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

It's very strange that anyone would doubt that we used Tri-X film in Dealey Plaza if I said we did. To say it if we didn't would be such a bold-faced lie. So, why would I tell such a bold-faced lie if my whole purpose is to uncover the truth about the JFK assassination?

Furthermore, it wasn't even me who used the Tri-X film or even bought the Tri-X film. It was the professional photographer I hired. He got, and he used the Tri-X film. I remember how much it cost: about $25 a roll. But, that may have included shipping expense. He had it mailed to him. 

But, if I just bold-faced lied and said he used it when he didn't, that could get back to him. I'm not going to repeat his name here, but I've revealed it in the past. So, if he came to me and said that he heard that I claimed he used Tri-X film, what could I say? Would I just tell him that I felt like lying? It's hard to justify lying about your own actions, but to lie about somebody else's actions? Why would I do that?

But, another question is: I knew that James Altgens used Tri-X film and that's it's still available. So, why wouldn't I use Tri-X film? What was stopping me? Why would anyone have a hard time believing that I did?

And, I recall that the photographer informed me at the time that Kodak was getting close to discontinuing the production of it. So, he told me that if I ever wanted to do it with Tri-X film, now was the time because it may not be possible in the future. So, that cinched it. I told him to order the Tri-X film and add it to the bill.

It's true that we didn't use a Nikkorex camera like Altgens used. It was the photographer's decision to use a similar 35 mm reflex camera made by Cannon, which he had. He felt that it was comparable and adequate, and I left it up to him. He was the professional photographer; not me. 

But, when you consider all these things together, you realize that there is no reason to doubt that we used Tri-X film.  It's really childish and stupid to doubt it. But, I think it's also very telling- about Joseph Backes. Because, apparently, he is the kind of person who tells bold-faced lies. If he thinks it was so easy for me to repeatedly tell a bold-faced lie about the film, then it must be because it would have been easy for him to tell such a lie. And I have observed this, in life, that serial liars are quick to call other people liars. 

It was just yesterday that we caught Backes in a lie. He said that the Loveladys furnished the HSCA with the "wedding" photo of Lovelady, and there isn't a scintilla of evidence for that. The HSCA just said that the photo was furnished to them. Period. They didn't say by whom. So, where did Backes get it from? From himself. He made it up. He just pulled it out of thin air. He lied to me, and he also lied to his own supporters- if he has any. Doesn't it bother him to spread a piece of false information? No. It doesn't bother him the least bit. His values are different. He has no conscience about that. He doesn't care about the truth. If he discovered new evidence about Oswald being in the doorway, he would destroy it- if he thought he could get away with it. He would sell out Kennedy, Oswald, and you name it. As I said; different values. Or maybe I should say: the lack of values.

I used Tri-X film. It's a very simple, straight-forward point of fact. And among mature adults, I don't think anyone would doubt that I did if I said that I did. And I'm saying that I did.