Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

Somebody asked me tonight if SV Anderson could be Joseph Backes. And I said no, absolutely not. 

Anderson isn't smart, but he is not as stupid as Joseph Backes. Backes is an utter doofus. 

And that's why it's not surprising that Backes would post Anderson's ridiculous rant and call it "poetry, pure poetry." 

My point was always to make a mockery of the conspiracy mindset. Now Ralph Cinque is caught in a logical trap that not even he has noticed yet. Let me explain because he doesn't realizes the mess he is in.

1. All of my letters claimed that Oswald was innocent and that it was Oswald in the doorway all along.
2. Cinque is programmed to allege that his enemies are all paid government agents hired to protect the "Oswald did it" scenario.
3. In the above post by Cinque he stated the following: "...there is definitely more to it than what he is saying." This implies that I am part of a conspiracy, but if my letters claimed that Oswald was INNOCENT then who is behind the conspiracy I am allegedly a part of? Was it the conspiracy cult that organized my activities? Why would someone that believes that Oswald was innocent (as my letters stated) be part of government conspiracy when has always been Cinque's claim that the government wants to keep the "Oswald was GUILTY" story alive.


That is ridiculous. I am not caught in a trap; Anderson is. None of the letters claimed that Oswald was innocent. That is, none of the letters had SV Anderson claiming that Oswald was innocent. 

And even the ones writing weren't that interested in it; they didn't claim any knowledge about it. They were claiming knowledge about SV Anderson, know who he is, not Doorman.  

Anderson, they weren't YOUR letters. They were letters ABOUT you, but they weren't BY you- allegedly The only thing claimed to be BY you were some sketchy notes. But, the notes didn't say that Oswald was innocent. It didn't involve anything as frank as that. 

I'll give you an example. In SV Anderson's hand-written notes, it includes this:

Altg  Worst for us- shows ev of tamp with shrt
Tight lid- tight lid

So, that's shorthand for: Altgens photo is worst for us. It shows evidence of tampering with the shirt. Keep a tight lid on it.

But, what I wonder is: why would SV Anderson want to articulate the idea that the Altgens photo was tampered with- even in jest? Would he really do that? Would he really put it in writing as the words and thoughts of SV Anderson?  

He did all that with the intention of renouncing it a year later? But, a lot of damage can be done in a year. Would the SV Anderson we know really let that linger for a whole year?  

Were you pulling this prank on me or on yourself, Anderson? 

And why would you involve your students in it? Why would you, of all people, plant the idea in the minds of your students that some might think the Altgens photo was tampered with? That something was done to the shirt? As quick as you are to go on the attack here, are we really supposed to be believe that you told them: "Don't worry; a year from now, I'll get him good. But, in the meantime, I'll let the world think I said that about Altgens tampering." 

I'm just not buying it, Anderson. I'm not buying any of what you're selling. But, it doesn't surprise me that Joseph Backes is. He considers you a poet. And he doesn't mind a bit that you think Oswald killed Kennedy.