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

I just thought of something. Why doesn't ROKC invite someone from the OIC (for instance, me) to give a presentation on Oswald in the Altgens doorway? It could even be arranged as a debate against someone who advocates for Prayer Man. 

Why not? After all, there is so much that we agree on, right? We agree that the official story of the JFK assassination is a grotesque lie, that JFK was murdered by elements of his own government, including members of his own administration, with help from the Mafia, etc.  That Oswald was framed and innocent, just a patsy. That the government and the media have been lying about it for 52 years. And, we both agree that Oswald's alibi was that he was standing in the doorway at the time of the shots, and that he was imaged there. 

That is a hell of a lot to agree about. But, when it comes down to identifying which figure in the doorway he was, that's where we disagree. But, why can't we debate it civilly? Why not allow the attendees to hear both sides? Why not let both cases be made and then let the audience decide for themselves who is right based on the evidence presented? 

I think it's a great idea, and I can't think of any reason not to do it except the intent to censor.

Unless Greg Parker reads this blog, someone should get the word to him that I have made this proposal. 

And listen: IF YOU ARE AN ADVOCATE OF OSWALD IN THE DOORWAY, YOU HAVE NO REASON TO GET IRATE AT SOMEONE WHO ADVOCATES THE SAME THING. 

In other words, if we're travelling down a road, and we're basically taking the same steps all the way, and then at the end we take the last step differently, there's no reason to get boiled over. It means that basically we have been in step, in unison. So, why not discuss the difference civilly? Why not sit down and reason together?

So, if necessary, I ask that someone please get the word to Greg Parker about this excellent idea.