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

This is a response by me to Robert Harris on McAdams' forum, but first let me tell you a little bit about him.

Robert Harris advocates that the Mafia assassinated JFK. Not the CIA with help from the Mafia; just the Mafia. And, he says that Oswald was a shooter but a reluctant shooter; so, he shot and deliberately missed. In fact, he claims that Oswald fired a warning shot; trying to save Kennedy. 

And, do you know who used to say the same thing? Judyth Baker. That's right; for a long time, she said that just days before the assassination, Oswald told her on the phone that he was going to show up "so that there would be one less gun firing at Kennedy" and go up to the 6th floor and deliberately miss. 

Since then, Judyth has switched to claiming that Oswald was in the doorway at the time of the shots. But, what about her original story? Oswald could not possibly have told her what she claimed because a) he didn't bring any rifle to work; b) he didn't own a rifle and never ordered one, and c) he had no awareness that the motorcade was even going to pass the building that day, as per the testimony of James Jarman. 

So, where did she get it from? She made it up. It's backwriting. More backwriting. Backwriting is what she does. It's what fuels her whole account.

And how come her followers forgive her for changing her story so often and so radically? Because they are very forgiving people, when it comes to her. 

So, Robert Harris is really just a male version of Judyth Baker but without the huge following.

Here's my reply to him. He tried to claim that there was just one Wiegman Doorman, and that he moved up a step in order to see more, and I had to start by pointing out to him that the higher Doorman came first. 

*       *      *       *       *       *        *        *        *         * 

Robert, I am saying that they are different men. 

First, you are confusing the order. The higher man occurs first in the  film. So, if you are going to argue accordingly, you have to say that apparently, the man stepped down in order to see less. 

But, they are different men. That is exactly what I am trying to say. 
Different men. Different men. Different men. 

The shapes of their heads are different. 
The shapes of their shirt sprawls are different. 
Their positions are different. 
What they are looking at are different. 

Here is how I have it written up on the OIC website: 

"Now, let's compare the Wiegman film to the Altgens photo in regard to the Doormen. First, be aware that there are two Wiegman Doormen. The first appears for one full second, and it's the very first second of the film. The second appears for just a tiny split-second, and it's during the 4th second of the film. Here they are, the two Wiegman Doormen, with the first on the left and the second on the right:" 

"Notice that Doorman1 on the left looks slender while Doorman2 on the right looks stocky. Doorman1 has hair; Doorman2 looks bald. Their shirt sprawls are very different, one being v-shaped, the other r-shaped. D1 has a rectangular-shaped head; D2 has an oval-shaped head. D1 looks gaunt in the face; D2 looks cherubic. They are definitely not the same man, and the one on the left was Lee Harvey Oswald. There is no telling who the other one was. But, there is no good reason to believe that D2 was even there." 

"Oswald left for the lunch room by that point, and his spot was empty. The image of Doorman2 was added to the film. He isn't real. The fact that he doesn't match Doorman1 tells you that he isn't real. Also, the fact that he is standing there looking straight ahead, stiff as a board, stiff as a Cigar Store Indian, and detached from the pathos of the scene tells you that he isn't real." 

I have a lot more on the Wiegmen Doormen on the OIC website, which you'll find here: 

http://www.oswald-innocent.com/anomalies.html 

And here is the 2nd Wiegman Doorman and the Altgens Doorman. 

 
Do you think they are the same guy too? 

You can't be obtuse when looking at these images. You have to be sharp. Otherwise, you have no business doing it at all. And you can't look at them with any attitude, with any preconceived notions or with a chip on your shoulder. In a word, you have to be honest. And, if you can't see that those are two different men, you are either severely dishonest, or you are as dumb as an ox.