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

I notice that there are a lot of people who push Carolyn Arnold's revised story told 15 years after the assassination: that she saw Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:25. 

And among the people pushing it are people I consider to be Ops. 

You need to realize that the CIA- and whoever else is involved in working the JFK coverup- decided a long time ago that they needed to be well represented in the conspiracy community, that they needed to feign being Oswald defenders, that they needed to control both sides of the debate. 

And, it was smart too because they knew they were never going to eliminate the JFK conspiracy movement. But, if they took the movement over, then they could control which direction it went and what issues it focused on. And they could steer it away from the really powerful evidence of conspiracy, such as Oswald in the doorway. And I can guarantee you, beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt, that Oswald in the doorway is the issue that scares them most. They know full-well that it is the biggest threat to JFK officialdom and by a wide margin. 

But, getting back to Carolyn Arnold, hers is a very strange tale. 

Her first statement was reportedly made on November 26. That was the Tuesday after the assassination. The killing took place on a Friday, and then it was the weekend. So, the soonest the FBI could start canvassing the employees was the Monday. So, I'm satisfied that it was the Tuesday that they got to her. Sounds about right. 

Special Agent Richard E. Harrison is the one who canvassed her. I wonder what you have to do to become a "special" agent as opposed to just a regular agent.  It seems to me that there are so God-damn many special agents that there's nothing particularly special about them. But, that's just me. 

So, Harrison queries her, and he writes down what she said. 

It's important to remember that it was only 4 days later, but Oswald was already dead for half that time. A hell of a lot had happened. And by that date, November 26, 1963, the official story was already cast in stone: 

Oswald did it; He did it alone; Jack Ruby blew him away to spare Jackie the agony of a trial. End of story.

What I'm saying is that the official story was as rock-solid, cast in stone on that date as it was on September 30, 1964 when the Warren Commission released its Report. 

But, I'm thinking that Carolyn Arnold didn't know that. She didn't quite realize- yet- that nobody saw Oswald when she shouldn't have; when he was supposedly up on the 6th floor.

The wording of Harrison's statement was chosen by him. HE COMPOSED IT; not her. What were her words? We don't know. 

But, the gist of what he wrote was that a few minutes before 12:15, Carolyn Arnold believes she saw Lee Harvey Oswald standing between the glass door and the double doors, meaning: at the doorway. 

Remember that the FBI did most of the investigative work for the Warren Commission. And in March 1964, the FBI returned to the TSBD to take statements from all or nearly all the employees; statements that they had to sign. 

Now, there is quite a lot of time between November in March, and it's enough time that Carolyn Arnold got the message: that nobody wanted her to say that she saw Oswald by the doorway at 12:15. 

So, she changed her story and made it that she didn't see Oswald at all, but she also didn't get outside until 12:25. And she signed that statement. 

What about the fact that it contradicted her first statement? Huh. There were plenty of people whose first statements didn't match their later statements. Buell Frazier hasn't told his story the same way twice in 52 years. It's not considered a problem in the world of JFK.

But, here's what bothers me: the same people who are fighting me: about Oswald in the doorway; about Altgens photo alteration; about Lovelady having worn a short-sleeved striped shirt; and about all the images of Lovelady in plaid shirt being fake and false (which they are), are also supporting Carolyn Arnold's 1978 statement to Earl Golz.  

Officialdom likes that statement. They really do. And they always have. They got it published in the Dallas Morning News. 

But, why would officialdom like a statement about Carolyn Arnold seeing Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:25? 

It's clear as a bell that officialdom considers that statement much less of a threat than saying that Oswald was at or in the doorway. 

But, why is that because either story completely exonerates him. If Oswald was seated in a booth in that lunch room at 12:25, then obviously, he couldn't be shooting Kennedy five minutes later.

Again: officialdom let that story see daylight in a mainstream newspaper, an establishment newspaper, the Dallas Morning News. 

Fifteen years after the assassination, they put it in the paper. In a major Dallas newspaper. It was their way of saying that if you insist on thinking that Oswald was innocent and not on the 6th floor, this is where we want you to place him. 

But, why was that their preference, and why did they like it so much better than Oswald in the doorway?

I think it's because they knew that it is NOT where Oswald ate his lunch; hence it's a false story, a conflicted story.  In multiple reports, including the Fritz Notes, it says that Oswald said that he ate his lunch in the 1st floor lunch room.

When it comes to what they were doing, they could never go wrong leading people wrong. 

And, in the final analysis, there was no place that Arnold's revised story could go. There was no photo of Oswald in the lunch room. There was no way the story could be developed into anything larger. So, I think they decided that they would push the idea that he was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the motorcade- for those that needed it- because it was as safe a place as any to put him. 

Gotta throw those conspiracy believers a bone once in a while- just make sure it has no meat on it.  


But, the important thing was to distance Oswald from the doorway because that would have brought down the whole stinking lie- the place that he really was.

But, Carolyn Arnold's revised story makes NO sense because if Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunch room sprawled in front of a lunch table at 12:25, then how could he be walking to the lunch room at 12:31? Are they suggesting that, after finishing his lunch, he left by way of the offices and then suddenly had an inspiration that a Coke would hit the spot, so he turned around and went back to the lunch room? Is that the story? The fact is: he was just reaching the lunch room when Baker saw him. 

But, if he was in the lunch room, and he had the stimulation, the provocation, of seeing the Coke machine, isn't it far more likely that he would have gotten one at the time? I mean without leaving and coming back. How likely is it, how reasonable is it that he got up and left and then promptly came back?

As a behavior, getting Oswald from Carolyn Arnold's sighting of Oswald, as told in 1978, to Marrion Baker's sighting of Oswald doesn't make sense. 

But, their two stories do coordinate if he was down in the doorway, where Carolyn Arnold first said he was, and he went from there to the lunch room by way of the front steps and the offices, according to what Marrion Baker said. 

Rule of thumb: when the Ops like something- and I mean the ones who are pretending to be CTs- it must be a lure, a decoy, a distraction, and a blind alley. The Ops like Carolyn Arnold's revised story. Do the Math.