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

I ask people to reject Beverly Oliver's claim of being Babushka Lady because she was a 17 year old girl at the time, and this woman is obviously not one.

That isn't even a real image; it's a paste-in. 

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/05/this-image-of-babushka-lady-is-fake.html

Why did they do it? It was just to give her a face. 

But, the whole Beverly Arnold claim is utter nonsense, and the same is true of the Judyth Baker claim. There is no reason to believe she ever met Oswald. The only connection they had is that for a couple months they both worked at the Reily Coffee Company in New Orleans, she as a secretary, and he as a machine greaser. That's it. There is no reason to believe they ever exchanged a hello. 

But here we are, 2020, and a lot of people give credence to both these women. They both have cottage industries JFKing. 

I don't think that any of the people who came forward inserting themselves into the JFK assassination story years later are legit. 

There are so many fake Oswald stories and fake Ruby stories and as well as fake Oswald/Ruby stories.   And some of them were planted deliberately by the plotters as a heat sink. They knew beforehand that there would be people looking for an alternate story, but they wanted to make absolutely sure they didn't go in the direction of Ruby being innocent. So, they made sure that all the "underground" information that surfaced maligned Ruby even further into villainy, establishing him as a longtime Mafioso, a hit man, a pimp, a gun runner, etc. And it began right away. Ruby, himself, got  to address it before he died in 1967, denying profusely that he was ever a Mafioso or a gunrunner or a Communist and other things. I can tell you his whole life story in one sentence. He was raised in Chicago; he served during the War as an airplane mechanic; then after the War, he went to Dallas to help his sister Eve with her nightclub business, and he stayed at it, eventually starting the Carousel and Vegas Clubs with borrowed money.  That's it. That was his life. He made one week-long trip to Cuba just to experience it. He never met Oswald. He had absolutely no connection to the JFK assassination. He told the truth when he said that he was in the Dallas Morning News building at the time of the JFK assassination, which makes all the Ruby sightings in Dealey Plaza false, including the one about Ruby inviting Bob Vanderslice to "watch the fireworks" with him. As phony stories go, that one is incredibly phony. Why would someone who was involved in the JFK assassination glibly spill it to some guy he barely knew? Don't you think it was a "need to know" situation and that everyone involved knew that? And yet, it was just last year, 2018, that our mainstream media spread that ridiculous story around like crazy. 

All anyone had to do at the time, or since, is look closely at the images of the Garage Shooter, not with the thought, "Oh look, there's Jack Ruby shooting Oswald" but rather with the thought, "I am going to compare these images to ones of Jack Ruby to see if they are consistent." And when you do that, you can tell right away that they are not the same person. The image on the right is Jack Ruby on 11/24/63.

On the left, the Garage Shooter is wearing a toupee. Notice that you don't see any hair growing out of his head. And regardless, you can see how different his hair, his hairline, and his neck were compared to Ruby's. There is no way that those two were the same man. 

But, it starts with questioning whether that guy on the left is Ruby. If you don't question it, then your mind is shut down before you even make the comparison. 

Another fake inserter was Louis Steven Witt claiming to be Umbrella Man. His story is absolutely preposterous. How could an American kid from Rockport, Texas who was 15 years old when Chamberlain had his famous meeting with Hitler, be so affected by it? It was 1938, and America didn't enter the war until 1941? And, it is a myth that Chamberlain was mocked and identified for having an umbrella. But, the most ridiculous thing of all is that he would expect the sight of an umbrella to trigger anything in JFK's mind or anyone else's mind in 1963? What percentage of people seeing a guy with an umbrella in Dallas, Texas in 1963 are going to think Neville Chamberlain? It's absurd. And just because he claimed to be Umbrella Man, why did the HSCA take him seriously? Based o what? What actual evidence was there? And his lip-flapping was not evidence. It was just lip-flapping. And, as I pointed out before, in addition to everything else, there is the incongruity of him by chance just happening to pick the tiny infinitesimal Kill Zone along the 10 mile motorcade route to do his Neville Chamberlain impersonation. When something seems like too much of a coincidence, it probably is. 

The HSCA should NEVER have taken him seriously. There was no basis to. So, why did they? The FBI or the CIA probably told them to do it.  

The HSCA was also going strong when Earl Golz did his famous story about Carolyn Arnold. If he interviewed the real Carolyn Arnold, then why didn't the HSCA?  Her 1978 revision, over 5000 days after the fact, is just as ridiculous and far-fetched as the other tall tales that have arisen from the JFK assassination. She claimed to see Oswald eating in the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:25. A) he didn't eat there; he ate in the 1st floor lunch room, and that's by his own admission and by observation of others, and for the practical reasons that that is where a newspaper was placed that he liked to read, and that's where the shelf was where the grunt workers could stash their lunch, which he did that very day. B) 12:25 was the official time that the motorcade was expected to pass the building, and it's the reason the whole company broke for lunch 15 minutes early. It wound up arriving 5 minutes late, but everyone was geared for 12:25, and it's preposterous to think that Carolyn Arnold would have been late. She was a 19 secretary, so what would have kept her from getting out sooner? C) The whole idea that this 19 year old teenager would have been anything but truthful to the FBI when they first questioned her is preposterous. If you are a mature person, you realize that her very FIRST statement is the one you believe because then she did what came natural, which was to tell the truth. It is natural to tell the truth, you know. Someone asks you a question, say 'What time is it?' you're not even going to think about lying, right? Well, this 19 year old kid would have had no more inclination to lie to the FBI about the assassination than if they asked her for the time. So, you go with her FIRST statement made on November 26, 1963 in which she said that she got outside, stood right in front of the doorway on the sidewalk and she turned around and saw Oswald at the doorway but behind the glass peering out. The alternate stories which followed are what you throw out, not that one. That's the innocent one, in which she had no inkling to lie.  

So, there are quite a few JFK swindlers. Some of them are opportunists. Some of them are delusional. And some of them are plants. And then you have James Bookhout, who spent more time with Oswald than anyone, who attended all the Oswald interrogations; who was the only person that Oswald went up to to talk to in the hall, so imagine the media-milking he could have done. But, he didn't for obvious reasons. I bet you that after the JFK assassination, he refused to be photographed- ever. Not even at family gatherings. Any takers?