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

bpete finally responded, and once again, he, unwittingly, is doing my homework, helping me drive home the falseness of these images. 

But, bpete, I don't give a shit about anything you said until you got to the Wiegman film. Here is what you said:

He said a mouthful there, and I need to go through it point by point. Yes, there were two pans of the doorway by Wiegman. The second was very brief. At regular speed, it's almost too fast to see anything. The first pass lasts for a whole second, but when you watch it in slow motion, you can look at Roy Lewis for more than 30 seconds. I'll provide the link where you can do that.  

Now, the reason I prefer to show Roy Lewis from the second pan is not because I am trying to get away with anything or deceive; it's because it's much clearer. But, the curious thing is that it is not any clearer in the film as you watch it. It just so happens that somebody came up with a very clear frame of that second pan, and where it came from, I do not know. Believe me, I wish I did.  Here it is:

There is no corresponding frame from the opening of the Wiegman film that looks as clear as this. Not even close. And that is why I am of the opinion that the Wiegman film was deliberately blurred. They didn't want us to see too much, and they particularly didn't want us to make out Oswald standing in the doorway at the start because that is him. These are both Lee Harvey Oswald: 

I filled in his missing shoulder in the Altgens photo on the left. But, you, bpete, aren't telling me anything I don't already know about the Wiegman film. If you want to do something useful, find copies of the opening frames of it that are as sharp and clear as the one from the second pan. There is no reason why they shouldn't exist. 

Next, bpete claims to know that the opening of the Wiegman film corresponds to Zapruder frame 246. But, if the opening of Wiegman corresponds to Zapruder 246, and if Altgens corresponds to Zapruder 255 as most people believe, it means that there was exactly one-half second between the two, with Wiegman coming first. And that means that the Wiegman film subsumes the Altgens photo. It means that we are seeing the Altgens photo within the Wiegman film- or at least, we had better see it. Because if we don't see it, there's a guy named Cinque who is going to be demanding his pound of flesh. 

Next, bpete makes a daring move to try to legitimize Roy Lewis in the Altgens photo. Of course, I am speaking of the Roy Lewis who appears in profile, where he is turned to the east and looking eastward. He also, strangely enough, has Doorman's cuff in front of his neck. 

This is what I posted about this on the OIC Group page:

What makes me certain that the Roy Lewis image in the Altgens photo is fraudulent? It is not the existence of the Willis frame which looks so much like it. That is compelling, but it isn't proof. The proof is contained entirely within the Altgens photo. I am referring to the fact that we can see Doorman's cuff going in front of Roy Lewis' neck, and that's impossible.

It's impossible for any part of Doorman to be covering up any part of Roy Lewis. And that's because Doorman was standing way behind him, and way above him, and very much to the east of him. So, why is Doorman's cuff in front of Roy Lewis' neck?

Nobody has offered a reasonable explanation for it. Joseph Backes tried to get around it by saying that it's not Doorman's cuff but rather the rolled-up sleeve of another African-American man who was standing on the sidewalk. But fortunately, that idea has not been endorsed by anybody else. Not even the guys he collaborates with, like bpete, have endorsed it. It is a ridiculous idea and for multiple reasons.

If that is Roy Lewis in the Altgens photo, there is absolutely nothing that should be preventing us from seeing his neck and his torso, including at least one of his arms. But, we can't because Doorman's arm seems to be overlapping him, which was impossible. Hence, it is and must be a fraudulent image.

I followed it up with this image which shows the phoniness of the torso portion of Roy Lewis' body.

The problem with the Roy Lewis image in Altgens is not just the face but also the body. What are they showing there? What is that supposed to be below the cuff that is covering his neck? It looks like the partial image of a shamrock. 

Roy Lewis was a big man with a massive body. I have gone ahead and installed his body below his head in the Altgens photo. Compare it to the original. 

Why doesn't the original look like that? What happened to his body? What's with that weird shamrock-shaped form? Why does it look so strange? It's because it's phony.

OK, I have posted this because I want you to realize that the Roy Lewis of Altgens is fake, and we know that for certain. And there is absolutely nothing that can be pointed to in Wiegman that can save him. It's a lost cause.

But, bpete is going out on a limb: he actually claims that if you watch the Wiegman film, you can see Roy Lewis turn eastward and appear as he does in the Altgens photo. 

Well, here is the Wiegman film in slow-motion. You'll have almost 40 seconds to peer at Roy Lewis. You can go full-screen if you want to. See if Roy Lewis ever turns his head:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3xR0WBPo8I 

bpete says that it's at frame 11 or 12 that it happens. Well, it so happens that the above film was slowed to exactly one frame per second. Therefore, we can see what is happening at frame 11 and frame 12. Here is frame 11:

As you can see, the guy who made this agrees with me that it's Oswald in the doorway. I don't know who the guy is. But this is the 11th frame, and Roy Lewis is still looking west. 

And here is frame 12. This time, I'm not going to crop it because it would be just like that little prick bpete to accuse me of messing with it. 

It may take a magnifying glass for some, but you can see the time stamped at the bottom left: 12 seconds, and at 1 frame per second, that makes it the 12th frame.  

But, bpete is not just a prick; he's an asshole. He's not smart enough to realize that what we're seeing in Altgens is more than just a head-turn. Nobody can rotate their head that much. Roy would have had to turn his whole massive body. 

So, forget about looking for a quick head-turn. Even if you could find it, it wouldn't suffice. You know nothing about body mechanics, bpete, and neither do the guys at the head office. The only thing you've captured in a 1000/second is a reputation as a liar and a fool. 

Now, let's go back to bpete's collage because there's more here than he's telling you:

On the left is the first pan, which lasts for about 1 full second at normal speed, and on the right is the second pass, which lasts for a small fraction of a second and is barely discernible at normal speed. bpete points out that Roy Lewis did shift himself some between the two. On the left, he's got his elbow bent; he seems closer to the wall; he may be, in fact, leaning against the wall; and he has his hand on the molding of the column. On the right, his arm is straightened. He may have moved up a step. He looks to be slightly more forward, with his fingers reaching the front edge of the base of the column. But note that he still has a strong westward bias. bpete claims that he is looking mostly southward, but that's rubbish. Doorman is looking southward. Just compare the two. 

Now, all that comparing of 1st pan Lewis with 2nd pan Lewis is all well and good, but it's infinitely more important to compare 1st pan Doorman with 2nd pan Doorman. Let's compare them up-close.

Those two are not the same man. Here is what I say about them on the OIC Anomalies page:

Notice that Doorman1 on the left looks slender while Doorman2 on the right looks stocky. Doorman1 has hair; Doorman 2 looks bald. Their shirt sprawls are very different, one being v-shaped, the other r-shaped. D1 has a rectangular-shaped head; D2 has an oval-shaped head. D1 looks gaunt in the face; D2 looks cherubic. They are definitely not the same man, and the one on the left was Lee Harvey Oswald. There is no telling who the other one was. But, there is no good reason to believe that D2 was even there. Oswald left for the lunch room by that point, and his spot was empty. The image of Doorman2 was added to the film. He isn't real. The fact that he doesn't match Doorman1 tells you that he isn't real. Also, the fact that he is standing there looking straight ahead, stiff as a board, stiff as a Cigar Store Indian, and detached from everything and everyone tells you that he isn't real.

So, Oswald departed for the lunchroom very soon after the Altgens photo was taken. It couldn't have been more than 2 seconds. And why did he leave? It wasn't because he wanted a Coke. He didn't have a Coke when Baker and Truly arrived. If he had gone there explicitly to get a Coke then either he would have had one or been in the process of getting one when they saw him. Oswald got his Coke AFTER the encounter with Truly and Baker, and that's when Mrs. Reid saw him with a FULL Coke. So, the idea that Oswald went to the lunch room explicitly to get a Coke is nonsense. The most likely thing is that he went there because he was instructed to do so. Isn't that why he went to the Texas Theater? You don't think he had hankering for a war movie, do you? 

Did you know that Jack Ruby was in the Texas Theater? George Applin said so. He said that Ruby was sitting just a few rows behind Oswald when the police pounced on him. It apparently got Applin killed. But, how did Jack Ruby know that Oswald would be there? You don't think Jack Ruby had a hankering for a war movie, do you? Are you aware that there is credible evidence that Oswald encountered Ruby outside the TSBD when he was leaving? It's possible that Ruby told Oswald to meet someone at the theater, perhaps himself. But, otherwise: how did Ruby know to go there?   

bpete knows that I maintain that Oswald was told to go to the lunch room. So, why does he have me saying that Oswald was so disinterested in what was going on that he went inside the building?

As far as witnesses not reporting seeing Oswald outside, I'm sure the word spread very quickly that NOBODY but nobody saw Oswald outside, and nobody dare better say it. 

Look: there were certain things they would allow. If people wanted to say they heard shots from the Grassy Knoll, that was fine. People can be mistaken about the direction of sounds. But, if a guy you know is standing just two feet away from you in a confined space, and you see him, you can't be mistaken about that. There is simply NO WAY they would allow anyone to claim to see Oswald in the doorway during the shooting. 

bpete, are you actually complaining that it's missing from the Warren Report, as though they would have gladly published it if only someone had said it?  What, are you in the 2nd grade? How naive are you? 

But even that's not the worst thing. The worst thing is that regardless of what anybody said or didn't say, we can see Oswald in the doorway during the shooting. We can easily recognize his clothing! 

Those are Oswald's clothes. Lovelady wasn't dressed like that. Resistance to this has reached the point of insanity. You are fucking nuts, bpete. 

Here is how he finishes:

How many times do I have to tell this Wee Cock Sparrow that there were two Wiegman Doormen. The first was real, and he was Oswald. The second was fake, and he's nobody we know. So, one of them was Oswald and one of them wasn't. It's not that hard to understand. It's not terribly confusing. It's just that some people try to make it confusing. You, bpete, try to make it confusing. You try to fan the flames of confusion. You are deceitful liar. 

But, once again, you scored nothing. You have accomplished nothing. I haven't had to relinquish anything. You are dead wrong, and you are always going to be dead wrong, and that's because the guy standing in the doorway wearing Oswald's clothes was Lee Harvey Oswald.