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

Just finished watching The Hatfields and the McCoys on Netflix. It's a great show. Very authentic. Really takes you back to the late 1800s. And they sure found some gorgeous, pristine, unspoiled terrain in which to film it. 

Of course, it's all about shedding blood in the family feud and graphically so. One thing I think they did quite well was portray an equal amount of pain and suffering and death and loss for each side. Nobody won. In the show, the last one to die was a Hatfield. But, he wasn't killed by the McCoys; rather, he was sentenced to die by a judge in Kentucky for having killed a McCoy. There is an awful lot of death in the show; it is very bloody. 

It is a true story, and I know they tried hard to duplicate the actual events as they occurred. I'm saying that because I read up on it afterwards. 

So, it really happened.  But, how does it compare to the real-life and ongoing feud between JFK truthers (Oswald defenders) and Warren Report devotees?  

Well, I think this JFK feud is much bigger, and I think it's every bit as bitter. It's also much longer because 52 years have passed, and it is still going strong. But, concerning bloodshed, it's very different because in this feud, all the killing has been totally and completely one-sided. 

When has an Oswald defender ever murdered a defender of the official story? Or committed any kind of crime, violent or non-violent, against a defender of the official story? All of the killing; all of the crime; all of the brutality; and all the threats of brutality have gone in one direction: from the defenders of the official story to those who challenge it. 

We talk about witnesses being killed, and there are over 100. They are listed as "mysterious deaths" but the presumption is that they were murdered.  But, they weren't all Oswald defenders. In fact, a lot of them weren't.  But, for one reason or another, they couldn't be trusted. 

The following was written by mathematician Richard Charnin:

In fact, there were more than 18 suspicious deaths in the three years following the assassination. The actuary did not include Oswald and Ruby – and at least 20 others. The JFK witness spreadsheet database shows there were at least forty (40) suspicious deaths in the three years; at least 33 were unnatural (homicide, accident, suicide, unknown). The probability of 33 unnatural deaths is lower than 1 in 100 TRILLION TRILLION!
The probability of at least 70 unnatural deaths in the 14 years following the assassination is 1 in 700 MILLION TRILLION TRILLION (1.4E-33). . But there were at least 100 unnatural and suspicious deaths, so the probability is even lower. Since the probability of at least 70 deaths is infinitesimal, why bother to look any further? There are 104 dead witnesses in the spreadsheet database (this is conservative; researchers have estimated at least 300).
Of the 104 in the database, 71 deaths were unnatural: 7 were ruled suicides (0.58%); 40 homicides (0%); 24 accidental (0%). The other 33 deaths consisted of 4 from unknown causes (0.02%) and 29 suspiciously timed heart attacks, sudden cancers, etc.(0%). The probability of each cause of death is shown in percent.
Perhaps the problem is better illustrated if we ask: How many unnatural deaths are required in the 14 year period (assuming 1400 material witnesses) to obtain a probability of less than 1% (ONE in ONE HUNDRED)? This would meet the definition of beyond a reasonable doubt. The answer is 18. How many would return a probability of ONE in ONE THOUSAND? The answer is 22. As the number of deaths increase, the probability rapidly approaches ZERO.

HSCA statistical expert Jacqueline Hess testified that the actuarial calculation was “invalid” due to the “impossibility” of defining the “universe” of material witnesses. Her dismissal of the odds was a ruse (like the Magic Bullet Theory) to maintain the cover-up. The fact is that there was a definable set of 552 Warren Commission witnesses, of whom at least 19 died unnaturally in the period from 1964-1977. Only four would normally be expected. The 552 is a subset of the approximately 1400 JFK-related witnesses named in the reference Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination.
But in addition to the 19, two others should be noted. Domingo Benavides was a witness to the Tippit murder who could not identify Oswald. But after his brother was killed by a gunshot, he identified Oswald. Warren Reynolds was also at the Tippit scene. He changed his testimony after making a miraculous recovery from a gunshot to the head.
There were different categories of witnesses: 1) The 121 eyewitnesses who gave depositions to the FBI (51 said the shots came from the front, 38 from the rear, 32 were unsure); 2) the 552 interviewed by the 1964 Warren Commission; 3) witnesses sought by Jim Garrison 3) witnesses sought by the HSCA; and 4) the full set of 1400+ JFK-related witnesses.
The timing of the deaths makes it all the more suspicious. At least fifteen died the year after the assassination; several died in 1967, soon after being named as witnesses in the 1969 Garrison/Shaw trial; at least 12 died in 1977 (including SEVEN FBI officials) just before they were due to testify at HSCA. Using this information, we can calculate probabilities of these unnatural, suspicious deaths for each witness category.
Hit List: An In-Depth Investigation Into the Mysterious Deaths of Witnesses to the JFK Assassination is a comprehensive study by Richard Belzer and David Wayne (published April 2013).
The following graph of unlikely deaths among the 552 Warren Commission witnesses over the 14 year period from 1964-1977 shows that the probability of at least 19 deaths is essentially zero.

But even the “natural” deaths were suspicious: heart attacks, sudden cancers, etc. Jack Ruby died just before his second trial, 29 days after being diagnosed with cancer. He claimed that he was injected with a virus. Another mysterious death was that of David Ferrie, who supposedly had a brain aneurysm that was ruled a suicide the day after his release from protective custody, shortly after New Orleans D.A. Garrison named him as a witness in the Clay Shaw trial.
In spite of their efforts to the contrary, the HSCA was forced to conclude that both the JFK and Martin Luther King murders were conspiracies. Acoustic evidence indicated a 96% probability that at least four shots were fired. At least one came from the grassy knoll, indicating at least two shooters. That should have closed the book on the Warren Commission’s physically impossible, irrational Magic Bullet Theory but this 50-year old work of fiction is still presented as gospel by the mainstream media while the overwhelming scientific ballistic, acoustic, video, medical, eyewitness and mathematical evidence of suspicious deaths is ignored.

The mathematical analysis of the scores of suspicious, unnatural deaths related to the assassination is further proof of a conspiracy – beyond any doubt. This is a comprehensive spreadsheet database of suspicious unnatural witness deaths, probability calculations, Warren Commission, Garrison/Shaw trial and HSCA witnesses. 

RC: As you know, I am suspicious about the death of James Altgens, reportedly from carbon monoxide poisoning from a faulty furnace in 1995. And, he was certainly not an Oswald defender. Altgens was a team player, and you know whose team he was on. And, he was as loyal to the team as Walter Cronkite or Peter Jennings. 

So, why do I have doubts about the cause of Altgens' death? There are multiple reasons:

1. timing- right during the ARRB
2. no mention of carbon monoxide poisoning- at first
3. repeated mention of "failing health" and "down with the flu"- as if that got topped off with a little carbon monoxide
4. mention of an autopsy being done but never reporting the results
5. not one word about any Dallas police or Texas Department of Public Safety investigation of who was responsible, meaning, the heating company that was servicing and maintaining the Altgens' furnace. He certainly wasn't doing it himself. He certainly wasn't skimping on service calls, maintenance needs, or anything else due to cost. They were wealthy. So, if it happened as reported, then somebody made a mistake because it wasn't an Act of God. 

So, for the sake of justice, and more importantly, for the sake of the safety of other customers of whatever service company was involved, why didn't they vigorously pursue it and publicize the outcome? Wasn't the public entitled to know which company was responsible? 

And if it turned out that it was a defect in the manufacture of the furnace, then why didn't we hear about that? Wasn't the public entitled to know the make and model so that they could avoid it and the company?  

Let me put it this way: What if beloved family members of yours, say, your elderly parents, died due to a faulty gas furnace at their home. And let's say you knew that your old man wasn't going out to light the pilot light himself, etc., that a service company was doing it: maintaining and servicing the equipment. What if there was blatant negligence involved? Wouldn't you be rigorous about finding out who they are and bringing the weight of the law down on them and maybe even suing them in civil court? But, we never heard a word about any of that in connection with the Altgens's deaths.  

When a person dies of carbon monoxide poisoning, they turn cherry pink. The Altgens were, reportedly, found dead in separate rooms by a niece or a nurse who called on them. So, why didn't her account include saying that they were discolored? How come there was never any report of them being discolored?

Of course, I don't know for sure about this. I'm not making any definitive statement. But, I am saying two things: One, I think the Altgens should be included as suspicious, mysterious deaths- they should at least make the list; and two, if God was coming down to tell us what really happened, and we were going to bet first, I'd put my money on the Altgens having been murdered.   

But, one thing is for sure: the feud between JFK truthers and JFK officialdom is going strong. It shows no signs of abating. It could even escalate. But, if more crimes are committed, it will only be by those aligned with officialdom.