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

You blew it again, bpete. And now, you're going to pay the price. 

This is going to take a while, but I am going to demonstrate that you are wrong on every count. Are you ready? OK, let's begin.

First, determining Doorman's exact location on the landing was one of my chief objectives in going to Dallas. And I did that by experimentation. If I stood too far west, then too much of me got cut off to Altgens' view. If I stood too far east, then my right shoulder failed to get cut off at all. In order to get it just right, I had to stand a few inches west of center. 

So, bpete is technically correct that Doorman was west of center, but it was so little that for all practical purposes, he was standing in the center. He was, essentially, standing in the center. 

And as it turns out, a whole bunch of people from the old forum days agreed with that: Albert Doyle, Craig Lamson, Steve Haydon, and Robin Unger. All of them said that Doorman was standing behind the median hand rail and grabbing it with his left hand. That's reaching forward and grabbing it with his left hand. Of course, he wasn't doing that, but he'd have to be in the center to do it. Now look at the first picture:

No, bpete. You're an ex-rock-'n-roller, not a physicist, and you don't know what you are talking about. Yes, the light fixture is in the center, but there is a tremendous amount of parallax going on. The whole east side of the doorway is visually constricted while the west side is opened up. Look at the relative distances across the top.

Do you see how constricted it is on the right and how expanded it is on the left? That's due to parallax. It's also occurring with Doorman, but to a lesser extent. The reason it's less is because Doorman is more forward than the light fixture. Doorman is standing at the very forward edge of the landing. His toes may have been hanging over the edge. But, the light fixture is half-way back to the door. That's what accounts for the difference. That plus the fact that Doorman was a few inches west of center. Here's the doorway empty.

Above you'll notice that the doorway is opened up on the east side, with a greater apparent distance going east then west, the opposite of Wiegman. It's because the photographer was shooting from the other side, the same side as Altgens but not as angled as Altgens. 

Long ago, and before I went to Dallas, I put an x where Doorman stood. 

Now look at the date that I amended that image:

It was October 2012, so a month before I went to Dallas for the Altgens recreation. But after going, I realized that his westward shift was even less than that. It really was just a few inches west of the median handrail. And the way I determined that was in correlating my visibility to Altgens with Doorman's visibility to Altgens. In order to get the same cut-off of the right shoulder, I had to stand a few inches west of center. 

Now, regarding Roy Lewis in the picture with me, I had him placed wrong. I had him placed as he appeared in Altgens, but I should have placed him as he appeared in Wiegman. In Wiegman, he's against that west wall, and he's extending his right arm along the wall and resting his hand on the molding, and he's looking west.

I can assure that's what he was doing in Altgens because the beginning of Wiegman correlates well time-wise with the Altgens photo. I'll have more to say about that later. 

But, what I show below is very important. The cuff of Doorman's sleeve is in front of Roy Lewis' neck, and that's impossible because Doorman was behind him, above him, and east of him, all at the same time.

bpete's only recourse is to adopt the Joseph Backes crapola. Hey, it's not a cuff; it's the rolled-up sleeve of another African-American whose shirt color and skin color just happened to be exactly the same as Doorman's shirt. Fancy that. 

Next, bpete complains about how I drew the dividing line between what Altgens could see and what he couldn't. He complained that I drew it to the bottom of the steps. 

The reason I drew it that way is because Altgens view was also obstructed by the people and the car. Look below, and I'll explain.

As you can see, the white column is next to the east molding of the door, and they are parallel. So, at the position of the door, everything west of the east molding was cut off to Altgens's view. Therefore, my aligning the visibility curtain with the east molding of the door was absolutely correct. 

But, coming forward, Altgens visibility of the west side of the doorway was obstructed not just by the column but by other objects, including people and the car. You can't see the bottom of the steps. 

Now look at Roy Lewis in Wiegman.

Roy has got his right hand on the molding of the column, and it might have been visible to Altgens if not for all the other objects that were obstructing Altgens' view. But alas, there was other stuff obstructing Altgens' view. 

But notice that in the Altgens' photo, the edge of the column is coming down like a knife.

We're just not able to see any of the inside surface of the column. It is out of view. 

But, Roy Lewis was against the inside surface of the column. The only question is: would some of his left side be visible to Altgens? Certainly his face wouldn't be, as close as it was to the wall, but what about his left shoulder and left arm? 

That is the only part of Roy Lewis which MAY have been visible to Altgens. But, if it was, they covered it up with the phony image of his face. Here below is the only way Roy Lewis could have manifested in the Altgens photo:

That's only an approximation, and frankly, I think I was overly generous in the amount of exposure I gave him. I think it would be less than that. But, whatever it was, that's the part of him that would have been exposed, not his face which was against the wall. 

So, if Roy Lewis was in view to Altgens at all, it was the east side of him that was in view- the part of him that was hanging out towards the east. Obviously, that is the case. And that's why what we see of him in the Altgens photo must be false. 

Roy Lewis wasn't even turned that way! He was turned and looking the other way! So this is a bogus image. Whatever sliver of Roy Lewis' eastern side was visible to Altgens was covered up when they installed that face. 

Then bpete tries to play the timeline card about the availability of the Willis image and when the Altgens photo went out, but it's all bull shit. They had several hours to work on the Altgens photo, and they also had access to the Willis photo within that time. 

Do you think those were two independent photos? So, you're telling me that two different photographers just happened- by sheer coincidence- to capture Roy Lewis at the exact same angle? And at different times, in different positions, and at different angles? And yet, they look exactly the same? Just a freak occurence, huh?

MacRae, I have told you before, and I shall tell you again that you can take your JFK coincidences and shove them in the same place that Joseph Backes shoves his proscenium arches.  I don't believe in JFK coincidences; you understand? You try to tell me that that was a coincidence, then I tell you to go fuck yourself with your M16 rifle. Got it? 

Willis was standing at the corner of Houston and Elm at the top of Dealey Plaza, while Altgens was standing near the bottom of Dealey Plaza across from the pergola, so how could they have captured such a similar image?  Plus, there is no evidence, and there is no reason to think that Roy Lewis was ever turned that way during the assassination. Through a 4 second span in the Wiegman film, Roy Lewis is consistently turned the other way. And as I stated, the start of Wiegman coincides closely with the timing of the Altgens photo.   

And finally, I'll say again that at the Altgens reenactment, I should have placed the Roy Lewis proxy according to where he was in the Wiegman film: hugging that wall with his right hand on the molding. He was literally behind the wall with, at most, his left shoulder jutting out into Altgens' view.

You lost on every point, bpete. You crashed and burned on everything you said. I have had to relinquish nothing. You don't know what you're talking about. But hey, keep going because you're just helping me etch in stone the truth about what happened. 

Your arguments are so weak, so spurious, so uneducated, that you're just revealing who you are: an idiot with an attitude. 

So go ahead and respond, and don't keep me waiting. It's my time to lock and load.