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

It's weird. Back when James Norwood was a different person, he cited this as an example of photographic alteration of Oswald even BEFORE the assassination.

It was James who came up with the football card, not me. 

Now, let's consider James' letter to Jim Fetzer- from a rational perspective.

First, he said that he considered the recent presentation of ours on Oswald in the doorway "unpersuasive".

Did he provide an example of faulty reasoning? No.

Did he dispute any specific claim based on the photo analysis? No.

Did he reference any specific content of the program? No. 

All James did was paint with a broad brush a "no good" stripe across the whole thing.

Now, he is supposed to be a professor. What if one of his students turned in a paper which appraised a certain book but failed to address a single specific point in the book, failed to cite a single argument in the book, failed to reference any specific content in the book at all, but just said, "I didn't like it. It might have been a fun exercise to write, but what he said could never constitute proof." 

That is exactly what you said, James, and here is exactly how you said it:

"It may be a fun exercise to speculate on photo anomalies or to tinker with computer images. But, that does not constitute "proof" in any sense of the word."

Wow! That is pretty sweeping. You made no reference to the content of our work; it was the whole process you attacked; the very idea of it. 

But, you took a completely different attitude when talking about the same subject to Robin Unger:

Robin,

I agree with Mark that your superb imagery offers an exceptional resource for serious students of the assassination.

It is unfortunate that Ralph Cinque is merely wasting valuable time with his uninformative blog posts and vitriolic attacks and threats on those who challenge him.

But others recognize the importance of your photo work. For those with a genuine interest in the assassination, you are providing an invaluable photographic record.

So, when Robin Unger is doing it, then you think photo work can be superb, that it is an exceptional resource, that it can have great importance, and that it is invaluable. 

But, when Larry Rivera and I are doing it, then it's just tinkering and speculating and can never prove anything. 

James, focus: you didn't say anything. You didn't critique our work. You just dismissed it by smearing it with a broad brush. You made no intelligible criticisms. And that's why I'm giving you an "F". 

And that was all you had to say about it, which was nothing. Then you moved on to your own doings, which was really what you wanted to talk about to Jim. 

You talked about your experience with the Racine Journal people, and why you didn't identify the newspaper as such I do not know. Don't you think it was relevant? Then why didn't you inform Jim Fetzer?

You were told by these people that the paper went out at the usual time. You asked the editor about the caption for the photo, and he told you that they just used whatever the AP sent. 

But, that wasn't true, James. Here, reportedly, is the caption that the AP sent:

Dallas Texas Nov 22 KENNEDY SHOT IN DALLAS. President Kennedy was shot today just as motorcade left downtown Dallas. He was taken to Parkland Hospital. Secret Service agents are looking from where shot came from. 

Now, here's the caption that was published in the Racine paper:

President Kennedy was shot and killed today just as he left downtown Dallas. Secret Service agents are looking for the source of the shot. The President's car is in the foreground. The man on the left is believed to be the President.

What???? That isn't the same. That isn't remotely the same. It is hugely revised. Furthermore, the AP caption said nothing about JFK being killed, whereas the Racine caption did.

So, how do you account for that, James? And how do you account for the fact that the editor, to whom you spoke, just glibly said that they used the caption that the AP sent?

James! Wake up! You were being snowed. And what did you expect them to say? What did you expect to hear as an alternative to what you were told? 

Yet, you want to use that exchange to trump our work with the images in which we have demonstrated an iron-clad match between Oswald and Doorman?

Now listen, James: None of those matches above depend on photographic alteration. Those are all things that match without any claim of alteration. And here's Larry's overlay: 
  

James, I have told you before, and I'll tell you again, and I'll also tell Jim Douglas, David Talbot, and certainly John Armstrong, with whom I have daily contact, that THERE IS NO DEFENDING LEE HARVEY OSWALD WITHOUT PROVIDING HIM AN ALIBI.

It's just not possible. It wouldn't be possible in court, and it is not possible in the court of public opinion. 

In court, Oswald's attorney would start  by establishing where Oswald was and what he was doing at the time of the murder. And if his attorney failed to do that, if he instead told the jury; 

"I can't tell you where Oswald was at the time of the crime, and I won't put him on the stand to tell you himself, however, we shall demonstrate in other ways that he was innocent."

What kind of defense would that be? The odds are very great that most or all jurors would take that as a tacit admission of his guilt, and they would act accordingly. 

Realize that there are plenty of researchers who are fighting the official story but who have no particular interest in defending Oswald. Cyril Wecht is highly respected. He rigorously challenges the official story, but he never even mentions Oswald's name. He's not the least bit interested in defending Oswald. 

But, we, at the Oswald Innocence Campaign, are very interested in defending Oswald. We are out to vindicate him, to exonerate him, to restore his good name. And we know that the only way we can do that is to establish his whereabouts at the time of the murder.

James, you are a vicious traitor to Lee Harvey Oswald, and I say vicious because you don't hesitate to collaborate with vicious people who are no friends of his.  

And what is the point of sounding respectful to Jim Fetzer when you collaborate with people who trash him left and right? 

You couldn't be your own man, could you? You could have distanced yourself from bpete, Joseph Backes and Lee Farley who masquerades as Lance Uppercut. You throw in with people like Mark "Pink" O'Blazney who derides Oswald, Fetzer, Cinque, Armstrong, Douglas- you name it. He places Oswald on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy. And you call Pink by his first name? 

So, let me get this straight, James: you would rather align yourself with someone who accuses Oswald of killing Kennedy and Tippit, and attempting to kill Walker and Macdonald, of doing all the things that Officialdom says he did, rather than someone who says that Oswald was innocent- if his defense of Oswald includes that he was in the doorway?

But, you don't even have an alternative location for Oswald to be. You're pleading ignorance as to where he was. Yet, you claim to know that he wasn't in the doorway???????  

You don't like my language, James. And you don't like my style. But, you're OK with the language and style of Joseph Backes and bpete? 

You are, in a word, despicable, James. You are such a traitor, and you are such a weak man that you should seek shelter among those knaves. 

Well, you might as well keep doing it, James, because you have crossed the Rubicon, and there is no turning back. There is nothing you could say or do now that would restore my respect for you.

But just remember something: I don't mince words, and I don't hold back. Not towards Backes, not towards bpete, and not towards you. That's true in the past, and I guarantee you that it's true for the future. So, don't expect me to go easy on you. I don't go easy on anybody who is up to no good.