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

Why do you pretend to challenge the official story, Backes, when you spend your whole time defending it? You don't spend one second challenging Gerald Posner or John McAdams or David Von Pein or SV Andersen or Vincent Bugliosis or Max Holland or Dale Myers or countless other people who place Lee Harvey Oswald on the 6th floor blowing Kennedy's brains out. There isn't one piece of photographic or film evidence that you challenge the authenticity of. According to you, "they" killed Kennedy, but "they" didn't have to alter a single image in order to get away with it. According to you, every single image taken by both professionals and amateurs suited the needs of the conspirators just fine.   


It's not actually an old newspaper. It's one of those brand-new reproductions. So, it hasn't been sitting around for 50 years. Who knows how long the original has been stored digitally, which is to say, agelessly. 

Let's try to improve the image quality. The copy I used before was made in California where I didn't have a scanner. So, I just took a picture of it with my camera. But, I can enhance it with the Picasa program from Google. 

Also, now that I'm home, let's try scanning it.

That's certainly better than it was, and once again, he's still got that sick smile.

Just glance your eyes back and forth. On the left, he looks demented, like he's in an altered state, a LSD trip, or something. His eyes look dazed. But, on the right, he looks focused. You can see that he is NOT smiling. 

Now, the difference is undeniable; but, the question is: was it an accident? I might be willing to give that the benefit of the doubt if this were not the JFK assassination we are talking about. But, it is the JFK assassination we are talking about. 

This was the Dallas Morning News which came out early Saturday morning. It's the kind of paper that you're supposed to read over your breakfast coffee. And that means, it got delivered early and written up even earlier. You should see how conclusive this paper was of Oswald's guilt. Not even 24 hours had passed. Much less than 24 hours had past. At the time it was written, it was probably more like 12 hours after the shooting. Yet, they had it all pinned on Oswald, described the shooting as "easy". They had an unidentified policeman say that he knew Oswald from the 5th grade to the 11th. But, didn't Oswald drop out of high school in the 9th grade to join the Marines? He never made it to the 11th grade. The cop recalled a time when Oswald drank water without permission during football practice, and the coach flew off the handle. Oswald supposedly yelled back, "It's supposed to be a free country. A man's supposed to be able to do what he wants." It said that when the policeman knew him, Oswald was short and stocky with a "real large neck." That was not true of the Lee Harvey Oswald we know. "At the base, it (his neck) went out almost like shoulders." Definitely not Oswald. Yet, this cop goes on to say that weeks before, he had heard from friends that Oswald was back in the country. What a crock of bull. 

Then they had an unidentified staff worker from the Dallas Morning News describe what happened. After the first shot which missed, which sounded like the backfiring of a car, "the car came almost to a halt." Oh really? Then why don't we see that in the Zapruder film? Do you think maybe it was ALTERED? Then, according to this person, the President and First Lady both turned and looked around. What? That's bull. Then, supposedly, JFK was struck by a bullet from the second shot, and he slumped. But, he didn't slump; his reaction was to raise his arms; he remained upright. Then, according to this observer, there was a third shot, after which Mrs. Kennedy stood up in the car, turned half-way around, then fell on top of her husband's body. What? Bunch of bull shit. 

Then, supposedly, the  motorcade stopped, and several Secret Service agents got out and started running towards the President's car. What? It was only one: Clint Hill. "Several"? That would mean at the very least 3. Even 2 doesn't count as "several". 

Look, the whole thing is just a bunch of bull shit from a Belo newspaper that was complicit in the assassination. Are we clear? But, according to Backes, we're supposed to rule out any chance that they messed with Oswald's photo to make him look sinister. 

Backes, I'm telling you right now: don't you dare ever again posture yourself as a conspiracy advocate. You are an apologist for the official story and nothing more. You are despicable.