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

This is amid some correspondence that is going on between me, the Wizard, and some others. 

You made an interesting point about multiple patsies being an option until very late. Let me give you my perspective on that. If you accept David Talbot's thesis that the whole JFK assassination plot was conceived within the anti-Castro community, specifically: by Morales, Phillips, and Harvey (BIll), and it was probably Bill Havey who went to Dulles with it. Then Dulles had to go to LBJ. 

But originally, it was to be killing Kennedy as a pretext to invade Cuba. And that meant Oswald had to have co-conspirators. And if he had to have co-conspirators, then he could also have co-shooters. But, as LBJ got closer to becoming President, he rose to the top of the power grid. And I think that he is the one who nixed the Cuba angle and made it a crazed lone gunman story. And when you consider the phony trip to Mexico City which Oswald never made, the purpose of it was to link him to Cuba. But, that became moot once the decision was made (by Johnson) to nix the invasion of Cuba. They didn't need the Mexico City story any longer, but they were stuck with it. 

I've often wondered why they shot JFK in the throat if they were planning a lone gunman from the rear. There are only two possibilities: one is that they planned the SBT all along, and the other is that it wasn't going to be a lone gunman all along. But, if it wasn't going to be a lone gunman, then the other gunman would have to get away and never be found. And that is exactly what the HSCA settled on years later, which I refer to as Government Story #2. So, maybe that was on the drawing board all along. 

Now regarding Tina Towner saying that they responded to a published request for filmers to turn over their media, I really doubt it. They knew going in that what people were going to capture was likely to be different from the story they were going to tell. They knew in advance that they had to get their hands on all amateur films and photos. Why would they risk depending on people to respond to newspaper ads they might not even see? 

So, I suspect she remembers it wrong, that her father turned over their films on the very day, just as Mary Moorman did. We know it was Jim Featherstone who led MM to turn over her film. They must have had people like him combing Dealey Plaza. And it worked because they got their hands on everything. Everything, that is, except Babushka Lady's film. But, as you may know, my position is that BL was an insider; that she was working for them; that she was there specifically to capture the kill on film. They sent a woman because who would suspect a woman? And she stood back standing well behind Brim, never going up close to the curb. And she wore that scarf as a disguise. The official story is that she disappeared into the woodwork, but I believe they used an image of hers to replace the one that MM took. 

And speaking of witnesses who remembered wrong, there is also the Girl in Blue from the Hughes film, Dr. Toni Glover. She is not recalling it correctly either. They needed to cover the doorway because Oswald was in it, and the big looming image of her on the pedestal is fake. And it's not just her, but her mother too; a portly middle-aged woman.

I have stood on that pedestal. It's pretty damn high. And when you're standing on it, the whole fear of heights thing hits you. You get a bit nervous. I did.  A limber kid might stand up there, but not a portly middle-aged woman. If you look at Toni and her mother in the Dorman film, you can see that they are standing on the ground, and that's right when the limo was approaching the intersection and about to turn from Houston to Elm. 

They were on the ground there. They were not on a pedestal. And not even a little girl would be as boisterous as Toni was while standing on the pedestal. As you look at this picture, there is no reason to think that they were higher than anyone else. 

So, then the story would have to be that they quickly climbed up on the pedestal to face Elm Street, but that is ridiculous. A frumpy, middle-aged woman wouldn't do that. A kid, yes, but not a frumpy, middle-aged woman. 

You need to realize that the image from Hughes entails Toni facing the back of her mother. 

Here, you really get the impression that they are looming way above everyone else. But, you don't get it from the Dorman film. 

 

The idea that they could climb up there so fast is ridiculous. It is preposterous. But, even if they could have, Toni wouldn't be able to see anything through her mother's back anyway. If anything, her mother, who was taller, would have put Toni in front, facing Elm, and she would have hugged her from behind, not vice versa. 

But, the point is that Toni has cooperatively remembered the story according to what the Hughes film shows. It's an Orwellian thing. She must have done it since the film shows it. Right? So, of course, she remembers it that way.  Ralph