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

I am writing this to help Jim Fetzer think this through coherently.  

The world’s greatest murder mystery has been compounded by the theory of “two Oswalds” advanced by John Armstrong, according to which the CIA effected the substitution of a fluent Russian-speaking refugee (who was their agent) for an American ex-Marine in order to get their operative into the Soviet Union as a spy.

The problem with that is that "Harvey" the one who spoke Russian was just as much an American ex-Marine as the other Oswald. They were both in the Marines. The Oswald who went to Russia was just as much a Marine as the other one. So, you're making a distinction that has no basis in fact. 


They would both be involved in the assassination, where one helped to frame the other, where Richard Hooke offers proof there was only one Lee Harvey Oswald, who was innocent on all counts.

Not true, Jim. Richard Hooke maintains that the one Lee Harvey Oswald had complete foreknowledge of the JFK assassination plot and that he prepped the rifle for Malcolm Wallace on the 6th floor. Doesn't "prep" mean that he inspected the rifle to make sure that it was in proper killing condition? Then, according to Richard Hooke, Oswald went downstairs to watch the slaughter from the doorway, taking no action to save Kennedy. How does that conform to Oswald being "innocent on all counts"? Is it necessary for me to explain the meaning of the word "innocent"? 


By identifying the CIA as the principal player in this elaborate scenario, Armstrong at least points in the right direction, where “the lone gunman” scenario has lost its powers of persuasion over most Americans and the House Select Committee (under the direction of Robert Blakey) has sought to convince the public that it was the work of the Mafia. An extremely well-produced documentary from “Frontline” makes that case, featuring many well-known to serious students of JFK, including Gerald Posner, the Paines and Rober Blakey himself.


But there are serious problems with this production, which ignores the objective scientific research that has appeared in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX, which have established that the autopsy X-rays were altered to conceal a blow-out at the back of his head, that another brain was substituted and that the Zapruder film was massively revised, none of which could have been done by the Mafia. Jack White, who contributed to all three, had long since blown their case away:

Jim Marrs and I confirmed Jack’s research in “Framing the Patsy: The Case of Lee Harvey Oswald”. Given the legal precept, Fraud Vitiates Everything, the case against Oswald falls apart. He was “a patsy”, just as he claimed to be. But, Jack also supported Armstrong’s theory, where the images I have featured above came from his famous poster, “The Evolution of Lee Harvey Oswald”. Was he right about that, too? Were there two Oswalds?

Well, I have to start by thanking you, Jim, for acknowledging that your friend Jack White was indeed a supporter of John Armstrong, as indeed he was. In fact, I would say that Jack was a staunch supporter of Armstrong's. 

But, getting back to the meaning of words, how can you say that Oswald was a "patsy" if you support the Judyth Baker contention that Oswald had complete foreknowledge of the assassination plot? 
In fact, according to Judyth, Oswald was a participant. A reluctant participant, but still a participant. Are you aware that for quite a long time, she claimed that Oswald was up on the 6th floor shooting but that he deliberately missed? Once she changed her mind and decided that Oswald was in the doorway, she suggested that he tried to warn Kennedy by throwing firecrackers or "military blasting caps" out the window on his way downstairs. When pressed about it, she admitted that she doesn't really have any basis for saying that other than that anything's possible. 

But, here's my point: if Oswald had foreknowledge, and he didn't go directly to the police to tell them what was about to happen, then he is guilty of killing Kennedy- just as much so as the men who pulled the triggers. 

Not nearly as much but every bit as much. 

You have to understand that, in a case like this, non-action equals guilt. When life is on the line, when it's a life or death emergency, as this was, one has the legal, moral, and spiritual obligation to do anything and everything in one's power to stop the slaughter. Anything less than that amounts to complicity. 

Judyth has tried to get around this by saying that Oswald expected, or at least hoped, that an "abort team" would show up to save JFK. Jim, that is ridiculous. There is no such thing as an abort team. And what could an abort team have possibly done if they had arrived? Gotten in a shoot-out with the kill team? 

Look what happened in Chicago. When the Chicago plot was discovered, what did they do? Did they let Kennedy proceed to Chicago to attend the Army/Navy game and send an abort team to deal with the shooters? No. They immediately cancelled his trip to Chicago. 

The exact same thing would have happened in Dallas if authorities had become aware of the grave danger he was in. They wouldn't have sent an abort team. They would not have let JFK go there. Period. This whole abort team idea is just childish nonsense.    

Your problem, Jim, is that you are trying to reconcile two things which cannot be reconciled: Oswald innocence and Oswald foreknowledge. He couldn't be innocent if he had foreknowledge. And if he wasn't innocent, then he wasn't just a patsy. According to the story that Judyth Baker and Richard Hooke are telling, Oswald was both a participant and a patsy. But, within that scenario, he definitely was not innocent. 

It's a pity that you can't see the inherent contradictions that exist within this whole framework. It isn't reality, Jim.  The reality is that Oswald was innocent: completely, totally innocent. And he had no foreknowledge of the JFK assassination. He didn't even know that JFK's motorcade was going to be passing his place of work that day. He had no clue about it, Jim. No clue. He was completely clueless.