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

Backass:  "the statements attributed to Oswald while under arrest and interrogated are highly suspect."

Oh really, Backes? Because a heck of a lot of those statements attributed to Oswald were from James Bookhout. So, I guess that means that James Bookhout is highly suspect.

And to correct Backes' false representations: I never claimed that anyone but James Bookhout was the garage shooter. It has been Bookhout, Bookhout, Bookhout, from the beginning and all along. 

And though I did mistake some images for him, let's remember: there are no real ones. So, any attempt was destined to be wrong. Backes got it wrong. He vehemently claimed that this was Bookhout:

I provided very cogent reasons why that guy couldn't possibly be Bookhout, such as: that he was too young, and that Bookhout did not attend the Midnight Press Conference, and that it was entirely a DPD affair, and no FBI agent was in the spotlight for it. But no, Backes ignored all that and kept insisting that that was Bookhout until others (Denis Morrissette and Linda Zambanini) called it a miss. And did Backes then rush to remove the claim from his site? No. He doesn't give a shit about the truth; he only cares about the battle.

And in the case of Dhority, it was never really my mistake. It was Linda's mistake, and that of Backes' friends, the Prayermanites. But, Backes doesn't fault them; he just faults me, as if I came up with it. 

And I never mistook Nat Pinkston for Bookhout. It's Backes who is mistaking James Bookhout for Pinkston. This is Bookhout:

  
That's Bookhout. It's not Pinkston. Pinkston wasn't that short. Here's an image of him when he was 16 years old.

Pinkston is one of the tallest there. So, he couldn't possibly be that pipsqueak whom Oswald was talking to in the hall. And how is it even remotely possible when Oswald was in the middle of a conversation with him, saying, "What have you got against such and such?" That was an ongoing conversation, but Oswald didn't have any with Pinkston, who never attended a single interrogation. But, Bookhout attended most of them. 

So, the only image mistake that can be attributed to me was mistaking Gerald Hill for Bookhout, and that lasted less than 24 hours. 

OK, so I was wrong about that, but you, Backes, were wrong about TL Baker for weeks, even after I provided ample reasons to reject it. So, you are the pot calling the kettle black, when it's you and your soul that are blackest of all.

"but the idea of an escape via public transportation, no, no, that cannot be a lie too, that has to be real."

You God-damn right it has to be real, you fool. The plotters were never going to let Oswald leave Dealey Plaza in a getaway car when he was supposed to be the lone gunman. A lone gunman can't have getaway driver, you moron.

And yes, I am calling Bookhout a liar for saying he was in the basement when Oswald was loaded into the ambulance. There is too much footage available. We have Pinkston seen there. 

If Bookhout was there, we would know it; we would see him. 

Besides, we know where Bookhout was at the time:

So, he had to be lying, unless you think he could be in two places at once.

And Backes, you idiot, that is the County jail, and we are talking about the City jail:

And even at that page, it doesn't say a word about forfeiting underwear. What did you figure, Backes? That you could just put a link up and nobody would go to it and see what it says?

And for your information, Backes, Linda Zambanini pegs that one young guy as Bookhout. This is from find-a-grave.

She put that up, Backes, and without any input from me. 

You're stupid, Backes. You were born stupid, and you stumble through your life, always stupidly. Stupid to the end.