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

bigdog:

Our story has remained rock solid for 50 years. Most Americans believe 
Oswald was in the sniper's nest firing shots at JFK, even those who 
believe he was part of a conspiracy and that there was another gunman on 
the GK or elsewhere. Those who believe he was an innocent patsy are on the 
fringe, and that's not going to change. Your organization is as relevant 
as the Flat Earth Society.

Cinque: 

No, bigdog. You are completely wrong. The vast majority of conspiracy advocates do so on the basis of Oswald innocence. 

But, the fact is that whenever the media conducts a public opinion poll about the JFK assassination, they parse it this way:

"Do you think Oswald acted alone or was part of a conspiracy?" 

Talk about mind control!  The question itself presumes Oswald's guilt and leaves the respondent with no other choice. What they're really saying is that Oswald was guilty, and don't even try to deny it. 

Yet, I'm sure there are people who respond:  

"Neither! Oswald did not act alone, and he didn't act within a conspiracy. He didn't act at all. He didn't do anything. He was innocent."

But, what do they do with those responses? How do they count them, or do they count them? Who knows? They don't say. Obviously, that answer doesn't conform to either of the choices given, and it would be woefully dishonest to say that it does. So, do they just throw it out? Do they count it as an abstention? 

The fact is that every JFK conspiracy book of note advocates Oswald innocence. Who advocates Oswald guilt within a conspiracy? That was the HSCA, which is to say: another government commission. 

So, it's the US government that advanced the idea of Oswald's guilt within a conspiracy as an alternative to the original story - not the JFK research community. 

In effect, the government said, "If you don't like our first bull shit story, then try our second." 

It is practically universal among JFK researchers who advocate conspiracy that they do so within the framework of Oswald innocence. And that is certainly true of all the big names who wrote the big books, such as Lane, Douglass, Marr, Armstrong, Livingstone, Twyman, etc. 

And today, if you look at the JFK community online, 100% of those who reject the official story and advocate conspiracy do so on the basis of Oswald innocence.  

So, big dog, the truth is 180 degrees from what you said. You couldn't be more wrong. You and your kind are outrageous, and it's born of desperation. Get used to disappointment; more is on the way.