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

Oh My God! The desperation of this God-damn bastard in Scotland is unbelievable. Now, he's dug up a post of mine going way back to February 2012.  What, does he spend all his time pouring through everything I ever wrote? On all those old forums? That was over 2 years ago! 

Do you know when I got started in this whole pursuit? It was in December 2011. And this is March 2014. So bpete is reveling in my not having figured it all out in 2 months. 

I remember what happened back then. Some guy from Australia had sent me this link: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tsR8PGx2ZE

And, a little past the 3 minute mark, it shows the Lovelady clip from the so-called Martin film. I am referring to Gorilla Man.

At the time, the guy told me that that was Lovelady, and I didn't question it. I hadn't poured through Lovelady's testimony yet to discover that he couldn't have been there at the time, since he left the doorway before Marrion Baker even reached the stairs. And, I hadn't studied the anatomical differences between that guy and Lovelady yet. But, I eventually did, and they are definitely different men. 

I had just seen the clip, and I was told it was Lovelady, and I naively accepted it because I was new. I didn't figure it out immediately. There was a process involved, and it evolved over time. But, that does not amount to a fault. It was a mistake, yes, but not a fault, not a failing. At least, I came to the right conclusion eventually, unlike some people. 

And, I have publicly acknowledged, and repeatedly, that the very first person to discover that Gorilla Man was NOT Billy Lovelady was Canadian researcher Kelly Ruckman. 

So, there you have it: the evolution of a discovery, and it is an evolutionary process. 

But, don't worry, bpete: I'm much older and wiser now, and my naivete is gone - completely gone- gone with the wind. And look how much we have discovered since then, including Lovelady's arrow on CE 369, indicating himself. 

And, when I referred to the "untouched" image, I was referring to CE 369 before I touched it, before I did anything to it. It was a reference to CE 369 not to the original Altgens photo. The Altgens photo was touched alright. It was touched and retouched. The Altgens photo is, very likely, the most altered image in the history of photography from 1820 to the present. 

So, don't worry: the 7 anomalies in the Altgens doorway are dug-in like Putin's troops in Crimea, and I mean right where they belong on the Anomalies page of the OIC website:

http://www.oswald-innocent.com/anomalies.html

Are you ever MacRae. You show it every time you open your stupid, childish mouth.