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

The show went very well tonight. They started with an audio clip from Black Op Radio in which Jim DiEugenio was talking about the Doorman issue. It sounded like he was saying that maybe Oswald was the Doorway Man, but because the image is so blurry, we'll never know for sure, and it's just not that important.

No, Jim. It's important. You, not so much, but it very much. That's because it is Oswald's alibi, and he needs one as much as any other defendant. 

You would think that DiEugenio would have deepened his discussion by considering where Oswald might have been if he wasn't in the doorway. If he wasn't on the 6th floor locking and loading on Kennedy, and if he wasn't in the doorway watching the motorcade, like most everyone else who worked there, then where was he and what was he doing?    

What is wrong his DiEugenio's mind that he can't see that placing Oswald SOMEWHERE is vitally important? There was a horrific, monstrous crime taking place, and Oswald was accused of doing it. If he didn't do it, then he had to be somewhere else doing something else, so what was it?

There is a logical sequence here. The first stop is: did you do it? If you say yes, then the case is solved, and the rest is minutia. But if you say no, then the next question is: "Then where were you and what were you doing?"

Think of it like a computer algorithm. I took a very elementary course in programming a long time ago, just for fun. And they talked about a binary flow sheet, where you ask the user for input, which would be basically I or O. And if "I" was indicated, there was a certain flow of follow-up, and if O was chosen, then there was a different flow of follow-up. 

So, in this case, the first I/O question is: Did you do it? And if the answer is no (O) then the next followup question is, "Where were you at the time of the murder?"

In other words, it was the second most important piece of information to get from Oswald after finding out how he plead. 
That's how important it is. 

On the show tonight, I put up this collage of Oswald and Doorman.

 And I pointed out that for a work-day experience of seeing two workers at the same place looking as much alike as this and dressing as much alike as this is a VERY unusual experience. How unusual is it? If we think of a "workplace workday" as a day at work at a particular workplace, and that's the unit, then seeing this much likeness in the man and the clothing between two different and unrelated men happens once in how many workplace workdays? 

If you said one time in a million workplace workdays, I'd say you're being way too conservative. I'd be inclined to say once in ten million workplace workdays- if at all. That's how rare it is. 

And that's because it's like winning the lottery- twice. You'd be winning it once for the men to match as well as this. And you'd be winning it again for the clothes to match as well as this. It is 10 million times more likely that they look so much alike simply because they are the same man.

And the other collage I used on the show is this one:

And I explained that I like this one very much because the ocular expression matches so well. The tension around the eyes is the same on both. The depth of the eyes is the same on both. The prominence of the cheekbone below the eye and the prominence of the browbone above the eye are the same on both. It's the same eyes. Notice also on Oswald that we are seeing pattern and contrast on his shirt. That was due to the fine, grainy pattern that it had, but also to light reflection. And that's all there is to the so-called "pattern" on Doorman's shirt. It is certainly not a plaid pattern. 

I'll be getting a link to the show which I'll post here. It was me and Larry Rivera mostly, but with some commentary by Jim Fetzer, and also the host, Gary King.