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

So, what would John McAdams 

say about the existence of the two images of Oswald ambulance driver Michael Hardin on 11/24/63?

I don't know what John McAdams would say. And if he someone wants to send this to him in the hope of garnering a response from him, it's fine with me.  I can only guess what he might say.  What's obvious is that it's not the same day. That means that at least one of them had to be a reenactment, and presumably, it's the one at the hospital. And I would point out to John that, in addition to his hair being different, there is the fact that he changed the sheets on the gurney at the hospital even though it was not a hospital gurney, and he did not work for the hospital. And I would also point out that his assistant, Harold Wolfe, is not seen exiting the hospital with him, and that is really strange since they came together in the one ambulance, and it's hard to believe that Wolfe had anything else to do or anywhere else to be except with Hardin. They were a team. 

So, what would John say? How would he spin this? And I guarantee you, he would spin it. So here's my channeling of Professor John McAdams, the slithering snake of JFK officialdom. 

    
John McAdams: (hypothetical, not a real quote) 

"Assigning something nefarious to this is totally uncalled for. You're right that the film has the look of a production piece, including a musical score. So, some artistry was involved. It may be that they had no footage of Hardin leaving the hospital on 11/24. So, maybe they caught up with him on another day when he delivered someone else to the hospital, and they questioned him about Oswald, and they put that into the film.  Walking out of a hospital is such an inconsequential thing that it doesn't matter if it was the same day or not. No one doubts that Hardin walked out of the hospital on 11/24. It's not in dispute that he did. So, if they inserted that from another day for the sake of continuity, I say it doesn't matter. It's piddling. It doesn't mean there is anything essentially false or misleading about it. It is not providing erroneous information. And of course, that would explain why Wolfe wasn't with him. And as far as him changing the sheets there, he did regularly make runs to that hospital, so maybe they had an arrangement for that.  But again, it's so unimportant, I can't see making a federal case out of it."

Frankly, that may be better than what John McAdams could come up with.  I'm probably crediting him with more debating skill than he's got.  The guy is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Nevertheless, I am going to respond to it now as myself. 

Ralph Cinque:

"John, once again, you try to spin an unpleasant fact into something innocuous, but you are really just putting lipstick on a pig. It can't be Hardin working another shift on another day because he's wearing the same clothes as 11/22. And that wasn't a uniform. It is obviously a restaging, a reenactment, a piece of trickery. And you'll probably want to say that, even so, it's harmless because he no doubt left the hospital after delivering Oswald, so if they reenacted it, so what?- it's not as though they are suggesting he did something he didn't do. But, the proper response to that is that if they announced that it was a reenactment, it would be fine. But, to do it without announcing it, to just reenact a historical event and pass it off as real, that is not OK. It is not only false but manipulative, and it opens up the door to manipulations of any degree and magnitude, and it makes the entire production highly suspicious and tainted and unreliable. If the Hardin portion of the footage is reenacted, then any portion of it could be reenacted. It means that you can't trust any portion of it. Not one bit. And the very idea that they would fabricate and dramatize a very important historical event has a Stalinist stench to it: the stench of mind control. In other words, it makes the film pure propaganda. And that's putting it nicely. It's what nice people would say. What I would say is that it's downright bloodied."

Now, if anyone knows John McAdams and wants to get this to him, and he wants to write his own authentic response, I will gladly publish it. I'm willing to make the man famous. But then again, I would respond with my response to him, but that's only fair because it's my blog.