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

Several weeks ago, I received an email from this man, Greg Burnham, inviting me to participate in a new JFK forum which he and others had founded called assassinationofJFK.net. 

I didn't act on it immediately, but a few days ago I started a thread there about the Towner Woman and Baby and the distorted images of them that I found in a frame posted by Robin Unger. And I posted the comparison.

It got a lot of views, but only one response, from Charles Drago, which was just a wisecrack. Then, Burnham posted this below, speaking to me:

You are on notice:

1) I will not allow links to the "train wreck" photographic analysis that is known as "Oswald in the Doorway" -- not because I am necessarily convinced that it is not he, but -- because the
arguments you employ to make your case are without foundation, are ill reasoned, are arbitrary, are textbook examples of Special Pleading, and therefore violate our first Prime Directive

2) I will not allow you to post your juvenile interpretations of obscure photographic artifacts, such as the above, because:

a. these interpretations over-reach what can be known from the available data especially considering the tiny size of the original sample being "studied" (if you can even call it study)

b. these tiny images have been subjected to an unknown number of compressions, resulting in an indeterminate amount of additional data loss

c. the images are displayed on web browsers that are ALL limited to 70 DPI -- therefore rendering such attempts at detailed examination futile

d. they are the work of individuals who have demonstrated a proclivity for assuming facts not yet in evidence and then basing further claims on those unsupported assertions

e. the arguments are so poorly reasoned as to be disruptive to what we do here

f. we have no time for "conspiracy theories" here -- it is not what we do

3) I am taking preemptive action against you, not because I am prejudiced against you, but rather because your past behavior on forums is indicative of your tendency to wear out your
welcome post haste

​Therefore, I am "wearing it out for you" immediately.

First, this wasn't about Oswald or the doorway or even the Altgens photo; it was about the Towner film. And the source of both images was Robin Unger, whom Burnham supposedly respects. 

But, note that Burnham admitted that he thinks it COULD be Oswald in the doorway. He said he "isn't necessarily convinced that it isn't he." Well, how are we supposed to pursue it in the hope of finding out without studying the photograph? And I am not the first one to look at it and make comparisons. First-generation researchers, including Harold Weisberg, Mark Lane, Penn Jones, and Vincent Salandria did just that. So, why can't I do it? Why is Greg Burnham condemning the whole enterprise? 

Burnham attacks the very idea of examining and comparing JFK assassination photos. Apparently, he thinks we shouldn't do it. We shouldn't look at them- at least not painstakingly. We shouldn't study them. We shouldn't compare them. And it's because the images are "old" and "tiny"and they've been subject to "compressions" resulting in "data loss".  He also finds faults with web browsers, so I guess he thinks there are NO clear images on the internet. Period.  

This has been Burnham's schtick for a long time. Back on Education Forum and Deep Politics, he said the same things. This is what he said in January 2012:

A few observations:

1) the [Altgens'] photo being studied is hardly an optimal source due to its being a copy of a copy of a copy...

2) clearly discerning what is shown at the doorway is sketchy due to the size of the image being studied even if it came from a high resolution source (but, at least then there would be a chance at clarity)

3) limitations (72k) inherent to a web browser's ability to display images further dampens the force of arguments based upon images that require SHARP resolution in order to reach a conclusion

4) if anyone has an extremely high resolution copy of Altgens 6 and would be willing to upload it to a server, such as, photo bucket for instance, others could down load it and study it without the limitations imposed by web browsers

Jim, have you studied these images after having first used a high resolution copy and without it being displayed by a web browser? If so, can you send me (us) the link to that super high resolution copy that may be downloaded?

Thanks in advance--          

Then, in response to that, Pat Speer suggested that he look at a Corbis rendition of the Altgens photo that was available from Robin Unger, referring to the image below, which Speer posted, for which Burnham thanked him:

The argument that poor image quality prevents us from seeing anything in the Altgens photo is ridiculous. We can plainly see that Doorman is wearing an unbuttoned, sprawled-open outer shirt over an exposed white t-shirt. That piece of data alone is a match to Oswald and not Lovelady. 

What do the limitations of web browsers have to do with this? Is Burnham insane? We are talking about something that is plainly visible. 

And the whole idea that we can't rely on digital images is absurd. I possess a large physical copy of the Altgens photo. I bought it directly from the AP Store. It was sent through the mail. And the doorway looks the same there as it does in the digital images. And if you're going to say that it was made from a digital image, note that I also have the Life magazine from October 1964 with the Altgens photo which was NOT digital; it was pre-digital; and I can tell you that there are no discrepancies. This is a totally bogus argument. Computers and the internet have been a boon to JFK assassination research. If the digital images are so worthless, why do Robin Unger and others go to the trouble of colorizing them? Why do they make gifs of them? Why do they superimpose one image over another to make comparisons and point things out? What is the point of Robin Unger maintaining that huge gallery of JFK images if people aren't supposed to study them? 

Greg, the two Towner images I was comparing came directly from Robin Unger.  So, you respond with a tirade about the futility of studying images? 

And by the way, from the moment I posted there, Greg immediately placed me on "moderation", meaning that anything I submit has to be approved before it will be posted. But, I wasn't informed of that at the time I was invited to join the forum.   

Now, for a laugh, consider that elsewhere, Greg Burnham posted John Costella's detailed analysis of the Zapruder film, in which he makes the case for Z-film alteration. 

So, it's OK for John Costella to examine JFK imagery and claim alteration but not Ralph Cinque. The browser limitations don't pose any problems for him, just for me. And if any JFK film has been "compressed" it's the Z-film, but that's no problem either when Costella is behind the wheel.  

Another thread also involves photo analysis, an examination of the Badge Man image.

So, apparently this Stan gets a pass too when it comes to doing photographic analysis. He even gets to colorize them, and that's OK with Burnham.

The next thread involves more photographic analysis, also by Stan.

Then, the next thread also concerns Zapruder film alteration and the work of Doug Horne. And this is how Burnham responded to a woman named Christina:

Wow, Greg! You think it's SPECATACULAR in its clarity? But what about the age and the tinyness and the compressions and the browser limitations and all your other shit? How come you only rattle that stuff off when it involves Ralph Cinque? 

The next thread involved more image analysis:

The next thread involved an analysis of the Wiegman film by Bernice Moore. 

Next came more Z-film analysis with enlarged images which included the following exchange:

So, citing Z-film alteration is OK with Burnham, but not Altgens alteration or Towner alteration. 

Then, they looked at the Hughes film, where Stan found a peculiarity which Burnham described as "very interesting."

Burnham even posted his own image of Dealey Plaza. Apparently, all  the problems and limitations vanish when he wants to show something. Wasn't that a digital image too, Greg? 

There are currently 14 threads on that forum, and all but 2 involve image analysis. In fact, the whole sub-form is supposed to be devoted to photo and film analysis. 

So, what this amounts to is nothing but pure hypocrisy on the part of Greg Burnham. He is way too dim-witted to grasp his own contradictions. And like Joseph Backes, he is the kind of CT that lone-nutters love because he is not a threat. He isn't smart enough to be a threat. He is a pinhead, and I say good riddance to him and his forum.