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

Backes is back, after a long break. He needs time-outs. His nerves get rattled. He has to check into Trembling Hills and get a shot or two Thorazine. There there now. 

But, it did him no good. His answer to the conundrum of why two versions of the Charles Buck film don't have a single frame in common is: one consists of the first half of the clip, and the other consists of the second half.   

But, it is bull crap, and you shouldn't buy it. This was a procession in which they were leading Oswald through the maze of that building. Always in focus was: Lee Harvey Oswald. But, in the top version, you barely see Oswald at all. You see the back of his head very briefly, but that's it. Otherwise, it's just cops plodding along and Lovelady at the desk. But, Lovelady was nobody. He was just a warehouse worker brought there to make a statement. Why would an editor have cared about showing him? Why would an editor have sacrificed footage of Oswald to show Lovelady?

And considering how much footage there was of Oswald at the Dallas PD, why would the few seconds of the passage through the squad room have preoccupied the attention and interest of so many editors? It was so short, why not leaving the damn thing alone? What basis is there to think they would have fiddled with it?

The bottom line is that Backes is claiming something that he can't possibly know. He is claiming that the original Charles Buck film consisted of both of the above footages in sequence. But, he doesn't know that. He has no access to the original Charles Buck film to see what it contained. He's just pulling that right out his ass.

I say they are just different films. So, who is right?

Well, there is also the fact that they have different Loveladys.

     
They are two different men, Backes. Their weights are different. Their hair is different. Their builds and muscularity are different. Their shirts are different: one splayed open in a weird rectangular sprawl and the other shirt just lying flush against his chest with no significant divide. But, THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE THE SAME MAN AT THE SAME MOMENT IN TIME AND SPACE. So, there can't be ANY differences between them. Yet, they have colossal differences. THEY ARE DIFFERENT MEN!

Backes, all the Thorazine in the world can't turn those two guys into the same man. This alone proves that your theory is wrong; they can't be the same film.  

When we look at what they are currently passing off as the Charles Buck film from A Year Ago Today we see the splicing together of the two films. However, they had to speed it up a lot and shorten it in order to sell it, and they had to slim down Lovelady.  

They particularly shortened the first part in order to avoid showing the slimmed-down DeNiro for more than a split second. It was a bait and switch; a sleight of hand trick. 

Does anyone think that on November 22, 1963 they did all of this editing of a very small piece from a very long film? I hope not. And there is no reason to think they gave it any such attention and importance a year later. It's bull shit. It became important years later when people start squabbling about who was in the Altgens photo and what shirt was Lovelady wearing. It is all contrived; it is all made up; and they only reason they had any chance to pull off this forgery is because the original was totally unavailable.

Backes, I am not having any trouble convincing people of the phoniness of these films. On the OIC group page on Facebook, the members are grasping it and savoring it. 

What a ridiculous contention: the editor of 3 Shots decided to use the first half of the Charles Buck clip, while the editor of 4 Days decided to use the second half. Different strokes for different folks. Is that it? Fuck you, Backes. Go play with your proscenium arches.