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

No. You are lying shitfaced. Frazier first said that he was one step down from the top landing- and that's in the very same interview.

Mr. BALL - Were you near the steps?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; I was, I was standing about, I believe, one step down from the top there.
Mr. BALL - One step down from the top of the steps?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; standing there by the rail.
Mr. BALL - By steps we are talking about the steps of the entrance to the Building?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Shown in this picture?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.

Now, you can't be one step down from the top and also "back in the shadows". 

So, why did Frazier amend what he first said? It's because there was pressure on him. What pressure? The pressure of having to explain why he isn't seen in the Altgens photo. 

And why shouldn't he be seen if he was one step down from the top? If Oswald was above him and could be seen, there is no reason why Frazier, who was not just below him but in front of him, shouldn't be seen. Frazier was farther in front of the overhang which created the shadow. It means he was nowhere near being "back in the shadows." 

So, Frazier was just rationalizing, trying to come up with something to explain the discrepancy and not caring that he was contradicting himself. Joseph Ball didn't care either.

I agree with Larry Rivera that the reason Buell Frazier isn't seen in the Altgens doorway is because they took him out of it. And, I also agree with Larry that it was probably because Frazier was an alternate patsy. 

I recall that one of my posts today concerned Carolyn Arnold, who, like Frazier, contradicted herself. Except, in her case, there was a 15 year spread, whereas Frazier contradicted himself in less than an hour. 

Nevertheless, in both cases, I would tell you that it was their FIRST telling that should be seen as the true and reliable one- not their revised one.

Read this again. It is what Frazier said when he was NOT under pressure, when he didn't have to mesh it with anything else; just a straight answer to a straight question.

Mr. BALL - Were you near the steps?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; I was, I was standing about, I believe, one step down from the top there.
Mr. BALL - One step down from the top of the steps?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; standing there by the rail.
Mr. BALL - By steps we are talking about the steps of the entrance to the Building?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Shown in this picture?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. 

That's where he was, on the steps. And of course that's true. Frazier went out there early to get his spot. Why would he stay back in the shadows? Wasn't the whole idea to see as much as you can? Couldn't he see better by coming forward? Weren't his friends, the people he was out there to experience the event with, on the steps? Why would he stay back in the shadows? He wouldn't. He didn't. And the guy I'm fighting knows this. But, he doesn't care because he's bloodied. It's as though he killed Kennedy himself. And, he would have. Seriously. If he was around at the time, and the White Man told him to do it, he would have done it. He's killed for the White Man before. And, he's killing Kennedy again today in what he's doing now. He is a disgrace and a traitor to the noble Cherokee people. 

Next, he pegs Buell Frazier as some woman.

So, he thinks that's a woman? Wearing pants? With a hand that big? With hair that short? With manly clothes and a manly build.  

That's Frazier, wearing the same black jacket of the right length. And the tan pants are also a match.

It took a lot of searching on the part of Larry Rivera to come up with that picture. But, it was Bingo, a match.  

So get this: the traitor to the Cherokee thinks that not only did Oswald and Lovelady show up wearing the exact same outfit, but so did Buell Frazier and Ruth Dean.

That's Ruth Dean. This Ruth Dean:

Wow, pretty face. I bet she was quite the looker in her day. That image of her was posted by Denis Morissette. 

Moving on: this ain't no elbow:

It is an obfuscation, a dab opaquing fluid that was applied to the photo. Later, and I mean much later when digital work became possible, it was refined to make it look like an elbow and a hand with a pinkie sticking out. 

I have the Altgens photo as it was published on October 4, 1964 in LIFE magazine, and when you look at it, that interpretation is entirely impossible- no matter how lively your imagination is. It's just an amorphous blob of white. 

What that man was doing was: standing with both arms crossing his chest. 

 You see his left elbow. You see his left hand coming over, with his left arm crossing his chest. His left hand is latching on to something. What's it latching on to?  His right elbow. And if you look above it, that crescent of white is the point of his right shoulder. So, his right arm is coming down to meet his left arm. He is crossing his chest with both arms, and each arm is supporting the other in a counterbalance. It's the only way such a thing can be done comfortably. Nobody would stand with just one arm crossing his chest like Napoleon. And even Napoleon tucked his hand in his shirt so that he didn't have to hold it up.

I'm saying that somebody photoshopped the white blotch trying to turn it into a forearm. Why? Because a forearm is real; it's something. A blotch is nothing; it's noise. And, why is his pinkie so big?

That's art. Lousy art, but still art. They were trying to turn noise into something recognizable. 

The OIC got started because Jim Fetzer and I agreed that the white blob is an obfuscation, the deliberate covering up of a man's face. And it's why we called him Obfuscated Man. And we still call him that. And, this is the obfuscation we were referring to. 

If that's a forearm, why is it so much bigger than that of the guy behind? I put black lines in to mark the width of each.

And I'll be sure to send this link to Larry, so he's crystal clear about where I stand. And, it is something that Jim Fetzer and I have been agreement about since 2011 when we first started. 

I also want to repeat my contention that you can't expect to match perfectly the figures in the Wiegman doorway and the Altgens doorway. You can match some, but not all. And, the reason you can't expect to do it is because BOTH DOORWAYS WERE ALTERED, and the Wiegman doorway was deliberately blurred. 

And, I am amazed that the cyber attack dog/interstate criminal still equates these two individuals:

Oh, I get it. She must have taken her hat off. And left her purse somewhere. And her umbrella. And her glasses, because you don't see them on Popeye. Maybe she was farsighted. But, what a forearm on that guy. I'm thinking his is bigger than hers. Compare the size of his hand to hers too. Compare the prominence of his chin to hers. I'm still thinking that he has got a goatee because otherwise, he has got one very long and prominent chin. He looks like Sigmund Freud. She has practically no chin at all. Another problem is: she's wearing earrings, but not him.

What this shows is, that when boxed into a corner, the disinfo Ops are willing to say anything, including that a man is a woman. They'll make claims that a small child could easily recognize as false. And it's because they don't care about the rationality of it. The whole idea is to scramble facts; to confuse; to disorient. Their whole methodology is warped; it's twisted.. And really: they just don't know how to think. They don't understand that there is a hierarchy involved, that there are logical rules to follow. 

Still think these two are the same person, asshole?

  

Why not? It's all a big joke to you, isn't it? That is, until it's time to commit your interstate crimes. You traveled from Florida to Texas to commit crimes against me. And you did it more than once, and you'll do it as many times as your masters tell you to. 

You are nothing but a mercenary to white men. You shoot whomever they tell you to shoot. You target whomever they tell you target. You collect your paycheck for doing the nasty deeds they don't want to do themselves but they need to have done. You do the dirty work. And you, like Jonn Lilyea, have connections to the National Archives.