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

tims...@gmail.com

Feb 7 (23 hours ago)

On Friday, 5 February 2016 11:17:06 UTC+11, Ralph Cinque  wrote:
> Well, we know that Bookhout was lying then because we know that Bill

But as we've previously seen, Bookhout's report MIRRORS the notes of Will
Fritz of the SAME interview!:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.assassination.jfk/bookhout$20mirrors|sort:relevance/alt.assassination.jfk/vb-RQZWWPNo/6SJ00EtNCwAJ

You know, Ralph, the very SAME Fritz notes that you, Fetzer and the OIC
mistakenly use to place Oswald "out front with Bill Shelley" during the
shooting!

> Shelley wasn't out front when Oswald left for home, and the idea that he
> chewed the cud with Shelley for 10 minutes at that time doesn't even make
> sense from the standpoint of Oswald catching McWatters' bus. In a word, it
> is just plain impossible.

Well that's right, Ralph. Because it was simply ANOTHER lie told by
Oswald. The penny starting to drop yet?

>
> It requires intelligence to tell when these guys were lying and when they
> weren't, but not a whole heck of a lot of it. That you would cite such an
> obvious and egregious lie and treat it as a fact demonstrates your
> complete inability to decipher the evidence and determine the truth in the
> JFK assassination. You're pathetic, Brennan.

LOL! You know, Ralph, I think we could say the same about YOUR complete
inability to decipher the evidence, given that both Bookhout and Fritz are
reporting the very SAME lie by Oswald!

What's really PATHETIC, Ralph, is still believing and Oswald's lies in
2016, like that Oswald DIDN'T own a rifle, especially since he sent around
PERSONALLY autographed photographs of himself holding a rifle!:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0078b.htm

And:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0079a.htm

The complete inability to decipher the evidence appears to lie with YOU
and the OIC, Ralph. 

Ralph Cinque:

No, Brennan, you're wrong again. Fritz claimed that Oswald said that he was eating lunch with "other employees" during the assassination. That was a lie. What employees skipped viewing the motorcade in order to eat lunch with Oswald?  None, of course. And likewise of course, the WC examiner didn't ask him to name them. It was not a place he wanted to go. 

We know who Fritz was referring to: Jarman and Norman. But, Oswald did NOT say he ate with them but rather that they came into the domino room while he was in there eating- alone. So, on that one, Bookhout got it right, but he was at odds with Fritz. 

But then, Bookhout flung the cow paddies when he said that Oswald said he was gabbing with Shelley out front after the assassination as he was leaving to go home. You think Oswald lied about that? Well, if that's what you think, then you are not nearly as smart as Oswald was. Because: Oswald was smart, and he would have known that Shelley wasn't there. And that meant that he had to know that if he claimed that he was talking to Shelley at that time, that Shelley would deny it. So, telling such a lie would only work against him. 

What's the point of lying to the police if you know ahead of time that it's going to backfire, that they are going to find out that you lied? 

You don't use someone as your alibi unless you know he is going to confirm it. If you haven't talked to him, or if you know from the facts that he is bound to deny it, then you don't do it; you don't use him.

That is, you don't if you're an Oswald or a Cinque, but, apparently, you do if you're a Brennan. Brennans don't think that high up the chart.  

And I want the whole world to know how low your thinking skills really are, Brennan, and that's why I'm making you famous.