you.

You have yet to present any evidence of anything.

All the best,

Hank