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

Brian Pete, repeatedly, argued that Brownian motion could cause photographic defects, all to defend James Norwood, and both of them following, like lemmings, the authority of none other than Judyth Baker. But, eventually, he shut the pluck up about it and dropped it. Why? Perhaps someone pointed out  to him that if it were true, then there would be photographic defects galore. It was stupid when Judyth Baker said it, and even more stupid when Professor James Norwood picked up on it- and not just picked up on it, but picked up on it with glee. 

But, moving on, these two are quiet a pair. You've got Norwood, who is an avid of John Armstrong, as am I, which means that he believes that not only was Oswald innocent, but that "they" had an "Oswald program" in which they merged the lives and identities of two boys at an early age, under the name of Lee Harvey Oswald. And of course, that's just one of the many things that "they" did. 

But, Brian Pete doesn't believe that "they" did anything, or that there was a "they." He makes a mockery of the whole idea of "they."

Most people do. You see, Raff* Sink (aka Oswald's Nut) really screwed the pooch when he went all in on FBI Agent Jim Bookhout being the person that shot Lee Harvey Oswald....shot him, but didn't. You see, "they" wanted to silence Oswald, so "they" decided to make Jack Ruby a patsy, like "they" did Oswald, so "they" drugged Ruby, arranged for a fake perp walk, while "they" got every news reporter, law enforcement officer and Federal Agent to play along, and had FBI Agent Bookhout shoot, but not really shoot Oswald, so "they" could drag Oswald off and shoot him again.

First, let's consider the accuracy of his representation of my views. yes, I certainly am all-in on FBI Agent James Bookhout (he is never referred to as 'Jim') being the person who shot Lee Harvey Oswald (and note that when you shoot someone with a blank at that range, you certainly have shot them). But still, he didn't shoot him for real; it was a ruse. And, it's not that they wanted to silence Oswald, rather, they wanted to silence his lawyer after Oswald talked to him. And, that was something they were not going to be able to put off much longer- had Oswald lived. So yes, they made Jack Ruby their patsy, but rather than a "perp walk" it was matter of them luring him there, and I mean before the Garage Spectacle, at which time they pounced on him, and of course, he didn't know why, which is why he reportedly said, "What are you doing? This is me, Jack Ruby. You know me. I'm not a criminal."  He, obviously, didn't know why they were doing what they were doing. But, they took him upstairs and told him that he shot Oswald, and he believed them, because he had this strange attachment to the Dallas Police.

But no, they didn't get every reporter involved. Some may have been but certainly not all or even most. Most reporters had the idea that Ruby did it shoved down their throats the same way everyone else did. Hugh Aynesworth said the shooter "zipped" right in front of him. When did he realize that the shooter was Ruby? When police announced it afterwards. And that's true even though he had known Ruby for years and interacted with him multiple times that very weekend. Ike Pappas was asking repeatedly whether anyone recognized the shooter, even though he had interacted with Ruby that weekend and taken a business card from him. But, federal agents? Officially, there weren't any in the garage. Officially, it was all Dallas PD when it came to law enforcement in the garage. And, yes, the Dallas police who were there were in on it. Look how many lied: Leavelle, Graves, Combest, Dean, and even Fritz. And yes, Oswald was shot for real afterwards. 

So, Pete's reporting of it was a mixed bag. You'd think that after all this time, he'd get it right. 

But, I want you to notice, James Norwood, that he said:

so "they" decided to make Jack Ruby a patsy, like "they" did Oswald,

So, Brian Pete is making a mockery of the whole idea that Oswald was a patsy- a framed and innocent person. But James, you still believe that they made Oswald a patsy, don't you? So, why would you align yourself with someone who obviously does not? 

The JFK world is a very polarized world when it comes to Oswald, isn't it? There's not supposed to be collusion between Oswald accusers and Oswald defenders, is there? So, why are you colluding with an Oswald accuser? Do you understand the meaning of him putting "they" in quotes? It is equivalent to him saying that Oswald is guilty, that he shot Kennedy. 

And, this is not the first time that Brian Pete has done it. 

So, why can't you pick up on it, James? Here, you've taught a college course on critical thinking in the JFK assassination based on the idea that Oswald was innocent- framed and innocent. And this is what it comes to? You colluding with an Oswald accuser? 

And it amazing to me just how stupid an idiot Brian Pete is. First, he denies that this supposed FBI agent's hair looks unruly. Look at that long sweep of hair. Isn't that unruly? 

Brian Pete alludes to that being distortion due to the blow-up of the image, but let's enlarge the other guy as well.

So, the disputed figure has that weird hair, but the other guy, does not. His hair looks normal. He's not getting that weird sweep. And look how short the disputed figure's hair is in front? It looks extremely short, doesn't it? And then it's wild and woolly in back, but who wears their hair like that? And what FBI agent in 1963 wore his hair like that? They were very close-cut. 

Next, Brian Pete refers to the caption of the other photo, the one from the FBI bank robbery exhibit in 1968. 

But, that caption is not beyond dispute. That caption hasn't been vetted. It's not even accurate. Bob Crowder wasn't a Dallas Ranger. He was a Texas Ranger. Can you see that it says, "Dallas Ranger Capt. Bob Crowder"? He was a Texas Ranger. And actually, he retired from the Texas Rangers in 1967. What he was doing in 1969 was working on newly established state commission that sought to supervise private security personnel. 

"In 1969 the Texas Legislature created the Texas Board of Private Detectives, Private Investigators, Private Patrolmen, and Private Guard Watchmen (or Private Guards and Managers), to examine, license, and regulate persons working in the field of private security (Senate Bill 164, 61st Legislature, Regular Session, 1969). A revision of the law in 1971 changed the agency's name to Texas Board of Private Investigators and Private Security Agencies (Senate Bill 768, 62nd Legislature, Regular Session, 1971). This law expanded the board's jurisdiction to include the regulation of burglar alarm companies, courier companies, armored car companies, guard dog companies, and the security departments of private businesses with armed guards. In 1983, unarmed security guards, alarm installers, security salespeople, and security consultants were added to the list of those regulated; in 1987, guard dog trainers; in 1989, alarm systems monitors; and in 1993, alarm systems engineers. In 1999 the name was changed once again, to the Texas Commission on Private Security (House Bill 2617, 76th Legislature, Regular Session). In 2003, the commission was abolished (House Bill 2, 78th Legislature, Regular Session), and in 2004 became the Texas Private Security Board under the Texas Department of Public Safety."

That is what Bob Crowder was doing in 1969. So, that caption is completely wrong in what it says about him; he was not a "Dallas Ranger." 

And look how it's written:

So, the top line is all in caps, referring to the exhibits. Then, the second line is first-letter capped, but why would first-letter cap words like "checks" and "with"? Then, in the third row, "and" isn't capped, nor, "of" but "both" is? Who wrote this stupid thing? 

Then, note that it starts with the exhibits that are on the right. So, they expect your eyes to first go there, right? But then what? They expect your eyes to jump to the far left? And then back to the right? Note that the caption refers to Crowder viewing the exhibit with the agents. So, it's Crowder + agents.  But, notice that two of the men seem clumped together and the third is standing apart from them. The two men on the left are standing close to each other while the man in the center seems slightly apart from them. So, considering that and the fact that it started with the exhibits which are on the right, doesn't it mean that Crowder is the one closest to the exhbits?

Then, the Punk refers to the man standing behind the disputed figure, claiming that his jacket was almost as light. First, that's not true; his suit is lighter than the others but still distinctly darker than the disputed figure's. But second, that guy is definitely not an FBI agent because he's wearing a white hat. So, his suit color is irrelevant since we are talking about what FBI agents wore. 

Then, this incredible moron asks why all these guys are holding their cameras above their heads. when you can plainly see it's because the guy is holding the rifle above his head, and they're shooting it. 

But, in the case below, what would be the reason for holding the camera above his head?

Look: he was shooting through the glass of the door. How high is that? His eyes would have been right about the perfect height. Why not just standing in front of it and hold the camera at eye level and click the shutter? You can't compare the above situation to this, where someone is holding an object of interest high in the air:

Idiot.