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

We know beyond any shadow of a doubt that it isn't Carl Jones' arm because we can see Carl Jones' shirt below his head, and it's off-white.

If his sleeve was rolled up to the elbow, that sleeve would be the same color as the rest of his shirt, and it would reproduce in the picture in the same "grey scale" as the rest of his shirt. Plus, we can see in the Wiegman film and the Willis slides that Carl Jones was wearing a light shirt. So again, it can't possibly be his arm. It's out of the question.

So, that leaves only the idea that it's the arm of "another African-American." BUT, THERE IS NO OTHER AFRICAN-AMERICAN. There is no sign of such a man in this photo, nor in any other film or photo. You can't just make something up. 

Look, it was just a remark that one guy, the flechettist Richard E. Sprague, made to someone in a private letter. He wrote it without backing it up in any way. And when we attempt to back it up, we come up empty. An off-hand remark by a flechettist does not comprise evidence. Flechettery does not impart omnipotence; on the contrary, it makes him look like a complete idiot.

 So, in the weird, wacky, wild world of Richard E. Sprague, you've got the self-propelled flechette with pop-up fins, the contactor, the rocket launcher, the wire conductor, the trigger, and the battery. And look at the flight path! It's not going through the axis of the umbrella, where you would have the advantage of a visual line that you could sight, as with a rifle. Instead, it seems to be going through a hole in the rib of the umbrella, where there is no aiming down the long axis of the umbrella at the target. How would you line up a shot like that? There would be no lining up anything. You would just be winging it. You would just be guessing.

They were going to use that to kill JFK? They would have been just as likely to kill Jackie.   

But, look what it says: by Richard E. Sprague. He claims that, and he also claims this, and we're supposed to honor it?

Even if you respected this guy, and even if you respected flechettery, and even if you wanted to give him all the benefit of the doubt, you would start with this. and then you would seek to confirm it, and there would be only one way of doing so: finding visual evidence of another African-American on the sidewalk in this or another image. And failing to do that, you would have the maturity and good sense to abandon the idea, no matter how much you thought of flechettery. 

So, this idea is not just baseless, stupid, and silly; it is downright insane. The flechettist was an idiot. He was an idiot about the flechettery, and he was an idiot about this. If other people want to wander down this road to insanity, let them go. There's no reason to join them. Sometimes, it's time to call "bull shit" and leave; and this is one of those times. 

As I have said before, there is no sign in this photo of a junction between shirt fabric and black skin.

Surely, if such a junction of skin to shirt fabric was present it would register as a difference in "grey scale," texture, sheen, and other descriptive elements which can be see in this very picture as we compare the skin of three African-Americans to the area in question. So, such a junction definitely does not exist here. 

So, that leaves us recognizing the complete uniformity and consistency of the grey scale and other elements which indicate that it is all one material. And, that material is shirt fabric: Doorman's shirt fabric. 

And that leaves us recognizing that we do indeed have a situation in which Doorman's cuff is in front of Carl Jones. 

And that is physically impossible, and therefore, the image of Carl Jones in the Altgens photo absolutely MUST be bogus. And that is why I added it to the Anomalies page of the OIC website three years ago, and that is why it is still there and shall remain there. 

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