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

Brian Pete, no longer wanting to do battle over the ridiculous "brownian motion can cause photographic anomalies" claim, and no longer wanting to defend the ridiculous bogus hat, has gone back to the OIC website. Fine by me.

Now here's a strange thing. Why would someone accuse Larry Rivera of altering Oswald's image without saying what he did? What did he alter? The truth is: he didn't alter anything. It's true that he flipped it, that is, he did a left to right flip, creating the mirror image. But, he didn't do it for any nefarious reason like the media did and the HSCA did. (Their are numerous flipped images of him.) He did it because flipping it created the proper angle, one that matched to Doorman. How can you do an overlay unless the angle is close to the same? Remember where Altgens was. He wasn't in front of Oswald. He was way off to the southwest, shooting at an angle. So, it was really very clever of Larry to think of doing this.  

Now, when it comes to people's faces, they are usually quite symmetrical from left to right. The one possible exception is the nose. There are plenty of people who have asymmetrical noses. However, Oswald was not one of those people. His nose was quite symmetrical. 

And, the hairline is often asymmetrical , but note that Larry's overlay does not include the hairline. So, there is no problem in Larry having flipped the image. And keep in mind that if he had found one that had matched to Doorman spontaneously he would have used it.  And, Brian Pete would just have sought other reasons to criticize his work. He's a sophist; not a very good one, but still a sophist. He just grabs and attaches onto arguments out of convenience and expediency- not conviction.  

Regarding the tinting, we have it both ways, with and without tint.
Here it is without:

Wow, that really is impressive, isn't it? You know something? I think I'm going to add that, so that the OIC website will have it both tinted and untinted. Yes! Excuse me a minute.

OK, now both are up: tinted and untinted. Take a look:

http://www.oswald-innocent.com/oswald.html

I did go ahead and tidy up some of the wording. This is how it reads now:

And I'll take this opportunity to point out that it's no fault and no flaw that one's thinking evolves over time. I started this pursuit in 2011, and this is 2018. Did I know as much then as I do now? No. 

If a rat is going through a maze, he may make a few wrong turns and have to back track. But, it's not going to keep him from reaching the finish and getting the cheese. So, it is utterly a red herring to harp on someone's relatively minor revisions, and it is truly the sign of a perennial punk.

But, unwittingly, the Punk does show that the statement with which he is attempting to malign me was made in February 12, just a few months after I got involved.

So, it says February 15, 2012.  I officially started in November 2011. And I admit that what I said there is flat-out wrong. But again, look at the date. I was new. I was green. I was wet around the ears.  If you asked me then who shot Oswald, I would have said Jack Ruby. Imagine that. 

So, this isn't a fault or a failing at all. It's nothing compared to what this buffoon just did with forum-quotes trying to defend Judyth Baker's ridiculous statements that photographic anomalies can occur due to brownian motion within the emulsion. 

In my case, it's very simple: I was informed that that was a photo of Billy Lovelady, so I just assumed that it was. That's what most people do, and that's what we commonly do in life. If somebody says that this is a photo of so-and-so, we don't usually question it. So, I didn't question it. But, it wasn't too long after that that I, in conjunction with Jim Fetzer and one other guy, figured out that that figure wasn't Lovelady. And keep in mind that he couldn't be Lovelady, even logistically and temporally, because Lovelady, by his own account, wasn't there at that time. He did not stand around outside the TSBD smoking a cigarette after the assassination. He left almost immediately with Bill Shelley for the railroad tracks- by their own accounts. And we have an image of them.

So, there they are, with Lovelady on the right in his short-sleeve shirt, and he could not possibly be that other guy at the entrance. 

Do you know how many times the Punk has put up that erroneous statement of mine? It's got to be dozens. And it only goes to show how out of bullets he is that he has to keep resorting to that. I only wish he was out of bullets when he was shooting Iraqis for that mass murderer George W. Bush. 


Then, the lying, manipulative Punk had the nerve to say that Lovelady was "directly" asked about being in the Altgens photo. Directly? How can you call it directly when Ball had Lovelady play a game drawing an arrow? He even told him to do it in the black; so, black on black. And at no time, did Ball or Lovelady make a statement as to whether Lovelady was Doorman- even though that was the big question. At no time did either one articulate an interest in Doorman. To call their exchange "direct' makes about as much sense as call Abbott and Costello's Who's on first routine a direct communication. 

Then, the Punk points out that on the night of the assassination, the FBI went to Lovelady's house, late, and showed him the Altgens photo, and he, supposedly, identified himself as Doorman. I hope they were more "direct" about it than Joseph Ball was. 

"Alright, Mr. Lovelady, we want to know if this guy here (pointing) is you. But don't answer. Just draw an arrow to yourself in the photo."

I'm pretty sure they didn't do that. But think about something else: 

It was actually on Saturday night, not Friday night, that they went to Lovelady's  house. But, whether it was Friday night or Saturday night doesn't really matter because Oswald was alive both nights. So, if they really wanted to know, why didn't they go to both Lovelady and Oswald and ask each of them if they were the Doorway Man? Oswald was in his cell on Saturday night. I'm sure he wouldn't have minded the intrusion. I'm sure he wasn't busy. So, why didn't they? And doesn't the fact that they didn't speak volumes? It does to me. 

The truth is that we don't have anything on tape, and poor Lovelady was scared to death. You can hear it in his voice in his 1976 interview. And HSCA Attorney Ken Brooten must have realized that Lovelady wreck- on the verge of a breakdown. Why else would he QUIT HIS JOB WITH THE HSCA TO REPRESENT LOVELADY?

Has that ever happened before or since in the history of jurisprudence that a government lawyer quit his job to represent a witness who was also a subject in a government investigation? I sure doubt it. 

I am reminded now of something that Syrian President Bashar al Assad, a courageous man whom I greatly respect, said in an interview in which he was told that there were reports that he was torturing and abusing prisoners like Abu Ghraib. Remember Abu Ghraib? Where Americans tortured and abused prisoners? I wonder if B.P. was in on that? He'd have been good at it. 

Anyway, President Assad said that those "reports" do not constitute evidence, that anyone can say anything. Do you remember all that "intelligence" that was used to justify the invasion of Iraq? Well, that came from disgruntled Iraqis who were being stroked for providing the information. And , as you know, it all turned out to be false. Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. He had destroyed them all, just as he claimed in his 12,000 page report to the UN. Meanwhile, the United States, to this day, is still sitting on about 3000 tons of chemical weapons. And of course, our nuclear arsenal is large enough to destroy every living thing on the planet several times over. And Trump wants to build more.

So, we don't have any solid, reliable information about what transpired in that visit to the Loveladys. However, what I suspect happened is that the FBI went there not so much to ask him if he was Doorman but to tell him: he was Doorman. 

So, this is just pure posturing by the Punk. And the fact is that in this case: the FBI were the bad guys. J. Edgar Hoover was a VERY bad guy. It isn't even debatable whether he was a bad guy. So, the idea that the FBI's  claims and actions have to be accepted at face value is like saying that the wolf's claims about the hens have to be taken at face value. The amount of credence and credibility that one should grant to the FBI in this case is zero. And I don't say that's true in every case. But, it is certainly true in this case.

Then, the dastardly, bastardly Punk makes the statement that the shirt Oswald wore to work that morning was not the same as his arrest shirt, that he changed his shirt. He just said it as a categorical statement like he's fuckin' Solomon or the King of Siam. You'd think that maybe he'd tell the "multitudes" the basis for the claim and let them decide for themselves.

So, what about you, James Norwood? Your hero just claimed that Oswald changed his shirt. Is that your position? And by the way, your hero also thinks that John Armstrong is completely full of shit about Harvey and Lee. But, you and I know better, don't we? And yet, you keep fawning over him, and it's perplexing. I mean: I can understand him fawning over you because he's an Op. But, why would you align yourself and render support to a guy who trashes John Armstrong? Apparently, you have no principles. And I'll tell you something else: it's a lot worse than me editing Jim Fetzer's writing on my own website. 

Next, he glibly goes back to the vee-neck t-shirt, but I feel I have addressed this fully and enhanced the OIC website adequately. I'm satisfied that we are on very solid ground.

Next, the Punk puts up a bogus image of Lovelady.

That image wasn't seen until the History Channel's JFK documentary, Three Shots That Changed America came out in 2009. It was never seen before that. That is NOT Billy Lovelady. 

And keep in mind that the Punk took great pleasure in saying that Lovelady claimed to be Doorman, and he eventually did. Hey, when the Gestapo tells you to say something, you say it. But ironically, he NEVER ever ever claimed to be in the Squad room of the Homicide detectives having a close encounter with Oswald. And his chatty wife never claimed it either. And keep in mind that guy is supposed to be this guy:

You think they are the same man?  Look:

Look again:

Once more:

If you can't see that they are different men, then you swallowed the Kool-aid a long time ago, and there's no hope left for you. At least, I don't have any hope for you.

Then, the Punk goes to this image, which is completely bogus. This is what I call the Cigar Store Indian because he's as stiff as one. He wasn't there. Lovelady did not go into a trance in the doorway.

Oswald, the original Doorman in the Wiegman film had already left for the lunch room. So, they put this other figure into the film to replace him. How do you install a still image into a moving film? You do it be reducing his screen time to a tiny fraction of a second. And that's what they did. 

And in fact, they did an impossible thing. Dave Wiegman had swung his camera around clockwise to do a second pan of the doorway. But, he eventually stopped and changed direction. Well, if you know anything about physics (psst: the Punk doesn't) you know that Wiegman had to come to a complete stop before he could change direction. And that should have provided some dwell time at the end of his arc. But, there is no dwell time. It's lightening fast. And that's because they messed with it, removing frames to control this guy's screen time. After all, when you install a still image into a motion picture, you don't want people to look at it for too long.

And finally, the Punk tried to make hay out of the fact that there is contradictory evidence about what Oswald said concerning his clothes. However, when first asked, that is at 3:00 on Friday afternoon, Oswald only mentioned changing his pants. It's in the Fritz Notes. Fritz wrote that Oswald changed his "britches."

So, it says "home by bus changed britches"

Now, as to what to make of the other claims, about him having said he changed his shirt, I honestly don't know what to make of it. But, since we have this statement, which was the very first one, it stands in defiance of the other statements. And the best thing to do, and the right thing to do, is to just admit that there is confusion about this, and it may be unresolvable. However, it is hardly surprising that in a case like this there would be some unresolvable elements.  But, if we move on and look at the other evidence, we see that there is very strong evidence that Oswald changed his shirt. He had the bus transfer ticket in his shirt pocket. He admitted it. He never said that he moved it from one shirt to another, and one has no right to claim that he did. It's one of those things that you either have positive evidence for it or you have nothing. Oswald did not ride a bus again. No one has ever claimed that he rode to the Texas Theater on a bus. 

And Mary Bledsoe did recognize Oswald's shirt on the bus, not the shirt overall, but the fact that there was a hole in the right elbow- and other things. The Punk that the FBI "coached" Mary and showed her the shirt before she testified to the WC. I don't know if that's true or not, but you should be more careful, Punk. Think about what it means if the FBI was involved in witness tampering. It means a hell of a lot, you dumb fuck. It means everything.

Alright, that's enough for tonight. I have nothing to remove from the Oswald page because of this. And really, it's just old hat. The Punk didn't say ANYTHING that he hasn't said dozens of times before and for years. Again, he is just running out of bullets. 

But, how about that Brownian motion, Punk?