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

Both Steve Haydon and bpete have both been pressuring me on McAdams' forum to explain why I think they may be one and the same person. But, not being especially bright, it doesn't occur to them that maybe I did but that John McAdams refused to post it. John passes on a lot of my submissions, and he passed on that one.

So, I'll put it up here and just provide the link there, and we'll see what happens. Besides, bpete and/or Steve Haydon follow this blog like groupies, so they are going to see it anyway. 

First, note that bpete is an alias; it is not an identity. And that means I have every right to speculate about who he might be. Also note that bpete could end the speculation at any time by coming out of the closet and revealing who he is. And if he were to do that, and he provided convincing evidence of being someone else, I will more than willingly state that I was mistaken- about this. But, he hasn't done it, and therefore, my speculations continue.

When I first suggested publicly that Steve Haydon might be bpete, bpete responded. He denied it. And he even said he was going to send Steve Haydon an email to let him know (as if that was necessary).

My first thought was that Steve Haydon would respond swiftly and deny that he was bpete. But, he didn't. However, he did make comments on bpete's blog about other things. The first comment he made after I went public with my suspicion was:

"Remember this one, Ralphie?" And he posted some exchange we had on Lancer.

That was on August 11, and it was after I expressed my opinion and after bpete responded to it at least twice.

Then on August 13, Steve posted this on bpete's blog:

"The OIC proving once again they are lacking in even the most basic research skills."

So, why was Steve Haydon not addressing the issue of what I said about him possibly being bpete?

So, at that point, I started pointing out on my Facebook page that Haydon was commenting on bpete's site about some things but not about what I said. He wasn't denying it. I also stated that enough time had passed that a denial now wouldn't mean anything, at least not to me, that it should have come immediately.

And after that, Haydon finally did respond, saying something about it not being important enough, blah, blah, blah.

But, that was after I provoked him. Why didn't he deny it immediately and spontaneously? 

1) Haydon is in England, and bpete has been lying repeatedly to hide the fact that he is in England. For a long time, he said he was on an "outlying US island". But, I kept watching his blog times, noting that they were 6 hours ahead of me. I checked the world time zone map and 6 hours ahead of me was England. After I pointed it out, bpete kept changing his time, but sometimes, and more than once, it would revert back to London time. I'll add that to this day, bpete never blogs during the wee hours of the morning London time. Today, he said that he keeps his time clock on London time because it makes it easy for him to compare to others since London is 0:00. But, he could have said that from the beginning. Why did he wait so long?  And how plausible is it? Not very. 

2) It was obvious that bpete was very familiar with my past forum activity, particularly on JFK Lancer, and he posted several links to specific threads on JFK Lancer. It seemed very likely that he was someone who was there and was very involved. Steve Haydon was one such person, and for various reasons, it was a very short list. Since then, I have added one other contender from that situation: Albert Doyle.

3) bpete started making the same arguments that Haydon made, such as that Doorman's shirt is plaid. Well, it isn't plaid. In the Groden scan, it's varied; it's splotchy; but it's isn't plaid. Plaid means rectangular: crisscrossing horizontal and vertical lines. And that is not seen on ANY version of the Altgens photo, including the Groden scan. So, this is a bogus argument, but it's a bogus argument that both Steve Haydon and bpete made repeatedly.

4) Steve Haydon never liked to talk much about what he believed about the Kennedy assassination. He did say he was a CT, but he was never specific about what he believed. Never. You realize there is such a thing as an HSCA CT, in which you believe everything in the Warren Report except that you think Oswald had an accomplice on the Grassy Knoll who shot and missed. It is a ridiculous position because if there was any kind of conspiracy, the conspirators would never have picked Oswald as a shooter. He was not an assassin, and he wasn't even a marksmen. He had no experience whatsoever doing the feat at hand. But, Steve wouldn't spell out the exact nature of his conspiracy belief. Well, similarly with bpete, he avoided for a long time saying ANYTHING about what he believed. He didn't show any card in his hand about his convictions concerning the culprit or culprits in the JFK assassination. But finally, he said something about Oswald “not being solely responsible,” which sounds pretty close to being a HSCA CT. So Steve and bpete are both very reluctant to talk about their beliefs at all, yet both have vague notions of conspiracy, but with absolutely no defense of Oswald. Both show nothing but contempt for Oswald. 

5) And finally, in style, in nastiness, in meanness, they are very much the same. I'm seeing the same spiteful personality.

Bpete is definitely somebody, and it is my strong opinion that he is either Steve Haydon or Albert Doyle.

This isn't libel. Bpete isn't accused of any crime. And, Steve Haydon has never criticized anything bpete has ever said or done. He has never distanced himself from bpete. He has been supportive to bpete without exception. In fact, it's fair to say that Steve Haydon has been admiring of bpete. And he made no immediate denial when it was first proffered. 

So, other than being mistaken for someone else- the idea of it in general- what exactly is so appalling to Steve Haydon about being suggested as a possible candidate for bpete?

bpete has the power to end the speculation any time by making a full disclosure of his identity. And after all, why not? We are just discussing the JFK assassination. Why does anyone need an alias to do that?

Let the record show that it is my strong opinion that bpete is either Steve Haydon or Albert Doyle. But, I don't claim certainty about it, and if I am proved wrong by bpete stepping into the light, I will admit it. 

I will admit having been wrong. But, I will not apologize because it was a reasonable speculation.  There's a difference. 

But until bpete takes his mask off, I will continue to state publicly that I think he is either Steve Haydon or Albert Doyle. Like it or lump it, that's the way it is. 

PS. Why did you wait so long to start posting on McAdams' forum, Haydon? It seems odd for such an active guy in the JFK community. It's not like you are the shy, silent type. So maybe you were posting there already under an alias? And Steve, since this has been going on for about 2 months, tell me why you waited until 2 days ago to confront me about it. Why didn’t it matter to you before now? Why didn't you deny it right away? When you finally addressed it on bpete's blog, you said that you had more important things to do, and you said "most importantly" that you were "pretty much completely in agreement with bpete's assessment" and that you "weren't bothered by the association." So, why did you suddenly, after 2 months, get bothered? Why the sudden need to put on the "how dare you" act? I should think you would have done so immediately. It seems rather staged. Just saying.