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

Someone who usually supports me was taken back by my denunciation of Dino Brugioni, noting that Doug Horne spoke highly of Brugioni. Dino told Doug that he remembered the Zapruder film being different, that he remembered a high white cloud over JFK's head from the fatal head shot, and that he remembered Clint Hill "physically striking or violently shoving" Jackie back into the limo. But, are either of those claims realistic? Why would Clint Hill have to strike Jackie? And if he did, wouldn't bystanders have seen it? Since no one except Brugioni ever claimed such a thing, shouldn't we treat it with doubt? 

And when it comes to a person being shot in the head, it's something that most of us have never seen. All we've seen are simulations of it in the movies. But, I am not finding any references to a white cloud rising high over the victim's head, and again, no one at the scene described such an effect. 

So, both citings of Brugioni about what he recalled seeing different in the original Zapruder film are suspect and not very credible. And how could he miss the huge jump-cut between frame 132 and 133, where it goes from the three advance motorcycles to the limo already on Elm in just one frame movement?   

I told you that Brugioni wrote a book Photo Fakery which I have and have read. And now I am going to tell you that I think that defending the authenticity of the Backyard photos of Oswald was a major reason why Brugioni wrote the book. 

First, I hope you realize that the Backyard photos are definitely fake. Oswald said they were fake, that his face was put over the body of another man. Now, if you are a defender of Lee Harvey Oswald, as I am, then you have to believe him. And if you don't believe him, then STOP calling yourself an Oswald defender. He wasn't an idiot. It wasn't a crime to pose for that photo. And if he had posed for it, he would have said so."Yes, that's me in the photo, but I didn't shoot the President." If he owned the rifle, he would have admitted it. "Yes, I own that rifle, but it has not been in my possession of late, and someone else must have gotten it to frame me." In other words, if you're innocent,  you don't lie to the police. You have no reason to lie. You state the facts as you know them. It wouldn't have been the first time that someone's weapon was stolen to commit a crime and then frame the owner. 

So, Oswald denied owning that, or any, rifle, and he denied posing for that photo, and he denied the authenticity of the photo. Yet, Dino Brugioni devoted 4 pages in his book to defending the Backyard photos and maligning Oswald. 

Furthermore, it's obvious from reading what Brugioni wrote that he was well read on the Backyard photos. He listed the claims of Jack White, without referring to Jack, about what was wrong with the Backyard photos, including the anvil-like chin with the very long wide cleft.  

Well, Brugioni defended it. He said that the HSCA brought in experts who said that the photos were authentic. He went on to say that "microscopic analysis" proved that they were legit. In fact, he included 2 collages concerning the microscopic examination of the Backyard photos, neither of which had any value. Here's one:

The image on the right is supposed to be the negative, and he refers to it as a "microscopic analysis" but that is obviously not microscopic. It's the exact same perspective as the image on the left and not "microscopic" at all. 

And that deep line going across the anvil-like chin? Brugioni had an excuse for it. He said it was "the edge of a water spot" which he said is common in photo processing. 

Oh, I see. So by random chance, a random water spot just happened to occur there? Based on what?

Oswald's face was superimposed, just as Oswald said, but they left the chin of the original man, whom many have said is DPD Officer Roscoe White, who had a very wide chin. 

In his book, Brugioni posted many examples in which someone's head was superimposed over the body of someone else. Here's one example he gave. 

So, this is from Brugioni's book. You see that it was the signing of some bill by Bill Clinton. On the left, there is a man in a dark shirt (an arrow points to him) who was, apparently, less important than the man farther down from him, circled in both photos. In the crop, they wanted to include him. So, they converted the other man into him. They plopped his head over the other guy's, and then they lightened the other guy's shirt. 

So, Brugioni was well aware that replacing heads in photos is something that has been done a lot. Another example he displayed was the replacing of the head of Sen. John Calhoun with that of Abraham Lincoln. Yet, Brugioni dismissed that it was done with the Backyard photos, which he repeatedly and adamantly defended as being real, legit, and untampered with. 

In having reread much of the book again now, I realize that that was a major reason why he wrote it: to defend the Backyard photos. He refers to them in multiple places in the book, and has at least 3 collages pertaining to them. He discusses the Backyard photos specifically more than any other photos in the book. 

And now, I am more convinced than ever that Brugioni was dirty, that he was a company man, a CIA man- all the way; and that when he was nice and cooperative and respectful to Peter Janey and Doug Horne that he was playing them like an instrument. I don't think he was honest with them about the Zapruder film, and the things he said about it make no sense. 

And considering how well informed he was about the controversies surrounding the Backyard photos, don't you think he was equally well-informed about the controversies surrounding the Altgens photo? But, that he didn't mention, and it is, without a doubt, the most massively altered photo in the history of photography. The Altgens photo is a grotesque monstrosity of photographic alteration, and Brugioni damn-well knew it.