Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque: April 2019

Tuesday, April 30, 2019

Jimmy Hardy The Altgens photo has been altered to Hell and back. Why? Lee Oswald. Without him, no need to alter.

Ralph Cinque Thank you, Jimmy. And notice that on both Oswald and Doorman you can see the v-shaped opening of the t-shirt. On me, it's high and round. That is very obviously the same man, left and center.

Like

Reply

1m

If Doorman had been wearing the flashy plaid shirt of the Lovelady impostor, here is how it would have looked and compared:

That's me on the right, standing in the doorway of Texas Book Depository on November 17, 2012 at 12:30 PM and photographed by someone from Altgens' location on Lower Elm. I was wearing a plaid shirt, though with smaller checks than the shirt that Lovelady SUPPOSEDLY wore. The point is that Doorman's shirt is not plaid. It is just grainy and splotchy- like Oswald's. What we are seeing is due to a combination of the grainy pattern of the shirt, plus light reflection and outright distortion from the huge magnification that is involved. Realize that it is hugely enlarged. We are looking at something that is tiny in the original photo then blown up, and when you do that, you separate pixels and cause distortion. Doorman's shirt is not and never was plaid; it was never correct to describe it as plaid. It could not in any way, shape, or form be construed as plaid. That was a misnomer from the very beginning.

Monday, April 29, 2019

This Altgens crop is really quite disturbing. You've got three guys looking at the doorway. How come if all the shots came from the 6th floor? Why aren't they looking up?

The guy on the left, Fedora Man, has his back to the motorcade, and that's the reason why they put that mother and boy in front of him, where even though it was 71 degrees, the boy is not only wearing a wool cap, but has it pulled down over his ears. They were put there to fool people into thinking that the guy behind him was facing forward. He was not. That's his back that we are seeing, and this is Dr. Cinque telling you that. He appears to be looking at Oswald in the doorway. I know what he was thinking: "What the fuck is he doing here?" He may have been James Bookhout. That's my top guess. The guy on the far right in the car wearing the sunglasses is Emory Roberts, the top SS agent, and he is talking on the car phone during the shooting of the President. They blacked it out, but that's what he's doing. This photo was circulated so widely because it shows them looking at the TSBD "the source of the shots" BUT THEY ARE NOT LOOKING UP AT THE 6TH FLOOR. And if you look at the whole photo, nobody in Dealey Plaza is looking up at the 6th floor. And at this point in time at least 3 shots have been fired.

What they really should have done with this photo is destroy it. They never should have been arrogant enough to think that they could revise it into the propaganda piece they wanted. Here it is 2019, and it is screaming at us that Oswald was innocent and the perpetrators were the ones telling the story.

Thursday, April 25, 2019

Three Americans were killed this month in Afghanistan, and this is one of them, Christopher Slutman, a NYC firefighter, who was just 3 weeks away from going home. He has a wife and 3 daughters. Can you imagine the grief and agony that is going on right now? They were probably already planning a big homecoming party for him.

The Trump administration is negotiating with the Taliban to put them back in power, and you can't tell me that they are any different today than they were in 2001. There is no reason to think that. So, if you think they were terrorists then, then they're terrorists now. But, Trump is trying to find a way to put them back in power but without losing face, without making it look like an American defeat. And if a way is found, it will be by eviscerating the current Afghan government down to a nub and calling it a "coalition." And I hope it happens because I just want the war to end. But, if it does happen, if there is a future Taliban government running Afghanistan, what did this young man die for? It is going to be just like Vietnam. What did the 58,000 Americans die for there?

And what is really going on here? Why is Trump so eager to find a face-saving way to get out of Afghanistan? Is it because he is planning to wage war on Iran?

Wednesday, April 24, 2019

This is definitely and absolutely Billy Lovelady on the right because when we compare it to the image on the left, which is from Mark Lane and beyond reproach, it matches well.

Same massive head; same greatly receded hairline with only two thin prongs of hair remaining on top. Same bulging cheek bones. I am very confident that that is him, Billy Lovelady, on the right. And there is no way he was Doorway Man. Just from glancing at this, we can see that he was too burly, too balding, not the least bit gaunt like Doorway Man, and his t-shirt is too new and the wrong shape.

Jimmy Hardy No way is it the same t-shirt. Look at Lovelady's thick neck. Oswald was framed.

Ralph Cinque Good point, Jimmy. Dems different necks for sure.

Tuesday, April 23, 2019

This is Billy Lovelady, up on the 6th floor with the cops, which is exactly what he said he did.

Granted, it's a crappy image, but notice that he looks burly, and his t-shirt looks relatively new with a perfectly non-deformed round collar, unlike Doorway Man, who wore an old, stretched t-shirt that wasn't round at all at the opening.

No way are those two the same guy. The guy on the left looks skinny and scrawny, like Oswald. The guy on the right looks eefy and burly, like he's got thickness to him. The difference in their t-shirts is night and day. Oswald wore an old stretched t-shirt that looked down into a vee when it was pulled down in front. You can see it right there. What do you figure the weight difference is between them? I figure about 40 pounds.

Lee Harvey Oswald was so loudly innocent, it is a bizarre as hell that anyone in this country thinks otherwise.

Sunday, April 21, 2019

This is hardly surprising, but the Warren Commission lied in its diagram. What they designate as Baker's first sighting of Oswald was his second sighting of him.

So, they claimed that Baker's saw Oswald in the lunch room, period. No. Baker first saw Oswald in the anteroom to the lunch room.

Mr. BAKER - As I came out to the second floor there, Mr. Truly was ahead of me, and as I come out I was kind of scanning, you know, the rooms, and I caught a glimpse of this man walking away from this--I happened to see him through this window in this door. I don't know how come I saw him, but I had a glimpse of him coming down there.
Mr. DULLES - Where was he coming from, do you know?
Mr. BAKER - No, sir. All I seen of him was a glimpse of him going away from me.
Mr. BELIN - What did you do then?
Mr. BAKER - I ran on over there
Representative BOGGS -You mean where he was?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir. There is a door there with a glass, it (the glass) seemed to me like about a 2 by 2, something like that, and then there is another door which is 6 foot on over there, and there is a hallway over there and a hallway entering into a lunchroom, and when I got to where I could. see him he was walking away from me about 20 feet away from me in the lunchroom.

You only have to look at the diagram to realize that Baker's first glimpse of Oswald (through the glass) had to be when Oswald was in the anteroom. IT WAS THROUGH THE GLASS OF THE DOOR TO THE ANTEROOM THAT BAKER SAW HIM.

The Warren Commissioners quickly glossed over this first sighting. They wanted to talk about the second sighting, after Baker went through the door he previously looked through and was standing on the threshold of the internal door to the lunch room within the anteroom. But, for now, forget about the second sighting. It's the first sighting that matters. What does it tell us?

First, it tells us that Oswald was moving when Baker first saw him: moving into the lunch room. And since he was moving, we have to presume he was just getting there. Right? Is there any solid reason to assume anything else? If a guy seems to be arriving somewhere, you assume he is arriving there, i.e.,for the first time. Now, there is no reason to assume anything else. And I swear to God, if you do, I am sticking that 12th century friar on you, and believe me, he was one mean son of a bitch.

So, Oswald was just getting to the lunch room, and that's very important. For one thing, it completely destroys the alleged Carolyn Arnold revision of 1978.

But, it also raises the crucial question of: WHICH DOOR DID OSWALD GO THROUGH TO ENTER THAT ANTEROOM?

That's the setup. Without even stating it, the Warren Commission just assumed that Oswald went through the same door through which Baker was looking. BUT, HOW COULD THAT BE TRUE WHEN BAKER SAID NOTHING ABOUT THE DOOR BEING IN MOTION? And if it was in motion, Baker wouldn't have been facing the glass, and he probably wouldn't have seen Oswald at all.

I have got a photograph of it.

You see the glass in the door. Right? That glass is what gave Baker the visual of Oswald. Oswald had to be right there behind it, moving through the anteroom, which is in the farground to us. Baker said he only caught a glimpse of him. Why? Because Oswald was moving, and the angle was such that Baker did not have a steady view of him. Oswald just passed through Baker's visual field like a glimmer. And, Oswald could not have been very far from the door. He had to be right behind the glass or else Baker would not have seen him. And if Oswald had just gone through that door, the door would still have been moving. And if it had been moving, Baker surely would have said so. So then, Baker went through the door, himself, and as he turned left to face the lunch room (the door was propped open just as we see there) Oswald was 20 feet into the room. That's what Baker said. But, the implication is that the door with the window was stationary, which means that Oswald must have come through the door on the other side, from the office side. And the Warren Commission readily admitted that Oswald left that way, through the office side. But, they just assumed that Oswald got there from the stairwell side, the same way Baker did. But, they didn't even state it as an assumption. They never articulated it. They never said, "Note for the record that we presume Oswald came in the same way Baker did, from the stairwell side." They assumed it to the point that they didn't even state that they were making an assumption. They just left it out of the discussion.

But, the mechanics, and the geometry of the optics that are involved here tell you that Oswald had to use the other door. If he had used the door through which Baker saw him, he would have disappeared before the door stopped moving. He would have vanished instantly. The swinging door is the only thing Baker would have seen. In order for that glass to be lined up right for Baker to have seen him, Oswald had to have come through the other door on the other side. And there was no access to the 6th floor from that side.

The day that Marrion Baker testified to the Warren Commission, Lee Harvey Oswald was completely and totally exonerated, and that's true even if we didn't have another speck of evidence that he was innocent, whereas, we have a mountain of other evidence that he was innocent, including a photograph of him standing in the doorway at the time of the shooting.

Saturday, April 20, 2019

Hmm. This is weird. I put this up on Facebook early this morning, and now it has over 700 views?

Wow. I dare say, that is a lot. But then again, it does make a good point: that Oswald's innocence was staring us in the face ever since Marrion Baker testified to the Warren Commission. You see that door with the glass in it? That was a swinging door. And when you went through it, it automatically closed itself. There was no chance that it was going to stay open. The spring pulled it closed. But, it was designed to work slowly. Why? Because otherwise it could slam someone in the face. So, if Oswald had gone through that door, and he was still in the anteroom, it was a very small room, just a passageway, and it would not have taken him long to clear it. So, if he was still there behind the door, having just gone through it, the door would have still be moving. It would still be closing. But, Baker never said the door was moving. The only thing moving was Oswald. Therefore, OSWALD MUST HAVE COME THROUGH THE OTHER DOOR. He came from the other side. He accessed the lunch room from the office side. And be aware that he left that way, for sure. That's because he encountered Josephine Reid in the office. (She went by Mrs. Robert Reid. Yikes! Was it 1963 or 1863?) And she said he had a Coke. She saw the open bottle. Both Truly and Baker denied, over and over, that Oswald had anything in his hand. And when specifically asked if he had a Coke, they both said no. Now, you can throw all the suspicion you want at Roy Truly. That's fine with me, because he was into it up to his neck. The TSBD was a CIA front company. "Under the guise" of distributing school books, as William Weston put it, they were doing espionage- and worse- for the CIA. But, Marrion Baker was just a lowly motorcycle cop at the DPD. He wasn't in on anything.

So, even if you think Truly would have lied about Oswald not having a Coke, Baker would not have. Oswald did not get his Coke until after his encounter with them. So, why did he get one? For the same reason he got popcorn at the theater; he just had the yen for it. But, it suggests to me that he didn't realize how much trouble he was in because when the sky is falling, you tend to forget about such things.

But, consider this contradiction about Roy Truly. On the one hand, he reported it to Dallas Police that Oswald was missing. Tell me something: if you were missing from work, how quickly would your boss assume that you might have murdered someone? But wait. If Truly reported Oswald to the Dallas Police for being missing, why did he, before that, so quickly brush off Oswald to Marrion Baker? Why go from "This guy? No way. He works for me." to "Oswald is missing, and I have a bad feeling." in 30 minutes or less? Of course, we know the reason. Oswald could not be arrested unarmed at the TSBD. The idea was to get him armed so that he could be shot.

So, Truly told Baker that Oswald worked for him, but did he say more than that? And did he say it with an attitude of confidence and certainty that it couldn't be him? I suspect so. For, why 30 minutes later did he go to police with the information that Oswald was missing, like it meant everything?

I remind you that there was no access to the 6th floor from the office side. Oswald could only have come up from the 1st floor, and that is what he did. This diagram and Baker's testimony prove that Oswald was innocent.

I have provided multiple reasons why the Carolyn Arnold 1978 revision should be categorically rejected, including the fact that we don't even know that it came from her. It definitely didn't come directly from her, and Earl Golz may have been bamboozled. He may have been swindled by a double with mediocre acting skills. But even worse than that, in my opinion, is the simple fact that it was the Dallas Morning News that spread the story. There has been no newspaper in the country more loathing of JFK conspiracy theorists than the Dallas Morning News. Talk about a wolf in sheep's clothing. So, the idea that the DMN would suddenly and nonchalantly report something that totally exonerates Oswald and points to conspiracy is ludicrous. Might as well have the Pope saying that Catholics got it wrong, that Islam is the one true religion.

The irony is that my enemies can't argue with me about this; at least, not most of them. And that's because most of them say that Oswald was up on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy at 12:30 and therefore could not have been eating lunch in the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:25.

And to those of my enemies who profess that Oswald was innocent, why would Oswald lie about where he ate lunch? He said that he ate lunch in the 1st floor lunch room, and that was reported by Fritz and Bookhout and others. So, if you profess to defend Oswald, why do you call him a liar?

But, my point is that since the alleged Carolyn Arnold revision has no credibility and could not be entered in court since it's hearsay, it eliminates completely the 2nd floor lunch room as a possible location for Oswald at the time of the shooting. And it got eliminated before that by Officer Marrion Baker in 1963. That's because Baker said that Oswald was moving and just entering the 2nd floor lunch room when he first saw him at 12:31. So, if Oswald was just getting to the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:31, you can't claim that he was there at 12:30. It's not that it was physically impossible for him to have been there at 12:30; but, that would mean that he left and then came back; and there is no reason to propose that. There is no basis to assume it. There is no reason to go there mentally. Even speculations have to be tied to reality; to something that is real. It's not like Imagination Day at Kindergarten where you can make up anything you want.

Baker reported that he saw Oswald entering the 2nd floor lunch room from the office side of the second floor. Remember: there was an anteroom, which was just a passageway, and it had 3 doors: one providing access from the office side; one providing access from the stairway side; and one that entered the lunch room. If Oswald had entered from the same side that Baker was on, Baker wouldn't have seen him at all, and it's very likely that the swinging door through which Baker saw him through the glass would still have been swinging.

Numerous people have said that if Oswald had come down from the 6th floor using the stairs that Baker was on, that Baker would have heard him. And those numerous people are right. Oswald did NOT come down the stairs from the sixth floor. He went up the stairs from the first floor, and those stairs were in the opposite corner of the building, the southeast corner, next to the doorway. So, Oswald left the doorway, went up the one flight of stairs, and then walked across the second floor to reach the lunch room a little ahead of Baker. That's what happened, and that's how Baker came to see what he saw.

But, my point, and I do have one, is that the 2nd floor lunch room is NOT an option for Oswald at 12:30. There is NO CHANCE that he was there. And since he said he ate lunch in the 1st floor lunch room (even describing what he ate: a cheese sandwich and an apple) and citing Jarman and Norman as having been around at the time, we know that it had to be early in the lunch break. And you can't have Oswald going back there at 12:30 either. OCCAM WILL SLIT YOUR THROAT WITH HIS RAZOR IF YOU TRY TO SAY IT, AND I CAN'T HOLD THAT FRIAR BACK.

So, my point, finally, is that THERE IS NO PLACE BUT THE DOORWAY THAT OSWALD COULD HAVE BEEN AT 12:30. Do you hear me, Larry Schnapf? I'm talking to you. Do you hear me William Davis? I'm talking to you too.

That Lee Harvey Oswald was standing in the doorway of the Texas Book Depository during the shooting of JFK is proven not only by the photographic evidence, which is conclusive. but by the circumstantial evidence, which is also conclusive.

STOP THE LIES! OSWALD OUTSIDE!

Friday, April 19, 2019

And I've said many times, I am not religious, and I don't go to church. But, if I were going to go to church, I'd find me a Gospel church with that great Gospel music because I love it. And, I particularly love this Gospel song, written by Albert Brumley in 1929, I'll Fly Away. Brumley was a genius because he really knew how to strike a chord with believers. Here, I'm not even a believer, and even I get a warm, soothing, all's well feeling from it. The rendition by the very gifted Allison Krauss is my favorite. But, I offer my humble rendition:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_n3rq9XsRo&feature=youtu.be

I watched the 1947 movie Gentleman's Agreement last night, which is about a reporter (Gregory Peck) who pretends to be Jewish for 8 weeks in order to experience antisemitism and write about it. What was particularly interesting was the clash between him and his fiance' (Dorothy McGuire) over the idea that she denied being antisemitic, but yet, she acted like it was a curse to be Jewish. For instance, when the widower Peck's son comes home from school and tells of being slurred and slammed for being Jewish, she reassures the boy by saying, with despair in her voice, "Don't worry; it's not true; you're not really Jewish." Gregory Peck's character was not pleased with that.

Another interesting thing is that they didn't hesitate to portray it as a matter of being Jewish versus being Christian, implying that the reason Jews are disliked is precisely because they aren't Christians.

If you are wondering about the title, it refers to the idea that businesses, such as hotels and country clubs, may not have an official policy of rejecting Jews, but they have a "gentleman's agreement" that they won't accept Jews.

There is still antisemitism in this country, but there aren't any hotels that reject Jewish patrons. That has been unlawful since 1964 with the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

So, if the movie came out in 1947, it must have been shot in 1946, which was just one year after the end of World War 2. So, after all the suffering and deaths of Jews in World War 2, which was still very fresh, you'd think that antisemitism would have lightened up a bit.

But, the reason I am bringing this up is because I am wondering if Jack Ruby's Jewishness was a factor in choosing him to be the patsy in the Oswald murder. After all, Oswald had an unfavorable association for being a Communist. And that was no accident. They definitely wanted to play that card for all that it was worth. So, was it similar for Jack Ruby in his being Jewish?

And you should realize that Ruby wasn't just Jewish in his family and culture and ethnicity. He was a devout Jew. He took his religion very seriously. He practiced it. I have Jewish friends, and most of them are like me: non-religious. It's one of the reasons we're friends. But, Ruby really was devout. And it's important because in Judaism, as in Christianity, "Thou shalt not kill" is one of the commandments. So, am I saying that a devout Jew would be less likely to wantonly murder someone? Yes, that's what I'm saying, that the idea that he suddenly lost control and compulsively shot Oswald doesn't make sense. Yet, it's the only way his having shot Oswald can be logically conceived. If he had planned to shoot Oswald, he would have gotten there on time. And if he had planned to shoot Oswald, he would have known that he wasn't going home or back to his clubs, so he would have made arrangements. In other words, he would have "gotten his affairs in order." And if he had planned to shoot Oswald, and others were involved, they would have had to kill him right away because they never could have trusted him to keep his mouth shut.

So, there is NO CHANCE that Ruby had any plan of shooting Oswald, either on his own or with others. And the idea that he did it compulsively, in disregard of all the moral precepts in which he was immersed his whole life, doesn't make sense either. What makes sense is that he didn't do it, that the reason he had no memory of shooting Oswald is because he didn't shoot him.

And it isn't in doubt. You only have to look at the images of the Garage Shooter to realize that he had features that conflict with those of Jack Ruby. His height, the length of his neck, his hair (which was surely a toupee') and even his socks (he wore light, dressy socks) conflicted with what we know about Jack Ruby.
The Garage Shooter was absolutely and positively not Jack Ruby, and it doesn't matter what anybody says to the contrary. The images rule. Do you hear me? I'll say it again: The images rule.

The more I study Jack Ruby (and filtering out all the phony bull shit that he was a gangster, a hit man, a pimp, a gun runner, and an addict for throwing people down stairs) the more I realize that he was childlike; he was decent; and he was fundamentally good. Here he is tap dancing with a young black lad. Jack Ruby didn't kill Oswald. He didn't have it in him to kill anybody. Period.

Wednesday, April 17, 2019

The top image in this collage is a joke from Family Guy about sportscasters being high on drugs. The bottom image is real. It is Jack Ruby on 11/24/63 after his arrest, and he similarly looks high- but without the cartoonish exaggeration.

You've got the eyes of three men to look at in that image. Two of the men look focused, aware, and in possession of their faculties. But, Jack Ruby looks dazed. He looks like he was flying high, and he was. HE WAS DRUGGED! And even though he normally took drugs, he didn't normally take enough to go around looking like that, like a zombie. They got drugs into him that morning that would make him docile, cooperative, and compliant. He was completely out of it mentally. And I have to laugh because the detectives put rancorous words in Ruby's mouth, words of bravado: "I hope the son of a bitch dies" etc. Just look at him! He was in no condition to talk like that. He looks like he's sleepwalking.

I know it's hard for some to believe, but the claim that Jack Ruby shot Oswald is the deepest, darkest, most foul and profane lie in the whole JFK assassination saga. Jack Ruby was innocent! Drugged and innocent. Jack Ruby was a very nice and very devout Jewish man who was targeted in the most vile manner. We need to defend him.

Monday, April 15, 2019

One of the most important witnesses in the JFK assassination is Carolyn Arnold. That's because she was the last to see Oswald before the shooting. And it was shortly before the shooting: standing at the doorway, behind the glass; not in front of it; he hadn't come out yet; but, he was about to come out. That is what she told the FBI on November 26, 1963. And there is NO REASON to think that this 19 year old girl lied to them. And there is also no reason to think that the FBI made it up. Why would they make up such a thing? You'd have to be a lunatic to think they made it up. Might as well say that they shot themselves.

But, what about her 1978 revision? We don't even know she made one. We never heard from her. We heard from a reporter named Earl Golz who said he talked to her, and that she said that on her way downstairs, she saw Oswald eating alone in the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:25. That is ridiculous. First, Oswald said he ate in the 1st floor lunch room, and Oswald didn't lie. And, we can't assume he ate two lunches that day. Plus, he always ate in the 1st floor lunch room. It's where the grunt workers ate, if they brought their lunch. Plus, there was usually a newspaper there which he liked to read.

Earl Golz was a reporter for the Dallas Morning News, and it was the DMN that published the story. The DMN? Do you understand that the DMN has been the most vigorous defender of the official story of the JFK assassination of any newspaper in this country? And no newspaper has cast aspersions on "conspiracy theorists" more vigorously than the Dallas Morning News. They would NEVER publish a story that vindicated Oswald. That is, they would never publish one that is true. A false story of vindication is worse than no vindication at all. That the Dallas Morning News published the story tells you that it must be false, that it can't do any real good to Oswald or any real damage to the official story.

But, the question is: did Earl Golz even talk to Carolyn Arnold? Or, was he conned into thinking that he did? They could have gotten someone else. A Carolyn Arnold double, if you will? Look how many Oswald doubles and false sightings of Oswald there were? And the same goes for Jack Ruby. They had a Jack Ruby double at the DPD on Friday afternoon when it is certain, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Jack Ruby did not go there then. And, they apparently had a Jack Ruby double at Parkland Hospital on Friday afternoon too, when Jack Ruby didn't go there either.

If Carolyn Arnold, the real Carolyn Arnold, wanted to reveal something that would vindicate Lee Harvey Oswald why wouldn't she do it herself? Why would she let Earl Golz speak for her? Why wouldn't she go to her lawyer or to her congressman and then announce it to the world at a press conference in front of a sea of cameras and microphones? "I saw Lee Harvey Oswald on the 2nd floor, eating, 5 minutes before President Kennedy was shot." That would be news; would it not be? And after that, why wouldn't she write a book? In other words, it's one of those things that, if you are going to go public with it, you go public. You, yourself, go public.

Oswald, like everyone else, got off work at 11:45 that morning. It was a little earlier than usual, and precisely so that people could eat lunch and then get situated to watch the motorcade at 12:25. That was the announced time of its arrival in Daley Plaza, although, as you know, it was 5 minutes late. Oswald hadn't eaten that day. We know that from Ruth Paine. He didn't eat breakfast at her house. And he worked all morning, schlepping books. So why, if he got off work at 11:45, would he put off eating until 12:25? He wouldn't. He couldn't. He didn't. He knew the President was coming. He didn't know it before he got to work. He learned it from James Jarmon. And that's according to James Jarmon. What did he have to do that he would put off eating? Nothing. He had no calls to make. He had no love letter to write. not to his wife Marina, and not to Judyth Baker, whom he didn't even know. He didn't have any crossword puzzles to work. He didn't practice origami. The point is that not only is the 2nd floor the wrong location for Oswald to have eaten lunch, it was also the wrong time. THAT STORY VINDICATING OSWALD WAS PUBLISHED IN THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS PRECISELY BECAUSE IT WAS FALSE. It was all a sinister plot. Its purpose was to divert attention from the fact that Oswald was at the doorway at that time. Again: think of the source: the Dallas Morning News. Are aware that the DMN, in cahoots with the Sixth Floor Museum, has made numerous films extolling the official story of the JFK assassination? The DMN has been a major propaganda arm of the Establishment in the promulgation of the BIG LIE about the JFK assassination. They would NEVER publish a true story which pointed to Oswald's innocence. They would only publish a false one.

And think about something else. If this story was real and true, then why didn't the HSCA call on Carolyn Arnold? Why didn't they drag her to Washington? Why didn't they force her to testify?

What you have to realize about the HSCA is that it probably got started with good intentions. And that is unlike the Warren Commission which got started with bad intentions. But, the leadership of the HSCA got replaced with bad people with bad intentions, whose only purpose was to protect the government and stifle the truth. And these bad people appointed very dumb people, like Robert Blakey, to run the HSCA. The result was that only crap came out.

The bottom line is that this 19 year old girl did not lie to the FBI. She told them the truth, that she saw Oswald at the doorway, shortly before the shooting, and shortly before he stepped outside. Her so-called revision, made 5000+ days later, was designed and intended to manipulate the conspiracy crowd, to give them false fodder, to keep them busy in an arena that was safe- far away from the truth.

Lee Harvey Oswald was standing in the doorway of the Texas Book Depository when JFK got shot, and in the year of Our Lord 2019, there is no longer any doubt about that.

Sunday, April 14, 2019

Ralph Cinque

Thank you for the Likes, Lee Denham. There's really only two reasons why people fight this: it's either because they're stubborn, or they are working for the other side. In posing with his shirt unbuttoned, Lovelady was obviously posing as Doorman, and he wouldn't do that unless he was wearing the same clothes. That was the whole idea of the picture."You see, there he is, looking just like Doorman with his shirt unbuttoned." But, there is some irony here because in the doorway, Oswald stood with his arms clasped in front because that was his habit. But, look how Lovelady stood: with his hands clasped in back. That apparently was his habit. Different men; different habits. These two are NOT the same man.

Saturday, April 13, 2019

Danny L Arnette I believe they were responding to the first shot that missed hitting the stoplight metal post and ricocheting down on the pavement! I'm 100% convinced it is Oswald standing in the doorway, his clothing is the most convincing! Lovelady is a liar! The CIA tampering is evident!

Ralph Cinque Thank you, Danny. That could be it. And, you're right that Lovelady lied. But, the truth is: he didn't want to lie. He tried to get thru his WC questioning without lying. At any time he could have told Joseph Ball, "Yeah, that's me, next to the column in the unbuttoned shirt." But, he didn't. That was April 1964, and it was a month later that he did an interview with the reporter Jones Harris and started claiming to be Doorman. So, I figure he must have been visited by some rather scary, threatening guys who told him, "You like living? Then you better get with the program." And he did.

Friday, April 12, 2019

People need to realize the extent and magnitude of the deception that was done to hide the fact that it was Oswald was in the doorway and captured in the Altgens photo. It began immediately, of course, with the doctoring of the photo. And why they didn't just destroy it as soon as they saw that Oswald was in it is baffling. I know why they valued the Altgens photo. It's because it shows the Secret Service agents looking back at the TSBD, and supposedly, it was because they heard the shots from there. But, that's ridiculous. It makes no sense, because supposedly, the shots came from the 6th floor of the TSBD. So, if they were responding to that, they would have looked up. Right? But, they didn't look up. They appear to be looking in the doorway. They were actually looking down, and the shots definitely didn't come from there.

So, why were they looking in the doorway? Is it possible that they recognized Oswald? And notice that the agents on the other side of the Queen Mary weren't looking at the TSBD. But why not? They would have heard the same thing, right? But, they wouldn't have seen the same thing. They were much less likely to catch a glimpse of Oswald. That's all speculation, I admit, but what I know for sure is that they were not looking at source of the shots. Every single thing that people cite to try to disprove Oswald in the doorway was conjured up precisely to fool them. So, don't be a chump. Don't fall for it. Oswald was definitely in the doorway.

Thursday, April 4, 2019

Jimmy Hardy to Ralph Cinque

27 mins

Dr. Cinque,
If Doorway Man in Altgen 6 were Billy Lovelady, there would have been no need to ravage the photo with white-out and black- out. I also think Lovelady really did wear a short sleeved striped shirt. Much effort was made to turn him into "gorrila man" in a plaid shirt. They had to fix it in pictures and films.