http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1247.htmlA few excerpts (just for laughs)....
DAVID VON PEIN SAID [in 2016]:Ralph thinks the NBC footage shows Ruby wearing sunglasses in the basement. Hilarious.
RALPH CINQUE SAID:Then, what is it? It's a black disc around his eye, and there's a bridge over his nose. What is it?
And you've got some nerve. You mock me, and you don't even say what it is.
You're getting more famous all the time.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:It's a shadow, Ralph. Simple as that. The same type of blackness (i.e., shadow) can be seen on Ruby's neck. What do you think is causing the blackness on Ruby's neck?
Plus, do you really think somebody would paint in a pair of sunglasses onto a person's face without also painting in the frame for those sunglasses? Where is the hinged frame that should extend over Ruby's left ear? Are the glasses supposed to be just hanging there over his nose?
Isn't it time to give up this nonsense, Ralph?
RALPH CINQUE SAID:Shadows are cast by objects, where an object is between the source of the light and the surface on which the shadow is laid. The object blocks the light, and that produces the shadow.
So, what is the object casting the disc-shaped shadow around his eye? I'm looking for an object here. Object. Object. Object.
[...]
What did I tell you, David? I told you that every shadow is cast by something; some object. So, you can't say it's a shadow without naming the object that cast it, and how it was in position to cast it. It has to make sense according to physics. But, you haven't even named the object.
The shadow on his neck is presumably cast by his chin, though what is casting the shadow on the lower part of his face I do not know.
But, the inky black disc around his eye with the stripe across the bridge of his nose, what could possibly be casting such a shadow?
And if you look closely, there does appear to be an eyeglass temple going over his ear.
Now, when you complain about the missing frame, don't blame me. There is a lot of crude stuff they did, photographically speaking, thinking that no one would care or even notice. They were very arrogant people who had nothing but contempt and scorn for the common man and his inability to observe details.
So yes, I really do think they would paint in a pair of sunglasses onto a person's face without also painting in the frame. And if you look closely, you can see the "temple" of his glasses which is going over his ear. Apparently, you're not too good at observing details either.
Alright, now you know that you can't claim shadow for the black disc without pointing to the object that is casting it. So, you can either cite the object, which will then be scrutinized, OR you can retract the claim. Take your pick. But, that's it. That's where you are at. That's the crossroad that you are at.
So, what's it going be? Cite the casting object or retract the claim.
And if you won't retract it, I'll retract it for you.
RALPH CINQUE LATER SAID:Alright, so let me dumb this down for you: On the left is the NBC reporter Tom Petit [sic], and his face is partially in shadow. That is what shadow looks like. Understand? That's the density of it, the color of it, etc. But, the guy on the right with the massive black disc over his eye, which has much greater density, which has inky blackness, which has three-dimensionality and form, that is NOT shadow. And if you think it's shadow, then show me another photo from the entire history of photography in which someone showed shadow that looked like that. What you submitted does not come close to that.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:Ralph,
I'm officially done with this foolishness about Ruby and the nonexistent sunglasses. You can play your silly games by yourself from now on. I joined in for a few posts merely for the fun of it.
As everyone can easily see, Ralph Cinque's imagination has now reached new heights in the "fertile" and "ridiculous" departments.
The truth is (and always was, of course): the person who shot Lee Harvey Oswald in the Dallas Police Department basement on 11/24/63 was Jack L. Ruby, not FBI agent James W. Bookhout. And Mr. Ruby was definitely not wearing any eyeglasses when he murdered Oswald.
DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:It's amazing to see the amount of absolute trash and junk that crops up when people discuss the JFK case, as this ludicrous "RUBY NEVER SHOT OSWALD" hogwash clearly illustrates.
Is the next theory going to be: "TIPPIT WAS NEVER SHOT AT ALL"??
As Vince Bugliosi said....
"I know that conspiracy theorists have a sweet tooth for silliness, but is there absolutely nothing that is too silly for their palate?"
