Leavelle never jerked Oswald behind himself, as claimed

[Ralph Cinque]

I have been diligently searching for a statement by Jim Leavelle that he
had his hand stuffed in Oswald's pants, and I can tell you confidently
that it doesn't exist. He never said it. But, I can also confidently tell
you that when Leavelle said that he jerked Oswald behind him in order to
try to shield him, protect him, from Ruby, that he lied. It is simply a
flat-out lie. You can plainly see with your own eyes that Leavelle NEVER
did any such thing. He never jerked Oswald anywhere.

That is just the plain truth, which you can see for yourself.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2016/05/this-is-beers-photo-taken-split-second.html

[Jason Burke]

Ralph,
Your whole thesis is rather sad. After 4 years, you've still got
nothing but your fantasies.

[bigdog]

Brilliant detective work, Ralph. I guess this proves Oswald didn't shoot
JFK.

[Ace Kefford]

On Sunday, May 15, 2016 at 8:07:13 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:

Clean it up, bub. "Hand stuffed in Oswald's pants," "never jerked Oswald
anywhere," etc. Save that kind of filthy talk for Jim Garrison.

Did you ever consider that the films were faked and that what we see now
was not what was broadcast then?!

[BT George]

Sigh. Here is what Leavelle has pretty consistently said:

"Seeing Ruby step forward with a gun, Leavelle, now 93 years old, reacted
as best he knew how.

“I was sure what was about to happen, and I tried to pull Oswald
behind me, but he was right up against me and he couldn’t be
shielded,” Leavelle said. “I had seen him (Ruby) hanging
around the police department for 13 years—since nearly the first
day I came to work there.”

However, Leavelle’s move didn’t prevent Ruby’s
bullet from going straight through Oswald’s left side in the
stomach area.

“All I could do was move him to the left a little ways and then
Ruby shot him,” Leavelle said."

The above is from:

http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/texarkana/story/2013/nov/22/dark-day-areresidents-share-special-ties-kenn/296347/

Here are Images that show that Leavelle did, in fact have a hold on
Oswald's pants by inserting four fingers inside the top of them at the
waistline, and grasping the outside with his thumb. ...A hold that
neither he, nor anyone else, would be likely to describe as his having had
"his hands stuffed in Oswald's pants". :

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/05/15/article-2324717-19C87168000005DC-45_306x423.jpg

http://blueribbonnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/oswald31.jpg

[Ralph Cinque]

It proves that we've got a detective who is making stuff up. And, he says
it over and over and over again. And when you realize that Oswald was
firmly secured by LC Graves on his other arm, how could Leavelle jerk
Oswald anywhere without also jerking Graves? Or, was it a tug of war? The
fact is that neither Lavealle nor Graves reacted to Ruby nor did they do
anything to help Oswald until after the deed was done.

[Ralph Cinque]

BT: The pictures were faked, and Leavelle never, in all his accounts, said
that he did any such thing. He only says that he had Oswald up close to
him, not that he had his hand on or in his pants. You should look at that
picture again and decide if it's anything you would do or let be done to
you.

[Jason Burke]

It will be a sad day in Buda when Ralph realizes that not only are not
all of the pictures not faked, but that none of the pictures are faked.

[David Von Pein]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/02/james-leavelle.html

[Anthony Marsh]

Don't you remember those old executions where they would pull people
apart from different directions?

[Anthony Marsh]

He's only been at it for 4 years?

[Ralph Cinque]

Hey! Leavelle said that he "jerked" Oswald behind him. He used the word,
and I merely repeated it. And what the difference does it make? Why do you
have to be so puerile? He never jerked Oswald, as in applied a sudden,
high velocity pull. This isn't the 7th grade, you know.

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 4:29:56 AM UTC+2, David Von Pein wrote:
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/02/james-leavelle.html

Ruby was lucky the bullet didn't pass into the detective, just like
Ozzie's 3rd shot was lucky. Didn't they put flack jackets on high-risk
suspects back then?

[Ralph Cinque]

David Von Pein has a page on Oswald being shot which includes an interview
of James Leavelle from 11/24/63. I'll give you the link. But first, here
is what Leavelle said:

"I saw Ruby step from the crowd. I saw the gun in his hand."

But, the tapes show otherwise, that Leavelle never looked at Ruby or in
his direction until AFTER the shot was fired.

"I had Oswald by the waistband of his trousers. I jerked him to pull him
behind me."

The waistband? Men's trousers don't have a waistband. Women's pants often
do but not men's. Men's trousers are held up with a belt or suspenders.
There's no tight elastic band.

And if you were going to try to move somebody, why would you pull on his
pants? Where's the leverage in that? Where's the mechanical advantage?

But, the biggest problem with this is that, how could Leavelle "jerk"
Oswald behind him when Oswald was being secured by another man on his
other side: L.C. Graves.

So, this whole thing was and is a lie. Leavelle didn't do it. And it's
obvious that he started telling this lie from the beginning.

"I succeeded in turning him enough that he caught the shot here
(indicates) rather than directly in the center of his stomach."

No. That is nonsense. The reason the shot was off-center is because Ruby
approached Oswald from an angle, and he shot him from an angle. Leavelle
had nothing to do with setting it up. He never even broke his stride. He
never stopped walking. None of them did.


As you can see, Oswald was not jerked behind Leavelle. Ruby is there, he
has his gun in position, and he is about to fire. He may have been pulling
the trigger at that very instant. Leavelle did nothing whatsoever to try
to protect Oswald.

Leavelle didn't even turn his head towards Ruby until it was over. That he
tried to swing Oswald out of the line of fire is a bold-faced and
despicable lie. It is a lie that James Leavelle has been telling for 53
years, and a lot of people have been enabling him to tell it. But of
course, it is just one lie among so many in the JFK assassination. It is
all a pack of lies. Here is the link:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/02/james-leavelle.html

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 4:29:56 AM UTC+2, David Von Pein wrote:
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/02/james-leavelle.html

Nice to see Joe Backes' blog back up, Mr. Cinque. Still losing your mind?

[Steve Barber]

On Sunday, May 15, 2016 at 8:07:13 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:

Guys, Ralph is spot on with this one.

How is it that Jim Levelle could see Ruby and pull Oswald when Levelle
wasn't looking anywhere but straight ahead until AFTER Ruby shot Oswald?
He Did not, therefore, pull Oswald until AFTER Ruby shot Oswald. The film
proves this.

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

[Anthony Marsh]

What are you saying? You can fake a picture or two. See some examples in
Pictures of the Pain. Yes, it is very hard to fake ALL pictures, but
that is unnecessary. Reductio ad Absurdum.

[David Von Pein]

Ralph,

Where is Leavelle's left hand here?....

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-x6btBSI-p3A/UwG0A8I_DqI/AAAAAAAAx3I/lhabxl0Swmg/s1600-h/Robert-Jackson-Photo-Ruby-Shooting-Oswald-On-11-24-63-Zoomed.jpg

I think you're right about Leavelle not "jerking" on Oswald until AFTER
the shooting took place. It all happened too fast for Leavelle to have had
time to do any pulling or jerking on Oswald PRIOR to the shot being fired.
But Leavelle definitely DID have his left hand on the waist of Oswald's
pants.

[bigdog]

Yes, Leavelle's recollection doesn't match up with the video we have of
the shooting. The real issue is what the hell does this have to do with
the question of Oswald's guilt or innocence. It is so typical of
conspiracy hobbyists to focus on these trivial anomalies as if they are
evidence of anything important.

[Ralph Cinque]

Joseph Backes' blog is NOT back up. He may have started a new one. He's
always had that option. But, that's not the same as getting his old blog
back up. Or didn't you know that? The one who has lost his mind is YOU,
Blaz. And we both know how you lost it.

[BT George]

But Steve. It's pretty clear from this still photo:

http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fblueribbonnews.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F09%2Foswald31.jpg&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGmiC7CaiF25eIBdpprDESVL60U4w

that Leavelle did see Ruby at the very last instant and could have
processed the thought to jerk Oswald back within a fraction of a second
after it was too late. Happening as quickly as it did, Leavelle's memory
would almost naturally associate the belated thought with having occurred
just slightly before Ruby fired.

Besides, Ralph seemed to question whether Leavelle's hand was even in
place where he said it was in order to attempt what he claimed to have
attempted.

[Anthony Marsh]

Well, he MEANT well. Even if he didn't SEE Ruby, he heard the shot and
reacted quickly. Just like Jerry Parr.

[Anthony Marsh]

Nope.
Why did they even make Oswald do the perp walk?
The plan was to put him in the armored car, but it couldn't fit under
the ceiling lights.
Typical DPD screw-up. You can't blame that one on the CIA!

[Ralph Cinque]

Leavelle said the following, that:

a) he saw Ruby in advance
b) he recognized him
c) he saw his gun
d) he knew exactly what Ruby was going to do, and
e) he responded by jerking Oswald back behind him, which resulted in Ruby
shooting Oswald off-center.

So now, you're taking to rewriting witness testimonies, are you? You think
you have the right to do that, do you?

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

You gonna make me famous again, Ralph? So Ruby didn't shoot the Ozz, huh?
Whatever you say, Raff*. Keep posting. Your 'senior members' are waiting
with bated breath.

[Ralph Cinque]

Leavelle's recollection, you say????????

The crap about him jerking Oswald to get him away from Ruby is something
that Leavelle was spewing in an interview on November 23, 1963. So,
recollecting has nothing to do with it.

[TOMNLN]

NO, IT PROVE JUST ONE NORE OF "MANY" LIES TOLD BY THE AUTHORITIES ! ! !LEARN HOW TO READ CORBETTT ! ! !
============================================================================================

>

[TOMNLN]

============================================================================================
LEAVELLE SAID HE SAW RUBY STANDING THERE WITH A GUN HELD BY HIS SIDE AND DID NOTHING UNTILL TOO LATE ! ! !
=============================================================================================
>

[TOMNLN]

===========================================================================================
> LEAVELLE HAS SAID THAT EARLIER HE SAW RUBY STANDING THERE WITH A GUN DOWN BY HIS SIDE THEN, LOOKED FORWARD, TOO LATE TO SAVE OSWLD ! ! !
============================================================================================ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQpoHclNwTk

[TOMNLN]

=============================================================================================IT JUST PROVES "ANOTHER" PROVEN LIE BY THE AUTHORITIES (WHICH COLLECTIVELY DOESN'T SEEM TO BOTHER YOU)! ! !
==============================================================================================
>
>

[Steve Barber]

But watch Levelle in the film clips. He isn't looking in Ruby's
direction at all, like he has claimed. I think it's an honest mistake he
is making. And I agree, Levelle could be pulling Oswald after ruby fired
the shot. All I was pointing out was that he didn't pull Oswald out of the
way when he said he did.

I disagree with Ralph that any of the photos are "fake(d)" and I do agree
that Levelle did have hold of Oswald's trousers at the beltline.

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 9:33:14 PM UTC+2, Ralph Cinque wrote:

Yeah, Ralph, like when they closed your Facebook page, and you had to
start a blog yer self.

Since 2013 (with MANY MANY more on FB), Ralph has post a total of six
thousand forty-five (6,045) entries in his toilet-paper-roll of a blog
entitled 'Oswald in the Doorway. He is now saying Ruby didn't shoot the
Ozzie. 'Nuff said. I rest my case.

[Ralph Cinque]

On November 23, 1963, Leavelle said that he saw Ruby coming in advance,
saw the gun in his hand, knew what was going to happen, and jerked Oswald
behind him BEFORE Ruby fired, causing him to strike Oswald off-center and
at an angle. But, that was rubbish then, and it is rubbish now because
Ruby approached Oswald at an angle- a sharp angle. It had nothing to do
with anything Leavelle did because LAVEALLE DID NOTHING.

BT George? You should be called BS George.

[Anthony Marsh]

Close enough for government work.

[Anthony Marsh]

Lunging, not standing.

Leavelle has also attempted to refute conspiracy theories surrouning the
assassination. He says he doesn't believe that Oswald and Ruby knew each
other and that Oswald recognized Ruby before he was shot; "Some people
have said that they could tell by the expression on Oswald's face that he
knew Ruby when Ruby lunged forward at him with a gun. Oswald didn't
recognize Ruby, he recognized the sight of a gun and showed fear of that."
Stop misusing words to create phony statements.


http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1514567.1384293365!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_750/ap-century-collection.jpg

[bigdog]

It's a recollection even if it was given one minute after the shooting. He
wasn't telling us any of this in real time.

[Anthony Marsh]

Jeez, it took you THAT long to figure it out?

[Ralph Cinque]

So, I blog a lot. So what? There's no law against it. And that's right:
I'm saying that the guy we saw shooting Oswald was not Jack Ruby. And,
they very carefully made sure that we couldn't confirm it by keeping his
face constantly out of view, preventing us from getting enough visual
information to cinch his identity, one way or the other.

Then, after the shooting, "Ruby" literally dove into the pile-up, and we
don't get a glimpse of him again. Amazingly, they skirted him out of the
area and into the building without us seeing him again. Then later, after
things settled down, we see the real Ruby in a shirt but no jacket.

So, what happened to his jacket? It didn't come off in the fight, did it?
He didn't get hot, did he? They didn't collect it as evidence, did they?

Hear me: it was a bait and switch.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2016/05/so-basically-it-goes-from-this-to-this.html

[Anthony Marsh]

Not that there's anything wrong with that. (@) Seinfeld.
BTW, if you can get a hold of Pictures of the Pain, Trask shows how one
editor faked the Moorman photo on page 247. I don't think it's online.

[Anthony Marsh]

Stop repeating false claims.

[bigdog]

It illustrates what I have said for a long time. The human mind doesn't
come equipped with a DVR. We tend to remember bits and pieces and
sometimes when we try to put those bits and pieces together we get them in
the wrong order. Leavelle turned toward Ruby and saw him with the gun
after the shot was fired but in his mind he saw that before. He had the
sensation of Oswald falling back and in his mind he pulled him back. I
don't think Leavelle ever lied about what he did. He was simply caught off
guard and didn't remember things exactly the way they happened. That's not
lying. That's being human.

[BT George]

Coming from Ralp "Fuzzy Photo" Cinque that's very rich. And I will
correct you again:

1) You said Levelle never had his hand in Oswald's pocket and I posted a
picture that shows he did---though certainly not crammed way down in it
the way you termed the situation.

2) You just implied that I said everything Leavelle said he did, he
actually did, or at least came close. But I dare you to go back and quote
me on where I said such a thing. What I *did* say, was that the still
frame taken the instant before Ruby did the deed shows very clearly that
he must have seen Ruby at the very last second. I also said that he may
well have processed the thought about what was happening and that he ought
to try to pull Oswald back in the instant after it was already too late
and then (just as a lot of witnesses did) conflated what he intended to do
with what he did do. (Or in this case NOT do.)

And the fact that he was already misremembering events immediately
afterward is also *very* typical of eyewitness accounts. It's why there
evidentiary value must always be taken with some skepticism---especially
on the fine details---even if most will usually not be way off base in
describing the main story itself.

BT George

[Jason Burke]

And, uh, Rossley. This proves Ozzie was innocent just how?

(Sorry for using mixed case...)

[Jonny Mayer]

His weight is on his left leg, he would need to have his weight on his
right leg to effectively pull anyone to one side. I'm not convinced it was
Ruby that shot Oswald either Ralph.

[Ralph Cinque]

No, Marsh. You just don't get. That Jackson picture is AFTER Oswald was
shot. He was reacting to being shot. He wasn't showing fear at the thought
of being shot. He was reacting to the pain and shock of being shot.

"Jackson had captured the famous image of Oswald recoiling and grimacing
in pain as he was struck in the chest by a .38 caliber bullet from Ruby's
revolver, still pointed straight at him by the lunging killer as Leavelle
looked on in shock."


http://gazette.com/side-streets-photographer-bob-jackson-recalls-photo-of-lee-harvey-oswald-that-captured-history/article/1507892

It was after, Marsh.

I tell you, your judgment is the worst of anyone I have ever met. You have
no business doing this.

[Ralph Cinque]

No. Even at the very last second, even at the very last split-second,
Leavelle NEVER synced on Ruby.

Look at it his way: I read today that the difference between Beer's
pre-shooting image and Jackson's post-shooting picture was 6/10 second.
Now, in Jackson, Leavelle is looking at Ruby, but that was after the
shooting. In Beers, Leavelle is NOT looking at Ruby. So, that means that
even down to the last fraction of the second before the blast, Leavelle
had NOT turned his head to look at Ruby.

[bigdog]

On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 9:32:18 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> So, I blog a lot. So what? There's no law against it.

Isn't the internet a wonderful thing. A generation ago you would have been
standing on a soapbox on a street corner holding up a sign that said
Oswald was innocent and getting chuckles from passers by. Now you can
amuse people all over the world.

Ralph, you are the gift that keeps on giving.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/20/2016 9:31 PM, Steve Barber wrote:

> On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 9:55:28 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
>> But Steve. It's pretty clear from this still photo:
>>
>> http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fblueribbonnews.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F09%2Foswald31.jpg&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGmiC7CaiF25eIBdpprDESVL60U4w
>>
>> that Leavelle did see Ruby at the very last instant and could have
>> processed the thought to jerk Oswald back within a fraction of a second
>> after it was too late. Happening as quickly as it did, Leavelle's memory
>> would almost naturally associate the belated thought with having occurred
>> just slightly before Ruby fired.
>>
>> Besides, Ralph seemed to question whether Leavelle's hand was even in
>> place where he said it was in order to attempt what he claimed to have
>> attempted.
>
> But watch Levelle in the film clips. He isn't looking in Ruby's
> direction at all, like he has claimed. I think it's an honest mistake he
> is making. And I agree, Levelle could be pulling Oswald after ruby fired
> the shot. All I was pointing out was that he didn't pull Oswald out of the
> way when he said he did.
>

Again, for the morons here, go see your eye doctor. If you need to stare
directly at something to see it you have a serious problem and should
not be allowed out in public, much less driving a car.

> I disagree with Ralph that any of the photos are "fake(d)" and I do agree
> that Levelle did have hold of Oswald's trousers at the beltline.
>

Any of which photos? There are some photos which are fake. Read Pictures
of the Pain.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/21/2016 9:32 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> So, I blog a lot. So what? There's no law against it. And that's right:
> I'm saying that the guy we saw shooting Oswald was not Jack Ruby. And,
> they very carefully made sure that we couldn't confirm it by keeping his
> face constantly out of view, preventing us from getting enough visual
> information to cinch his identity, one way or the other.
>

Stupid, just plain stupid. We can see Ruby in earlier footage mingling
with the reporters, waiting for Oswald to come down the elevator. No one
else would wear such an ugly fedora.

> Then, after the shooting, "Ruby" literally dove into the pile-up, and we
> don't get a glimpse of him again. Amazingly, they skirted him out of the

I don't think he had any choice when they piled up on him.

> area and into the building without us seeing him again. Then later, after
> things settled down, we see the real Ruby in a shirt but no jacket.
>

OMG! They STOLE his jacket? Must be a conspiracy by the DPD.

> So, what happened to his jacket? It didn't come off in the fight, did it?
> He didn't get hot, did he? They didn't collect it as evidence, did they?
>

Evidence? The DPD? Is that a joke?

> Hear me: it was a bait and switch.
>

Yeah, they switched jackets just to trick YOU.
The conspiracy is to trick you.
No one else on the planet, just YOU.

> http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2016/05/so-basically-it-goes-from-this-to-this.html
>

[Ralph Cinque]

Where's the footage of Ruby mingling with reporters? Provide it.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/22/2016 5:56 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> No, Marsh. You just don't get. That Jackson picture is AFTER Oswald was
> shot. He was reacting to being shot. He wasn't showing fear at the thought
> of being shot. He was reacting to the pain and shock of being shot.
>
> "Jackson had captured the famous image of Oswald recoiling and grimacing
> in pain as he was struck in the chest by a .38 caliber bullet from Ruby's
> revolver, still pointed straight at him by the lunging killer as Leavelle
> looked on in shock."
>

Stomach.
Again, you undercut your own arguments. The quote says LUNGING.
You said STANDING.

>
> http://gazette.com/side-streets-photographer-bob-jackson-recalls-photo-of-lee-harvey-oswald-that-captured-history/article/1507892
>
> It was after, Marsh.
>

Yeah, so what? How many milliseconds?

> I tell you, your judgment is the worst of anyone I have ever met. You have
> no business doing this.
>

You only can misrepresent what I have said.
You create imaginary enemies to play the hero.

[Bud]

On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 2:16:35 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> Leavelle said the following, that:
>
> a) he saw Ruby in advance
> b) he recognized him
> c) he saw his gun
> d) he knew exactly what Ruby was going to do, and
> e) he responded by jerking Oswald back behind him, which resulted in Ruby
> shooting Oswald off-center.
>
> So now, you're taking to rewriting witness testimonies, are you? You think
> you have the right to do that, do you?

Why do you think the things Leavelle said and what the photos show
cannot co-exist without an extraordinary explanation?

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 5:16:12 AM UTC+2, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> Where's the footage of Ruby mingling with reporters? Provide it.

Where's the footage of Ralph mingling with reality? Provide it.

[Lance Uppercut]

On Tuesday, 24 May 2016 04:16:12 UTC+1, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> Where's the footage of Ruby mingling with reporters? Provide it.

There you go Ralph....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQu4s5ZQKAg

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/23/2016 11:16 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> Where's the footage of Ruby mingling with reporters? Provide it.
>

I've posted it a few times. But you can't find it because you don't know
how to Google. So Bing it.

https://www.awesomestories.com/asset/view/Murder-of-Lee-Harvey-Oswald

[Ralph Cinque]

Hmmm. I don't see the Ruby impostor there at all. I don't know what the
hell you're seeing.

[Anthony Marsh]

Hey, he stole that from me. No fair.
I am not Lance Uppercut.

[Anthony Marsh]

I think that was on the SyFy channel last weekend.

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

And you are not Spock.

[Lance Uppercut]

On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 23:23:59 UTC+1, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> Hmmm. I don't see the Ruby impostor there at all. I don't know what the
> hell you're seeing.

That's because there is no Ruby impostor. There IS a good clear shot of
Jack Ruby though...

It's pretty ironic that you've previously claimed almost anybody
photographed in a hat in Dealy Plaza was Jack Ruby but you're gonna
pretend the REAL Ruby is someone else.

Guess we should have seen it coming though....

[TOMNLN]

============================================================================================
WHERE YOU COME FROM THE ACCUSED HAS TO PROVE HINSELF INNOCENT.....IN THIS COUNTRY THE BURDON OF PROOF IS ON THE ACCUSER ! ! !
==========================================================================================
>
>

[Jason Burke]

Rossley, in case you haven't noticed yet, there was no trial.
The important thing is to find out what, you know, actually happened.
And by gum! The Warren Commission did that while you were still a cub
paperboy.

[Anthony Marsh]

You mean Ruby didn't get a trial? You mean they killed him before he could
get a trial? Sounds like a cover-up to me. As Ralph Salerno describes it.

In a conspiracy you need someone to kill the killer, then someone to kill
the killer of the killer, etc. etc. ad infinitum.

[Ralph Cinque]

UpperP: What's pretty ironic is you claiming that there is a "good clear
shot of Jack Ruby" without showing it. Why don't you post it as a frame?
Oh, that's right. It doesn't exist.

[bigdog]

Ralph proved a long time ago Jack Ruby was the only man in Dallas who
owned a fedora.

[Jason Burke]

Annnd, here's everything you need to know about Ralph and his fantasies:

"post it as a frame"

Really, really sad.

[David Von Pein]

JOHN CORBETT SAID:

Ralph proved a long time ago Jack Ruby was the only man in Dallas who
owned a fedora.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Just as Ralph proved....

"There were no v-neck t-shirts back then [in 1963]. Nobody had them." --
R. Cinque; October 26, 2012

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/10/doorway-man-part-2.html

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

Ralph needs to compare Ruby's jaw with that of Roy Lewis, and then it will
be clear to all what is going on here.

[Anthony Marsh]

Not what I said. I said that Ruby was the only PERSON in Dallas who WORE
a Fedora that ugly.

[Anthony Marsh]

That's an unfair debate tactic. You know he doesn't have the technical
skills to capture a frame from the video. He can barely tie his own
shoelaces. I've posted the video several times. Why can't you just look at
the video? Even YOU should be able to see it's Jack Ruby. What is that
trick where we post the evidence and then you claim we never posted the
evidence?

Is that Argumentum ad Ignorantiam?

[BT George]

Mark Oblazney said:

Where's the footage of Ralph mingling with reality? Provide it.

..You got it Cookie:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ue0SJs74I

[Anthony Marsh]

How about instead, only rich people had them. They were made by Polo.

[Ralph Cinque]

Von Pein, this is so good, I am going to have to make you famous for
it.

Whether there were, or whether there weren't, v-neck t-shirts in 1963 is
completely irrelevant. That's because you are claiming that Doorman was
Lovelady, and there is no chance that he was wearing a v-neck t-shirt. He
never wore them. Not even when he was posing for the camera as Doorman did
he wear them, and we're talking about multiple times.

This time, I'm really going to make you famous:

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2016/06/david-von-pein-said-just-as-ralph-proved.html

[Ace Kefford]

That's the burden on the prosecution in a criminal case in America. It is
not the burden in a historical evaluation.

[bigdog]

How do you know Lovelady never wore any V-neck t-shirts? Did you go
through his underwear drawer?

Look at the last picture of Oswald in your link. Oswald isn't wearing a
V-neck t-shirt in that picture. So if the guy in the doorway has a V-neck
t-shirt, it isn't Oswald. You just blew up the foundation of the OIC,
Ralph.

[David Von Pein]

On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 4:11:09 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:

Vintage Cinque. He actually *wants* to promote the fact that I proved him
wrong when he ignorantly uttered this in 2012:

[Anthony Marsh]

What's the matter with my counter argument that only the rich had them?
You got some photographic proof? Maybe early Victorian photos?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/8/2016 3:27 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 4:11:09 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>> Von Pein, this is so good, I am going to have to make you famous for
>> it.
>>
>> Whether there were, or whether there weren't, v-neck t-shirts in 1963 is
>> completely irrelevant. That's because you are claiming that Doorman was
>> Lovelady, and there is no chance that he was wearing a v-neck t-shirt. He
>> never wore them. Not even when he was posing for the camera as Doorman did
>> he wear them, and we're talking about multiple times.
>>
>> This time, I'm really going to make you famous:
>>
>> http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2016/06/david-von-pein-said-just-as-ralph-proved.html
>
> How do you know Lovelady never wore any V-neck t-shirts? Did you go
> through his underwear drawer?
>

PERVERT!

> Look at the last picture of Oswald in your link. Oswald isn't wearing a
> V-neck t-shirt in that picture. So if the guy in the doorway has a V-neck
> t-shirt, it isn't Oswald. You just blew up the foundation of the OIC,
> Ralph.

Show us ALL of Oswald's clothes. Did you know he threw away his jacket?
Maybe he threw away his T-shirts as well.

>

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

Don't goad him, Anthony. He just might make an inflatable doll and strip
it for us, starting with the Psychedelic Lovelady shirt on.

[Ralph Cinque]

Von Pein, you didn't prove anything in 2012, and you haven't proved
anything since. Doorman is clearly wearing a v-shaped t-shirt which his
Marine buddy Anthony Botelho recognized immediately as his. Nobody ever
said it was originally v-shaped. It became that way from Oswald tugging on
it. Are you going to claim that Billy Lovelady also had that habit?

Try to be smarter, Von Pein. You're really falling down on this.

[Alex Foyle]

On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 4:13:36 PM UTC+2, Ralph Cinque wrote:

> Von Pein, you didn't prove anything in 2012, and you haven't proved
> anything since.

Ah Ralph, that basically sums up your antics here over the last years ...
none and I repeat none of your inane claims over last years proved to be
right, each of them was more desperate and stupid than the one preceeding
it. Your OIC is a complete waste of time, but you sure know how to
entertain ... why not try that as a hobby instead of JFK assasination
research, because you really suck at the latter.

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

Ralph thought of doing stand-up comedy onstage, but everyone would think
he's still sitting down

[Ralph Cinque]

You're just flapping your lips, Foyle, which anyone can do. You didn't
score any points. You didn't make any points. It was just general
derision. Do you know what that's worth?

My OIC is the biggest thing to happen in the JFK world in the 21st
Century.

And long before the 22nd century, the official story of the JFK
assassination will be completely destroyed, just like the Nazi lies and
the Soviet lies.

It's 'acomin'- whether you like or not.

[Anthony Marsh]

Is that a height joke? Little People of America should file a complaint
against you.

[Jason Burke]

You da man, Tony.
You da man!

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

They look up to me, Anthony. That's why you wear a neck brace. Bow your
head now, and I shall give you the Papal Blessing. Dominus Ominus
Tyrannysorus Rex.

[Alex Foyle]

On Sunday, June 12, 2016 at 1:45:22 AM UTC+2, Ralph Cinque wrote:

> My OIC is the biggest thing to happen in the JFK world in the 21st
> Century.

Ha ha ... see, that's how delusional you are. Even Juduffki is a bigger
thing than your ridiculous OIC.

> It's 'acomin'- whether you like or not.

What on earth is "acomin", Ralph? Up to this point absolutely nothing
worthwhile has been acomin from you other than one stupid claim after the
other. What are you waiting for? Bring it on.

[Jason Burke]

Personally, I think ol' Ralph is bucking for a hosting gig on SNL.

[Ralph Cinque]

What's 'acomin' is the complete collapse of the official story of the JFK
assassination. And thanks to you, I visited with Abraham Bolden today, and
he confirmed his membership in the OIC and asked me to send him hard
copies of the collages of Oswald and Doorman so that he can show them to
people. He provided his home address, and I am mailing them there. Don't
worry: I'm bringing it on. You're just as delusional as Juduffki but in a
different way.

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

Did "it" come, Ralph? Ask Lenny Bruce.

[Jason Burke]

On 6/16/2016 8:39 AM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> What's 'acomin' is the complete collapse of the official story of the JFK
> assassination. And thanks to you, I visited with Abraham Bolden today, and

Ralph, you're delusional. Please get help.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/16/2016 11:39 AM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> What's 'acomin' is the complete collapse of the official story of the JFK
> assassination. And thanks to you, I visited with Abraham Bolden today, and
> he confirmed his membership in the OIC and asked me to send him hard
> copies of the collages of Oswald and Doorman so that he can show them to

Who is Doorman?

Do you mean Elsie Dorman who took a film from the TSBD?

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

Raff* has become emBoldened.

[Alex Foyle]

Show me one written confirmation from Bolden where he endorses any of your
photo fakery claims, especially where he confirms your Oswald outside
delusion.