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

I've been banned again from Facebook, but I don't care. In a way, I'm glad because one is enough. What do I need two for? And by now, people know that I'm here, and anyone who goes there is going to come here. I don't need more than one.

But, I am going to post something I put up last night on Facebook because it makes a good point, which is: that the claim of Z-film alteration is very widespread in the JFK community. There are lots and lots of advocates of that. But, once you recognize that the Z-film was altered, it becomes axiomatic that other film and photographic imagery would also have been altered. After all, why not? Here's the piece from last night:


I understand why lonenutters are willing to dismiss and make excuses for every questionable thing about the images. There is nothing perplexing about that. But, what is bizarre is that CTs who profess to believe in Oswald innocence, who profess to believe that "they", the "national security state" as Vincent Salandria puts it, murdered JFK and framed Oswald, who profess to believe that the Single Bullet Theory is phony, that the Magic Bullet itself is phony, that alterations were done to the evidence, including JFK's body, and yet, they completely reject photographic alteration as an instrument of the plotters. 

But, what about the Zapruder film? There is broad support within the JFK research community for Zapruder film alteration. Multiple books have been written on it, and quite a few videos have been made about it. Here's one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Am4qdl9PTA

Didn't they remove frames in order to hide the slowing and stopping of the limo? That's probably the most obvious alteration, since many witnesses reported that the limo slowed to a crawl or stopped completely during the shooting. Two of them were Jackie Kennedy were Senator Ralph Yarborough.

But, if one acknowledges Zapruder film alteration, don't you have to be open to other photographic and film alterations? If they altered the Zapruder film, why would they have stopped there? I say it's an either/or situation. Either they were open to and engaged in falsifying photographic and film images or they weren't.

So, anyone who supports Z-film alteration has got no grounds for acting irate about the idea of Altgens alteration, Wiegman alteration, or any other image alteration.

For the record, I fully support Z-film alteration. I have never written about it specifically, and we haven't listed it as a talking point in the OIC, but I've been aware of it for a long time, and I don't doubt it.

But, once you recognize Z-film alteration, it really blows the door wide open. If they were ready, willing, and able to alter one image, the Z-film, it means that they could alter any and all images, or just about any of them.

So, why are there so many professed CTs who react with righteous indignation at the idea of Altgens alteration? Well, the problem is not with the idea; it's with the CTs. In a word, there are a lot of phony ones out there.