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

What about you, Kleep Klopp? You say that this thing is a bookcase just because bpete says it?

Do you or do you not see the space between the top of the door and the molding? Go ahead, commit yourself. I'd like to see you do it. Is that a bookcase? 

On the day of the assassination they had not the time nor the means to craft the movies into the Nazi propaganda films that they became. But, Four Days in November was shown in 1964, so they had plenty of time to get the propaganda in it just right. And before you object, Backass, remember that the movie strives to sell the lone gunman idea, which YOU don't believe in. So, to you it IS propaganda. So, think twice before defending it. 

Even though Four Days was released in 1964, the unfolding of the story had a "real time" aspect to it. Look at the tense of the verbs they used. "In Dallas Police headquarters, Oswald IS booked for the slaying..." And then: "Tight-lipped and bruised from his battle with his captors, he IS led through a gauntlet of newsmen." And it continues like that in the present tense. And examination proves; police make a startling discovery, etc. And that gives the whole thing a current, real-time, in-the-moment tone. So why not have the narrator be restrained about declaring Oswald's guilt at that point? It was only 15 minutes after his arrest.  

And I'm not asking you, bpete, because I know you are a paid lackey of the CIA or the Mossad, and you've already been exposed as an advocate of Oswald "locking and loading" on the 6th floor. But, it should bother a guy like Backes who claims to advocate for Oswald's innocence. So, why would Backes be OK with a narrator speaking conclusively about Oswald's guilt right when he's being led into the building, when he hasn't even been charged yet, and he  hasn't even had his first interview yet? 

There is a disconnect between what is going on and what the narrator is saying. So, why the disconnect? They were showing the event so why not narrate it in the context of what was known at the time?

But, the fact is that it wasn't much difference on the day itself. They, the media pretty much reached the conclusion that Oswald was guilty from the start.  

So, the fact is that this movie is just a refined version of the reports that were coming out in real time at the time. There WAS an overwhelming drift towards Oswald's guilt from the very start. The main difference between the reports then and the tone of this movie is that Theodore Strauss's words were more eloquent and almost poetic. But, we are reminded that in tone and content, it was pretty much the same as the spontaneous utterances of reporters that day, that Oswald was a guilty man, the lone assassin.  

For some reason, this doesn't bother Backes. Fake bus rides and fake cab rides bother him, but not the immediate assumption of Oswald's guilt. It bothers him that they accused Oswald of riding a bus and cab but not that they accused him of killing Kennedy and Tippit. 

And based on what? The fact that he left work early? He wasn't the only one to do that. The fact that he broke into a theater? There is no evidence that he did that, and it's absolutely foolish to think that he would have.  

And that's what makes this movie propaganda. That's the reason why every JFK truther should be disgusted and appalled by it. Four Days in November is nothing but a Nazi propaganda movie.