Wednesday, December 20, 2017

The One He Won't Discuss

You can tell when Raff* Sink realizes that he's be debunked. He refuses to acknowledge the evidence.

Here's a perfect example....

Recently, Raff* was talking up a find by OIC Pivot-man Amy Joyce. It was huge in his eye and he touted it a concrete proof that a photo was altered. That was until my last post. I was able to find several examples of the same thing occurring in several photos. And as I predicted, Raff* replied with a feeble response.

Here's Raff*....

Raff* continues...

So Raff* had to admit that lighting can change the appearance of something and make it look like a different color or shade of color but my example didn't show enough change because the hat band ribbon wasn't the same color as the hat (others that were were dismissed as the ribbon just ended, i.e., no ribbon, just hat).

Raff*'s only explanation is that the grey section of the bow was painted in.

In several posts, Raff* refuses to discuss the last photo I provided.

That's Jack Ruby walking toward the courtroom for trial. Look at the only hat in the photo. Raff* decided not to discuss the photo above because it shows his claim as complete bullshit. But then that's how Raff* rolls.The photo above shows the center portion of the bow on the hat band to be as "rigidly distinctive" as Amy Joyce's smoking gun.

Here's another taken seconds later...

Both photos were taken by a Paris Match photographer on March 1, 1964.

Isn't it amazing how a totally black hat band can appear to be the same color as the hat under the right lighting conditions?

Your move Raff*.....

Sunday, December 17, 2017

It's Ribbed, for their pleasure

Good 'Ol Raff* and his new pivot man Amy Joyce, have thrilled us for some time now with their joint efforts in idiocy. I'm beginning to think Amy is worse than Raff* when it comes to photo analysis.

Case in point:

And here...

Raff* seems to think this is proof that someone was wearing a hat that wasn't Jack Ruby's, while they fired a gun that wasn't Jack Ruby's, with a deformed hand that wasn't Jack Ruby's at Lee Oswald, who clutched his chest with a deformed hand that wasn't Lee Oswald's, while reacting to a gunshot wound that wasn't Lee Oswald's.

But wait......he then says that the photo was altered. That stripe on the ribbon in the photo on the left above, was painted in.

Raff* can't make up his mind.

We'll answer Raff*'s question in a bit. For now, let's let him tell us all about what we see, in the photos above...

The statements above, prove that Raff* Sink doesn't know a damn thing about lighting. Or color. Or light wave absorption. The basement of the DPD was lit by direct overhead, incandescent lights.  There were several reporters taking photographs at the time of the Jackson photo, and you can see the flashes from their equipment going off in all of the live TV footage taken of the event.

But Raff* continues....

Raff* attempts to show that the color difference in the Jackson photo could be because the ribbon in the hat band was actually a different color.

The above statement is just out and out bullshit. Raff* cannot show you a single picture of James Bookhout wearing a hat. He has a picture of a bunch of people, from when Bookhout was in school, wearing uniform hats, but cannot identify Bookhout in the photo or prove that Bookhout is in the photo.

Raff* has nothing to back up his claim that Jack Ruby didn't shoot Lee Oswald.

But he continues...

James Bookhout cannot be identified in the Jackson photo. Mainly, because he was upstairs when the photo was taken.

It's so ridiculous that Raff* has been making an issue of the hat that Bookhout never wore, for over a year now.

But Raff* then contradicts everything he said about lighting and color, in this post...

And for the bazillionth time since jumping into the JFK sandbox, Raff* resorts to calling the kettle black when it comes to idiocy.

Now, Raff* claims that lighting has nothing to do with the change in the color of the ribbon on Ruby's hat and has made his default challenge to anyone that disagrees with him....pick up a camera and reproduce a change in color in a hat band ribbon.

No need.....others have done it for us, but Raff* is too stupid to realize it.

I offer the following....

In the photo above, you can clearly see that the strip of ribbon in the center of the bow on the hat band has taken on the appearance of being the same color as the hat. 

And here.....

The ribbon, in the center of the bow on Frank Costello's hat band, has turned grey.

Here is a photo of TV's Baretta, Robert Blake, in an promotion photo for an earlier project he was involved with.

Notice the ribbon on the hat of the man standing to far right in the photo. The ribbon of the hat band has taken on the color of the hat.

The ribbon used in hat bands are many times, woven in a way that leaves the material ribbed like corduroy fabric. The ribs will cause the satin material to give off a different shine depending on which direction the light source hitting it, is located. 

Which leads me to ask Raff*.....

Better than that....Why does this gentleman's hat band take on a different color? 

 And why do these men's hat bands become the same color as the hat?

It's because of the weave of the satin and the light reflecting off of it, you couple of nimrods.

Why does Fat Tony's hat band take on a different color than the same color material of the bow?

It's because of the weave of the satin and the light reflecting off of it.

It's a shame that between Raff* and Amy, they can't figure out the easy stuff. Everything they don't understand is turned into a new smoking gun, greater than the last smoking gun they found. Unfortunately, between the two of them them, they haven't produced a single smoking gun...ever.

Raff will be working on a reply to this and I want you to keep this photo in mind while you read it....

Look at the center of the bow on the hat band on the man behind Ruby. It's grey....the same color as the hat.

Raff* and Amy........idiots.

Monday, September 18, 2017

Time To School Ol' Raff*

Yo Raff*...

Here's a capture of a video showing Capt. Robert Crowder in 1964.....and I know that you've seen it.

Hat tip to Steve Roe for the vid!

He's 63 years old in this video.

Here he is at age 54....

In 1968 he turned 67 years old. He's the man on the left in this photo....

In 1968, James Bookhout turned 54. He's the man on the right in the photo above.

You're wrong. Your written claims about James Bookhout shooting Jack Ruby are not only wrong, but vile.

We've come to expect that from you. You're a vile, disgusting excuse for a human being. Instead of admitting that you are wrong, you now want to drag a dead Texas Ranger through the mud. You're the most contemptible person I have ever seen on the net. You should slink away in shame but instead, you act as if you're proud of your slander.

We all thought you hit rock bottom when you called Mary Moorman a liar....we were wrong.

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

Raff*'s Bubble Just Got Burst!

Thanks to Dennis Moricet for finding the photo and a huge thanks to Robin Unger for providing it to me so I could share it here.


 That's him in the glasses on the right.

Raff* Sink has been proven to be an idiot, once again!

Wednesday, July 5, 2017

OIC Senior Member Jack White Come Back From the Dead haunt Raff*

After a little searching, I found this......

OIC Senior Member Jack White..."It is certain that the Moorman Polaroid is genuine. There was no time or opportunity to tamper with it..."

Well, would you look at that....Martin's windshield, handlebar and hand on the throttle clearly shown.

Thank you Jack. I'll light a candle for ya.....

Raff* continues to beat the dead horse

This idiot will never get it....

I don't know of anyone that claims that your copy is the original Moorman photo.

It's a copy that was made the day Moorman took her photo. The reason you see traces of the thumb print is because the actual Polaroid photo was mishandled before the fixative was placed on it or before the photo was dry. Best guess is that it was probably by Jim Featherstone or one of the people at the Courts Building that made copies of it.

Most likely, someone held the photo between their thumb and forefinger resulting in acid from the person's thumb being deposited on the picture. Over time, the emulsion flaked off the positive paper resulting in this....

Now, if you're going to skip the research part  of this, maybe you can explain something.....

If Martin, as you claim, is buried in that thumb print, how do you explain us seeing his windshield below the thumb print and his right hand on the throttle of the motorcycle at the bottom of the photo?

We'll wait for your explanation.......

Monday, July 3, 2017

Raff* Trashes His Own Member

Raff* has tried repeatedly to prove the Mary Moorman photo contains something it doesn't. Namely, the front tire of DPD Officer B.J. Martin's motorcycle.

In his latest rant, we get this......

With this accompanying text....

Hmmmmmm....that's interesting. Especially when you consider.......

Crop of Jack White Document at Baylor University
Raff* will climb over any (dead) body he can find to push his disinfo..........

Question for Raff*

Ok Raff*, you've been going on for years about a fingerprint purposely placed on Mary Moorman's Polaroid to cover something up.

What did they try to cover up?

Was Hargis' nose running? Was there a reflection of the shooter in Martin's windshield? Was Marilyn Sitzman playing pocket pool with her boss Zapruder? Was Babushka Lady's face reflected in Martin's windshield and it was the face of the tranny you were trying to pick up on Craig's list? Tell us Raff*.

Why would a fingerprint be purposely placed over Martin's windshield Raff*?

I tell you what, why don't you answer the easier question I asked you a while back....where is Martin's front tire. Don't burn your last brain cell.......

Sunday, June 25, 2017

A New Record !!!!

Due to a little internet searching Raff* Sink has removed 3 posts from his blog today because he was too stupid to check his claim.

We couldn't be more proud of you Raff*!


Image by Kirby Sattler, screen captured from Raff* Sink's website

Tonto is from the Potawatomi tribe.....not Cherokee.
You dumbass.....

Raff* can't read

Raff*'s latest...

Re-read Rather's statement you dumb fuck.....

Rather was at the TV studio you flaming idiot.

He re-ran the video taken at the DPD by a cameraman.

The article is here:

This is my first post describing Raff*'s screw up...

Raff* is having a hard time

Raff* has been burning up Google searching for '63 Ford Galaxie tail lights.

He's having trouble understanding how a car can move backwards without the backup lights on which burn white and doesn't understand why red brake lights don't look red.

At first, Raff* claimed that the rear of the car was the front of the car and thought that the tail lights were headlights. I quickly proved him wrong and even provided a picture of the make of car for comparison. Raff* then completely deleted a post on McAdams forum because he was wrong. Then he started going on a rant about the red brake lights weren't red and there were no backup lights.

First things first. Officer Dhority testified that he went downstairs, unlocked the car and was moving it when Fritz came out to the car and Ruby ran across the back of the car towards Oswald.

The car was parked on the exit ramp...key word "ramp".
The ramp went up to Commerce St. Key word "up".

So, for the backup lights not to be on, one of two things happened. Either the backup lights weren't working, or Dhority simply put the car in neutral and let it roll back until he hit the brakes to stop. I don't hear the car running in the video.

Either way, the car backed up and Dhority hit the brakes. You can see the lights come on in Raff*'s vid...

Regardless of the status of the backup lights, I have an answer as to why the brake lights weren't red.

It was black and white film....

Saturday, June 24, 2017

Raff* is Rather stupid, don't you think?

The latest from the senile founder of Oswald's Incompetent Clowns

You knew it was a matter of time. Raff* has found every nefarious person you could name either standing along the motorcade route or in the basement of the DPD on the day Oswald was shot. He's even gone so far as to invent two or three reenactments of Oswald being shot in his grand theory that Jack Ruby wasn't Ruby, but FBI Agent Bookhout was Ruby, but only after Oswald was paraded out of the jail 2 or 3 times to allow Bookhout to be Ruby, when Ruby was already upstairs being booked for Bookhout shooting Oswald, as Ruby, who wasn't Ruby, looked on....

Raff*'s an expert on body parts.

Well, I would imagine that reason Rather has never discussed his presence in the DPD basement when Oswald was shot, is because he wasn't there. But don't try to tell Raff* that because he would Rather show the world he's an idiot than attempt to get something correct. Raff* realized just a few hours ago that his claim of a car going forward when it was actually going backward was stuff out of another Galaxie...

You can tell that Raff* never researches anything by the way he will make several claims in print and never research the situation. He lets other people do the research, rips it off like nothing was wrong in his original post and then moves on. He learned that trick from Jim Fetzer who has never done any original research in the area of JFK.

Read and learn Raff*....

The above excerpt shows that Raff* would Rather be an idiot than a researcher.

Yeah Raff*, for once you got something right. Your post does stink..........