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

Brian Pete, the cyber hitman, rotten punk, and dis-info Op, tasked with harassing JFK truthers, 911 truthers, and perhaps other truthers, has re-surfaced to challenge Amy Joyce's finding of the disparate grey vertical stripe on Bookhout's hat in the Jackson photo. We are going to look at his argument and his evidence, and I must say that I don't mind the provocation at all because honing in on this is exactly what I want to do. 

His argument is that the stripe was black, but it appears grey, due to the lighting. How convenient. We'll see about that.   

But first, let's look at the Beers photo because it was taken in the same spot, and we're told the time difference to Jackson was just .6 second. So, the lighting conditions were the same. 

So, in this case, there is no grey vertical stripe, per se. That is, the vertical stripe is certainly NOT the color of the hat. There is a rather long stretch of ribbon which is lighter in color then ribbon above and below, which is jet black. And here, the color, or I should say the greyscale, of the vertical stripe is just part of that long stretch. So, it is definitely very different from the Jackson photo, in which the vertical stripe is not just off-color, but the exact same color as the hat, and in stark contrast to the rest of the ribbon.

And I will add that we can't take for granted the authenticity of what we see in the Beers photo because it too is definitely an altered photo. I have pointed out that the left hand was altered. There are too many fingers; more than 5.

Remember that the thumb is "opposed" to the other fingers. That's the word they use in Anatomy. So, the thumb is not and cannot be part of the lineup. So, that has got to be no more than 4 fingers. And yet, I'm counting 5. There's an extra pinkie there, that was tacked on in order to display the ring that Ruby was wearing. And look at the weird position of that hand. Why would anyone hold his hand like that while shooting at someone? No one would. And no one did. So, that is an altered photo. And therefore, they could have touched-up the contrast in the hat ribbon just for show.  It's possible.

But regardless, it is very much different from this:

Now keep in mind that, although Amy found some hats with contrasting ribbons, it is still my opinion that this was a Photoshop thing. And of course I mean that they used the 1963 equivalent of Photoshop, which was probably just paint. I don't think the shooter's hat was that way. And I don't think it was a lighting effect. If you look at the greyscale of the ribbon surrounding the vertical stripe, it's the darkest black there is. It's darker than the greyscale to the right of it. So, how is it possible that the lighting conditions caused the black vertical stripe to appear grey, while the adjoining ribbon on each side of the stripe is jet black? And note that that area of the hat doesn't even seem to be in bright light. It doesn't appear to have anything but diffuse light affecting it. We have this shot from one of the films, under bright conditions, and the ribbon is jet black.

So, it is my opinion, and I am only speaking for myself, not for Amy, that what we are seeing in the Jackson photo, is some dressing up, some photoshopping, that was done just for aesthetic reasons. It's an iconic photo. They knew it was an iconic photo. They intended it to be an iconic photo. And they wanted it to look good. 

Again, there's this:

And this:

This:

And this:

Now, we'll take a look at some of the images Brian Pete put up. And keep in mind that Amy already showed us that there were hats which had real contrast in the ribbon. 

In the above case, I don't know. Maybe the vertical ribbon really was grey. But, since we have other examples from the very situation, this is hardly relevant.

Now, in the case below, I'm willing to grant that that really is just a lighting effect. And it's a matter of degree. That vertical stripe isn't the same color as the hat. 

It's off-color a little, but nothing like this:

This contrast above is so much greater and so much more distinctive, it renders the other one incomparable. 

Again:

It's just too good, too clean, too sharp, and too distinctive to attribute it to a natural lighting effect. 

This one is very weird. You've got the guy at the bottom whose hat and ribbon are black all the way. You've got the guy on the top whose got a white ribbon on a black hat, except for a black interruption.

That is really weird. What could possibly cause that weird effect? You can't blame that on lighting. Don't you think this is very likely altered? Look how jet black his hair is, and notice how it seems to go on forever as it sweeps off his head. Notice how his right eyebrow is growing down into his eye. Or is that supposed to be shadow? It's bull shit is what it is. Leave it to God-damn Brian Pete to submit a piece of shit like this and vouch for it. 

So, as part of the same photo, what is going on with this?

Hmm. I don't know. That looks more like the ribbon just came to an end. And it's just more weird stuff. This is a terrible photo. How desperate are these blood-soaked, virtual Kennedy-killers that they would resort to something like this? I curse them. 

Here, the whole ribbon is lighter than the hat except for the bow. There is absolutely no sign of anything but diffuse light hitting it. There were hats with contrasting, multi-toned ribbons. But, we know the shooter didn't wear one. His ribbon was black, all the way around. 

So, there is no excuse for this:

There is no reason why this:

should look like this:

And here's another view of "Ruby's" hat:

Wow. There the vertical stripe actually looks darker than the surrounding bow. The exact opposite. So, which is it? That? Or this?

What an amazing universe the JFK assassination (including the Oswald assassination) took place in that such contrasting optics could occur. 

And who would defend this shit? Bloodied people. Murderous bloodied people who verbally, with their words, do the equivalent of firing more rounds into Kennedy's head.  

Here's another view of the shooter's hat, at the same instant, and therefore the same lighting.

It's nothing like this, is it?

This is definitely a problem. It is too good; too sharp; too clear; too distinctive, knowing as we do that the ribbon was jet black all the way around. 

And where does the burden of proof lie in a matter such as this? Let those who wish to defend it take a grey hat with a jet black ribbon all the way around and let them photograph it in lighting that is the same as the Jackson photo, and let them make that jet-black ribbon look like this:

And again note that by all appearances, there is nothing but diffuse lighting there. The chances are great that that contrast was photoshopped in via 1963 methods. Brian Pete has offered nothing to lessen the probability of that. And considering all the images we have of "Ruby's" hat, there is really no reason to look outside the scene. It is my strong opinion that it was photoshopped. But, of course, it's absolutely trivial compared to the other things that they did to the photo, such as installing Oswald's slapped arm atop his chest.

Now, you listen to me: That is NOT Oswald's left arm. He did NOT slap his arm to his chest after being shot. Nobody would do that. Nobody ever has EVER done that. And nobody ever will do it. It's just shit they added to the photo and precisely because Oswald wasn't really shot, and they had to cover up the area of impact to justify the complete absence of trauma, blood, disruption, destruction, etc. Even though "Ruby" just fired the shot .3 second before, Oswald got his arm up there, effectively hiding all the violence completely. What a crock.