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

I am going to stay on the Jeffrey Epstein case. In particular, I want to know how he hung himself, what he used for a ligature, what he suspended the ligature from, and exactly how he got the mechanical advantage he needed to do it. And the longer they delay in releasing this information, the more suspicious it will be. 

But right now, I want to move on to a guy named Mick West.

He runs various debunking websites, most notably metabunk.org. 9/11 truth is one that he has targeted. I don't know that he has ever addressed the JFK assassination and Oswald innocence, which is obviously my main forte'. But, I have written quite a lot on 9/11, and my passion for 9/11 truth is every bit as great as JFK truth. 

But first, who is Mick West? I find the short catchy name a bit disconcerting. So, I have to wonder, Mick: Were you born with that name? Or, is it like Larry Dunkel becoming Gary Mack at the Sixth Floor Museum? Speak up. Be honest. We're all about truth here. 

Mick claims to be a video game programmer and one of the founders of a video game company called Neversoft, which got sold, presumably for a lot of money in the 1990s, and apparently, that is what enables Mick to devote his time now to debunking. Well, it's good to have hobbies. 

And Mick styles himself as a "science writer." Wow, that's a big term, and I should think that anyone who calls himself a science writer would provide his educational background in science. But nowhere on any of his websites does it say a word about his education. 

So, Mick, please inform us about your education.

OK, now lets get to the subject that I want to discuss, and that is, Fatty bin laden. 

Now, as you all know, I consider the War on Afghanistan to have been, and to still be, a crime against humanity. Afghanistan had not attacked the  United States. None of the alleged 9/11 hijakcers were Afghan. The claim that Osama bin laden planned 9/11 has never been proven, and no evidence for it was provided. George W. Bush demanded that the Taliban government of Afghanistan turn bin laden over to us. The United States did NOT have an extradition treaty with Afghanistan at the time. But, the Taliban did not respond with belligerence. They asked to see the evidence against bin laden. Bush said no. Then, they offered to turn bin laden over to a 3rd country for trial, and again Bush said no. He preferred to have war; a war that has raged for 18 years, which has killed over 2000 Americans and over 200,000 Afghans. 

I have made the point that  it is never right or just to start a war over one guy, and the world should have learned that from 1914 onward, when the world went to war over one guy, the Archduke Ferdinand, and 40 million people wound up dead. 

It was said that the Taliban was "harboring" bin laden and his terror camps, that that was their crime. But no! The truth is that bin laden went to Afghanistan to aid the fight against the Soviets. He was one of the "freedom fighters." He was one of the "mujahideen". And I've got to say that I know of no word in all the languages spoken by Man that sounds better than mujahideen. It has got to be the coolest word in the history of words. But, I digress. 

So, without a doubt, bin laden living in Afghanistan got established long before 9/11; it had nothing to do with him being a terrorist, rather, bin laden was fighting the terrorism of the Soviets in Afghanistan. All that is indisputable. 

So, not only was bin laden's involvement in 9/11 never proven, but there was no basis to claim that the Taliban was aware that he was involved in it. After 9/11, the Taliban issued a statement of sympathy to America, and they recognized the 9/11 attacks as  vicious evil crimes and wished for the speedy capture and punishment of the perpetrators. 

But after we  threatened war, they did offer to take bin laden into custody and turn him over to a 3rd country that was on good relations with both them and us, and there were plenty. Why WHY WHY didn't George Bush accept that? Why wasn't it good enough? It would have neutralized bin laden. If he was confined to a jail cell in the Netherlands, that would have neutralized him just as well as if he was confined to a jail cell in New York. (Although in New York, he probably would have hung himself.) But, think of all the lives it would have saved if Bush had accepted the Taliban's offer. It was a good faith offer, bent on preventing war, which is the very worst thing in the world. 

But, George Bush wanted war, and so our ships crossed a vast ocean and two seas in order to make war on Afghanistan. And six weeks after that war started, evidence for bin laden's guilt was discovered in Afghanistan. 

Hmmm. Gee. I should think the evidence should exist BEFORE  you start the war. Doesn't it put the cart before the horse if you start the shooting war and then find the evidence? And supposedly, it was evidence that they just stumbled upon completely by accident. 

Well, in that case, what was the evidence to justify the invasion? And besides the Taliban, don't you think Bush had an obligation to show that evidence to the American people before asking them to expend the blood and treasure that would be lost in the war? 

And remember Bush is a guy for whom every single claim he made about Saddam Hussein to justify the war he started in Iraq in 2003 proved to be false. Every single one. 

But, let's look at the evidence from November 2001 which supposedly implicates bin laden in 9/11. It's a video tape found in a home in Jalalabad in which, supposedly, bin laden can be seen and heard reveling about the success of the 9/11 attacks which he planned.

Except the guy in the tape isn't bin laden He's this fat guy who has been pegged as Fatty bin laden. 

   
Now, keep in mind that by 2001, bin laden was extremely sick. He was dying. He had kidney failure. He went to the American University Hospital in Dubai for treatment of  kidney failure- in 2001. He wound up buying 2 dialysis machines. And he had  many other ailments. He had diabetes, hepatitis, and Marfan's syndrome. This is a picture of him from 2001, and you can see how  old and sickly he looked  in 2001. 

So, let's go back and forth a few times: Fatty:

Osama:

Fatty:

 Osama:

So you see that Osama looks thinner but also older, and I dare say to me, being a doctor, it looks like he's in pain. He looks like he would be incapable of the light, jovial, relaxed expression we see on Fatty bin laden. 

  
 OK, so now, along comes Mick West, science writer and debunker. And he has an explanation for this: aspect ratio. 

Aspect ratio refers to the ratio of the height to the width of an image. So, by changing the aspect ratio, you can make an image wider or narrower. 

Of course, it affects the whole image- everything in it. And I'll give you an example. 

You know that I pointed out that in the History Channel documentary Three Shots That Changed America from 2009, there is an image of Billy Lovelady, supposedly sitting at a desk in the squad room of the homicide detectives at the Dallas Police Department. And in the film, and I have a copy of it, Lovelady looks very thick and muscular and bulky. 

 Above, his arm looks about as thick as my thigh. That is one Olympian arm. We're talking Steve Reeves, Arnold, etc. So, if he's Lovelady, how could anybody have thought that Oswald and Lovelady looked alike and could be mistaken for each other? Do you remember the stories we were told? That Lovelady's kids saw Oswald on tv and thought he was their dad? That Lovelady's wife saw Oswald from behind once at the TSBD and thought he was her husband? Oswald was 5'9" 131 pounds, and the DPD did weigh him. He was skinny.

So, how could anyone have thought that those two guys  were practically twins? Isn't it like mistaking Laurel for Hardy?  

And after I started bellyaching about that, that's when they stated playing the aspect ratio card. And they produced this image on the left:

   
They started saying that the guy on the left is in the proper aspect ratio, even though in the film I have, from the History Channel, it looks the way it does on the right. And you can see a clip of it right here. It's in slow motion. 

But, let's go back to the comparison.

I want  you to notice that everything in the image on the left is narrow. The lockers are narrow. They seem  more like children's lockers than police lockers. But, that's how it is when you adjust the aspect ratio- you change everything. 

But, let's go back to the image of Fatty bin laden. 

 Mick West says that it's all due to aspect ratio. And he came up with this image. 

So, Mick says that the aspect ratio is correct directly above, but why is it only affecting bin laden's face? Again: look at the Lovelady comparison.

And now, the bin laden comparison:

I'm thinking that they just super-imposed the image of the real bin laden in the top image, just like they super-imposed Oswald's face in the Backyard photos. 

So, I'm not buying it, Mick, and again I have to ask: what is your educational background? Because to me, this looks like something that someone with an 8th grade education could grasp, And by the way, Lee Harvey Oswald is someone who had only an 8th grade education, and he said that that wasn't him in the Backyard photo, that they superimposed his face, and that if they took him to a photo lab, he could show them how it was done. Now, why would a guy who was being accused of shooting the President of the United States and a police officer lie about whether he posed for a photo, which was not a crime at all? And I realize that that rifle is supposed to be the murder weapon, but he could have easily said, "Yes, that's me, and that's my rifle, but I didn't shoot anybody. Somebody must have stolen it and done it to frame me." 

But, I think that's enough said. I hope Mick will read all this and start by answering my questions about him. And then, hopefully, we can start debating this publicly. He may not want to get into the JFK assassination, because one can have only so many irons in the fire, which I knew full well, having spread myself pretty thin at times. But, if he wants to debate this and other aspects of 9/11, including why the towers collapsed, I'd be happy to do it, as one "science writer" to another.  And by the way, Mick: I am a graduate of UCLA and Western States Chiropractic College.