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

All signs are now leaning strongly towards Duncan MacRae being the person behind the mask known as bpete. bpete has refused to deny it. And note that when Steve Haydon was the leading candidate, bpete denied it repeatedly and profusely. And it really does add up. Their abrasive demeaning personalities are the same. Their location, being in the UK, is the same- and don't you dare try to deny it again, bpete. Do not lie when we both know it is a lie. Their position on the JFK assassination is the same.

I mentioned that Duncan MacRae runs the JFK Assassination Forum at his own expense, and he also participates on other JFK forums. Basically, he is a full-time JFK blogger. And it's odd because he doesn't seem to be that old. Why isn't he out making a living? Or, is he being paid to do this? I believe it is the latter. 

MacRae is continuing to make ridiculous claims about Marrion Baker, who said that 70 seconds after the last shot he saw Oswald wearing a "light brown jacket" and beneath it a "white shirt." 

Just consider it mathematically for a second. We are talking about two garments of two colors, the outer one brown and the inner one white- a match to Oswald. By virtue of colors alone, we're talking about a great probability of it being the same outfit, as opposed to colors like green, red, yellow, blue, purple, silver, orange, etc. He described Oswald's outer garment as a jacket and then later said that he may have mistaken it as such, which suggests that it was a hybrid garment, somewhere in-between, lightweight like a shirt but with the lay and folds of a jacket- a perfect description of the unique and unusual garment that Oswald wore. 

Then, he understandably showed some hesitation when shown CE 150. CE 150 was NOT a shirt. It was a picture of a shirt. This picture:

And since what Baker saw was this on the right....

 he naturally equivocated. But, my understanding is that at some point he was shown Oswald's shirt, the actual physical shirt, and he confirmed that that was it. 

But again, his intial description of "light brown jacket" and "white shirt" already puts us in the ball park, and it is small ball park. And it is an apt description of Oswald's arrest clothing:

Get this in your ale-soaked brain, MacRae: when Baker said Oswald wore a "light brown jacket" over a "white shirt" that was a dead ringer for Oswald's outfit, and nothing trumps it. Nothing cancels it. Nothing supercedes it. Baker described Oswald's arrest clothing, and you are just spin, spin, spinning. 

Fool! Belin didn't show Baker an actual shirt! He showed him CE 150 which is a picture of shirt! You didn't know that? Blithering idiot. After all this time, you didn't know a simple thing like that.

Belin: Handing you what has been marked CE 150.

What, do you think they marked the actual, physical shirt with "CE 150"? No, moron, they didn't mark anything on the shirt. It was a picture of the shirt. 

To rational people, I say this: when you consider all the options there are in men's clothing, when you consider just how numerous the articles and combinations of clothing Oswald could have been wearing, that to pinpoint "light brown jacket" over a "white shirt" is indeed a dead ringer to Oswald's arrest clothing. 

Otherwise, what is our alternative? To think that Oswald was wearing a different "light brown jacket" over a different "white shirt"? That he changed out of one set of light brown jacket/white shirt into another set of light brown jacket/white shirt? What are the mathematical odds that he changed out of one outfit into an outfit that was identical to it? The odds of it are so small that it's foolish to even ask the question.  

I already pointed out that in the first interview, Fritz noted that Oswald changed only his "britches" not his shirt.  But the childish bpete thinks he has the right to ignore that and go with the second notation on the simple grounds that he likes it better. He provides no justification. He doesn't even acknowledge that the other exists. He just states categorically that the Fritz notes show that Oswald changed his shirt. 



So, now we have it in writing that bpete (Duncan MacRae) does claim that Oswald changed his shirt. He tries to claim that Oswald moved the bus transfer ticket from one shirt to the other. Is he unaware that the bus transfer ticket was expired? It was good for only 15 minutes. He got it about 12:40 and it was 1:00 or later by the time he reached his room. So, it was definitely expired. So, why would he transfer a worthless scrap of trash from one shirt to the other?

But, let's keep going with the implications of Oswald changing his shirt. It means that bpete maintains that, since Oswald changed his shirt, that the Dallas police and the FBI must have planted shirt fibers from the arrest shirt onto the butt of the rifle in order to frame him. So now, bpete has got law enforcement framing Oswald. And what you have to realize is this: that once you open the door to framing- any kind of framing- the door gets blasted wide open. If they would frame him that way, they would frame in any way, and in every way they could, including altering a photograph. Why the hell not? Why would they limit their framing to one thing? If they were out to frame him, they were out to frame him, and they'd have framed him in every way they could.   

Man o Man, it is so nice to have these things in writing. So, bpete, whom I believe is Duncan MacRae, is on record as saying that the Dallas Police and the FBI framed Oswald, planted phony evidence (shirt fibers), and misrepresented the facts of the case. That is good to know. And since there is no rational reason why Oswald would transfer an expired bus ticket from one shirt to the other, it also means that bpete is stuck with them planting the bus ticket on him too. 

There is really no chance that Oswald changed his shirt. The testimony of Mary Bledsoe is even stronger than Marrion Baker's, and his is strong. Mary Bledsoe identified Oswald's arrest shirt as the one she saw him wearing on the bus. She remembered that it was unbuttoned. She also remembered that the buttons were missing. She also noticed how threadbare it was at the right elbow.

Above on the left, we are getting an inkling of how threadbare Oswald's shirt was at the right elbow. 

So, what are we to make of Mary Bledsoe's testimony? That by coincidence, Oswald changed out of a brown shirt that was tattered with a hole in the right elbow, where the buttons were missing, that the shirt he changed out of and the shirt he changed into were exactly the same? 

And notice also the perfect match otherwise, the triangular-shaped opening, the bunching up of the material, the white t-shirt with the v-shaped opening, the absolutely perfectly identical right collars...

...and the complete disconnect to Lovelady's collar, which he artificially ironed down when posing as Doorman, even though there is no way he did that on 11/22/63 before going to work to lay flooring. Who would? Would you? That was not the natural lay of Lovelady's shirt. He is artificially getting it to fold over in a vain effort to look like Doorman. I say "artificially" because the shirt had no natural tendency to do that. 

Honestly, when you look at the above three collars, which two match, and which one is the odd man out?

Oswald did not change his shirt, and this, all by itself is proof that he didn't. You, MacRae, are fighting stark, naked reality. You might as well deny that the sky is blue or the sun is yellow.