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

There is something that I hear quite often from my adversaries, and it is that there are better ways to prove Oswald's innocence than citing his presence in the doorway. Lance Upperpunk is an example, and very recently Zachary Zendro said it.  But what neither they nor anyone else does is state what these better ways are. You would think that such a statement would be followed by "such as ..." but it never is. Not once has any of these detractors followed through with a list. 

And I know why they haven't followed through, and it is because the statement is false. The fact is: there is no better way to establish Oswald's innocence than to provide the photographic evidence which proves that he was somewhere else at the time of the crime's commission. In a word, it provides him an alibi. 

And, we have, not one, but two, pieces of photographic evidence which provide Oswald an alibi. They are: the Altgens photo and the Wiegman film. 

These images place Oswald in the doorway at the time of the murder. What could possibly be more exonerating than that? And where else could he possibly have been but in the doorway? 

The most common answer you get is that he was in the 2nd floor lunch room, and some even embellish it by saying that Oswald told investigators that he was in the 2nd floor lunch room. That is a lie.
If someone wants to provide a claim of Oswald having said that to investigators, I will gladly shoot it down. 

There isn't even any basis to THINK that Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:30. What for? What would he have been doing there? What would he have been there for? He had already eaten. He ate his lunch in the Domino room earlier than that in the presence of Junior Jarman and Harold Norman. So, eating is out of the question as a reason for Oswald to be in the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:30. And so is drinking because Oswald didn't get his Coke until AFTER his encounter with Truly and Baker. Both of them said that at the time of the encounter he had NO COKE. It was Mrs. Robert Reid who saw Oswald with a "full" Coke AFTER his encounter with Truly and Baker. So, unless you want to peg Oswald as the kind of Coke fiend who had to have two Cokes in several minutes time, you can't use that as a reason either. 

So, at 12:30 sharp, Oswald was definitely NOT EATING and he was definitely NOT DRINKING. Therefore, what would he have been doing in the lunch room? There was no pinball machine there. They didn't have PacMan yet. He had no crossword puzzle with him. He wasn't working on an Origami.  He had no stationery to write a letter. So, unless you want to say he was twiddling his thumbs or counting holes in the ceiling, you have no reason to place him in the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:30. 

And even at 12:31.5 when Baker first saw him, Oswald was on the move in the lunch room. He was walking. He had his back to Baker, and he was walking in the opposite direction. So, Oswald was not even settled in the lunch room at 12:31.5. When you add to that the fact that Oswald told Fritz that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front" (which must have referred to his whereabouts during the shooting) it becomes clear that Oswald must have just gotten to the lunch room when Baker saw him. 

I'm not just saying that there is no place better to place Oswald at 12:30 than the doorway. I'm saying that there is NO place else to place him at 12:30. Period. There is no Plan B. There is nothing else. There is no alternative. There is nothing reasonable even as a speculation. Might as well say he was in the bathroom moving his bowels. 

Ultimately, Oswald's whereabouts are the ONLY way to exonerate him. It is the only way to get him off.  

Take, for example, the preposterousness of the Single Bullet Theory. Yes, it is preposterous. And Dr. Cyril Wecht goes on national television during every JFK commemoration to argue why the medical evidence proves that Kennedy was struck by a bullet from the front, and therefore, there had to be multiple shooters and therefore a conspiracy. 

That's all very well and good, but it doesn't help Lee Harvey Oswald. Cyril Wecht has never said anything in defense of Oswald. He only says that if Oswald acted, he couldn't have acted alone. But, that's not what we are saying. We are saying that Oswald was innocent. And the only way to establish his innocence is not to demolish the Single Bullet Theory but to establish his alibi at the time of the murder. And, his alibi is that he was standing in the doorway, and we have the pictures to prove it. 

So, what does this say about the Oswald defenders who keep saying that there are better ways to defend Oswald than to cite his presence in the doorway, although, apparently, they don't know what those ways are? What it says about them is that they are not really Oswald defenders. They are just pretending to be Oswald defenders, and, in reality, they are Oswald accusers. 

I'm sure the CIA decided a long time ago that the best way to control and limit the JFK truth movement is to take over both sides of the debate. And that's why we have so many individuals who want to trash Oswald in the doorway in favor of other unnamed approaches to vindicating Oswald- which they never get around to citing. 

Oswald was standing in the doorway, and it is not only the best way to vindicate him, it is the only way. And, I guarantee you that it is going to lead the way to universal awareness of Oswald innocence and JFK truth.