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

That's right, bpete: Mark Lane was duped. He didn't push the envelope where it needed to go arrive at the truth about the two Oswalds and the two Marguerites. 

But that was then, and this is now. You can't make any claims about what he believes now. 

Mark Lane is a member of the OIC Group on Facebook. So, he gets emails about the postings that are made, including the ones about the Two Oswalds which I have spearheaded. 

And if you call me a liar about that, I'll prove you wrong once again. 

It's true that I don't believe that the short older Marguerite was the biological mother of the Lee Harvey Oswald we know. Here is a picture of them together in 1942 when Lee was 3 years old. 

I realize that today it's not uncommon for women to bear children in their 40s, but it was practically unheard of back then. And, a great many of the women over 40 who bear children today do so with medical help- which was unavailable then. 

And no, I didn't add the twist. John Armstrong has always maintained that the Marguerite Oswald of fame was not the biological mother of Harvey.  He provides a long list of reasons why that woman could not have been the real Marguerite Oswald. She didn't even provide the correct information about the family of Marguerite Oswald, including her past husbands, including her children, and that includes Lee. She didn't even get Lee's birthday right. 

The image below is taken from Mark Lane's Rush to Judgment:

And, in the run-up to the 50th, Mark, in his radio appearances, talked up Oswald in the doorway repeatedly. 

And I actually think that bpete is right that his "cause" or I should say his assignment, for which he is paid, is to try to put out fires- the ones that are the biggest threats to JFK officialdom. And there is nothing more threatening than Oswald in the doorway and no advocate of it more threatening than me. bpete is a paid JFK disinformationist operating out of the UK, which is a hotbed of JFK disinformation:

http://www.doewatch.com/jfkforeignagent/

It says: British Agents highly involved in Forums to Cover-up the JFK assassination. bpete is one of those agents.

The late great Jack White said it best: "Anyone who disputes the claims of John Armstrong has to be fundamentally lacking in intelligence." And, it's because the evidence is so overwhelming that there were two Oswalds and two Marguerites. 

And that is the case because there is no way out of this dilemma. Here are two disparate boys, both claimed to be Lee Harvey Oswald. If they're not, then there were two Oswalds. But, if they were, there had to be two Marguerites since we can see the disputed boy with the other Marguerite. 

Is bpete really too stupid to see the logical imperative that is involved here? I am afraid so. Recall what I have been saying, that bpete is a child. He is not a man; he is a boy, a perennial adolescent. 

Hey bpete, tell your superiors I am tired of debating a child. Tell them to send in a man.