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

Think about how significant it is that the first person to claim that there was photo alteration in the JFK assassination was Lee Harvey Oswald. 

How HOW HOW can you claim to defend him unless you agree with him? What's the alternative supposed to be?

"I know Oswald didn't kill Kennedy, but, he was bullshitting, lying through his teeth, when he denied posing with the rifle. That's him; it's his rifle; he ordered it just like they said he did. He just didn't want to admit it."

Now, I ask you: When, in the history of crime and punishment has a suspect ever done that: been shown a photo of himself and used the tactic of saying, "That's not me; it's a sham photo."

Are you aware of any?

If you are a real Oswald defender, then you have to believe him. And that's because it wasn't a crime to pose for that photo. You say it was the murder weapon? No, it wasn't. It wasn't the murder weapon in April 1963. Supposedly, it became the murder weapon in November 1963. But, in November 1963, it wasn't even in his possession. In other words, regardless of who the legal owner of the gun was, Oswald didn't have exclusive access to it. Far from it. He could have easily and unhesitantly said; "It's mine, but I didn't do it." 

Do you realize that the story was that Michael Paine repeatedly saw the rifle in the garage, and he moved it. And no one ever said he discussed it with Oswald. Oswald supposedly snuck the rifle, wrapped in a blanket, into Ruth Paine's station wagon in New Orleans. But after that, he was out of the loop. There is no evidence or claim that he ever discussed it with Marina. It means that it could have wound up anywhere. What if it wound up in the attic? Don't people store things in the attic? It could have wound up in a closet. It could have been put under a bed. There is no evidence that Oswald even knew where the rifle was.  

And when you look at the condition of Ruth Paine's garage, even if he knew it was in there, and again, there is no evidence of that, it wouldn't be easy to find. 

Look at that garage. Do you think it would be easy to find anything in there? And here's a piece of irony for you. Here we are talking photo alteration in the JFK assassination, and this very photo is an altered photo. It's not even an assassination photo; it's a photo of Ruth Paine and her son. But, her car wasn't blue; it was green. That was photoshopped. Why'd they do that? Well, I sure don't know, but they did it. Was it because her pants were green, and they wanted contrast? They photoshopped everything in this picture. How likely is it that the boy wore socks the exact same color as the car? It is a heavily doctored image. 

So, even if the rifle was legally Oswald's, it wasn't in his possession, in his custody, at the time of the shooting. Of course, I know the official story, but how plausible is it?  When first asked, Marina denied that Oswald currently owned a rifle. She said he owned one back in Russia- for hunting. And at no time, did she ever claim to give Oswald information about the location of that rifle in storage. She spoke of them having discussed many things but not that. So, he would have had to go there with the intention of ransacking the whole house to find it- right under their eyes and noses. 

And what did Oswald know on November 22? He knew that he was suspected of coming to work with a long package, which he denied, claiming to have brought only his lunch. But, people don't carry sandwiches loose in their hand. It had to be in a bag of some kind. So, why didn't they police try to expose and upstage his lie by searching for, and not finding, the remnants of his claimed lunch, including his bag? It would have wound up in the lunch room trash can, right?  If they proved that he lied about that, it would have been terribly incriminating, wouldn't it? Of course, they could have always found the evidence of his lunch and destroyed it, and I wouldn't put it past them to do that. I'd expect them to. But, the fact is that they didn't even look for it.  It didn't even occur to them. 

But, let's get back to the Backyard photos. They weren't that incriminating. They weren't incriminating at all. It was not a crime to pose with a rifle, and it was not a murder weapon at the time the photo was taken. And it would have been futile to lie about it. He would have expected Marina to confirm it if she took the picture, right? 

So, he simply would have said, "It's me; it's my rifle; but, I didn't use it to shoot anyone." 

So, if you believe in Oswald's innocence, you have to believe that he was telling the truth; that the Backyard photos were faked and fabricated in an elaborate scheme, and that it all took place BEFORE the assassination.  And if they were doing that before the assassination, then surely they had the mindset to do it after the assassination. 

So, how can anyone be both an Oswald defender and a lily whitest? A lily whitest is a term I just coined for someone who claims that every JFK assassination image is lily white, that there was no photo or film alteration. The truth is just the opposite: that the JFK assassination is the most photographically altered event in the history of Mankind.   

So, you say you're not a JFK photo alterationist? Well, if you are not a JFK photo alterationist, then you are not an Oswald defender. Do you hear me?