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

I asked Backes to explain this:

We all know about his pro-Castro agitation. So, what was his anti-Castro agitation? Oswald got arrested for his pro-Castro-agitation, and he spent a night in jail. Backes claims that Oswald gave up all kinds of intelligence information to John Quigley, the FBI agent and lawyer who went to see him, but Quigley denied this in his Warren Commission testimony. 


Mr. QUIGLEY. When I began asking him specific details with respect to his activities in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New Orleans as to where meetings were held, who was involved, what occurred, he was reticent to furnish information, reluctant and actually as far as I was concerned, was completely evasive on them.

Mr. STERN. Is there any possibility that he was trying to give the New Orleans police the idea that he was working for or with the FBI?
Mr. QUIGLEY. Not to my knowledge, sir; no.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Well, as I stated before, when--I accepted basic information that he furnished to me regarding background, about what occurred at the time of his arrest. Then when I began questioning him as to who A. J. Hidell was, who the members of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee were in New Orleans, where they held their meetings, what literature he read, which he claimed he had been receiving from the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, he was noncommittal or wouldn't discuss it.
At one point of the interview he told me that he had held one of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee meetings at his home. I asked him, "Well, how did you get in touch with the other people?" "Well, I don't care to discuss that." "Who were the persons at the meeting?" "I don't know." "Did you know any names at all?" "Yes. They were introduced to me by first names Only." "What were their first names?" "I cannot remember." So it was apparent to me that he was not certainly going to furnish anything that he had made his statement, why I did not know. But when I pressed him for details he declined to furnish anything.

"When I pressed him for details, he declined to furnish anything."
"When I pressed him for details, he declined to furnish anything."
"When I pressed him for details, he declined to furnish anything."

How does that mesh with, "he proceeds to tell the FBI everything he knows about pro-Castro people and anti-Castro people."

Joseph Backes is a disinformationist. He just makes things up, such as that the Loveladys furnished the "wedding photo" of Young Lovelady to the HSCA. There isn't a speck of evidence for that. Backes just pulled it from his ass and plopped it down. There isn't any evidence for it whatsoever. Entirely and completely, Backes just made it up. Why did he do it? You see, Backes is like a child. If he wants something to be true, he just says it is. Backes would very much like it if the Loveladys provided the photo to the HSCA because if so, then it would imply that the photo was unavailable in 1963. So, to get there, he just made up the idea that the Loveladys provided the photo in 1976.  It's the kind of lie that if he said it under oath, he could be prosecuted for perjury. 

And, Backes apparently did the same thing concerning what Oswald told Agent Quigley in New Orleans, none of which can be construed as "intelligence" or the work of an "informant" which Quigley denied Oswald was. 

Could Quigley have been lying? It's possible. And I doubt anyone has accused the FBI of more wrongdoing than I have. I'm the one who pointed out that the FBI doctored their photo of him from 2/29/64, giving him more hair coverage than he actually had. The image on the left below shows his true hairline at the time. 

But, Backes said that Oswald told the FBI agent "everything he knew" whereas the FBI agent said that Oswald told him nothing. 

But, the worst thing was Backes claiming that Oswald "posed" as an anti-Castro agitator, which implies that he did something publicly to agitate against Castro. That would be VERY big if it were true. That would be HUGE if it were true. So, what was Backes referring to?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing. It was just a lie. Backes has no conscience about lying.  And he wasn't just lying to me. He was lying to everyone who reads his blog- which means he was also lying to Bud Peters, Pink O'Blazney, and Klip Klop.

We have an obligation to be truthful. We have an obligation to distinguish between known facts and pure speculation. which John Armstrong always does, and so do I. It amounts to showing respect for the truth and respect for the case. And before you rail about that, Backes, provide the evidence that Oswald posed as an anti-Castro agitator during the summer of 1963.