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

On Thursday, I will be doing something I have never done before: talk about my work at large concerning the JFK assassination.  I won't be pouring over images. There will be images involved; just speech. They want me to talk about it in a broad perspective, addressing what I think are the most important finds that I have made. 

So, this is in preparation for that. As you may know, I have been involved in many aspects of the JFK assassination, but if I had to pick the one that I think is most important, it is Oswald in the doorway.  

And that's because being in the doorway was Oswald's alibi, and like any defendant who pleads not innocent, his alibi would have been the cornerstone of his defense if he had gone to trial. 

And that's why it amazes me that there are people who claim to defend Oswald who have no interest in his alibi. They think that establishing it is unimportant. But, these people are not really Oswald defenders; they are conspiracy theorists. Their interest is in disputing the official story and establishing conspiracy, such as Dr. Cyril Wecht. And he has stated publicly many times that he has no interest in defending Oswald. His interest is multiple shooters and conspiracy. 

Ironically, no defender of Oswald, including his lawyer, would have any interest in that. He wouldn't waste time trying to refute the Single Bullet Theory. Who cares about it when it can be established with certainty that Oswald didn't take any shots; that he did not order, own, or have a rifle; and he wasn't on the sixth floor at the time? 

The other thing about Oswald being in the doorway in the Altgens photo is the lengths they went to hide that fact. The subterfuge they engaged in, starting with altering the Altgens photo and lying about its timeline and handling, and then the nefarious coverage of it, first by the Warren Commission, and then by the HSCA. We are talking about pure, unmitigated evil by agencies of the government. The depth of the chicanery and the duration of it is astounding, where phony film footage was being concocted well into the 21st century. With it, we have witnessed a frightening degree of corruption, and what is surely the obstruction of justice.   

So, what is next after Oswald in the doorway? Without a doubt, it is my work establishing the innocence of Jack Ruby. And that stands alone; I don't add that James Bookhout was guilty. He didn't shoot Oswald. Bookhout was just an actor- playing the role of Jack Ruby in a theater production. Oswald was shot inside the the PD afterwards. 

But, the framing of Jack Ruby was probably the most Machiavellian endeavor in the case. It was so manipulative, and I don't mean just manipulating Ruby, but manipulating the public. And it was a very elaborate manipulation, complete with a long false narrative of Ruby's life, that he was a Mafioso, a gunrunner, a hit man, a pimp, and he was even a spy for Richard Nixon trying to penetrate the Communist underworld. It's all nonsense. You could write Ruby's whole life story on a napkin.

But, there is a big difference between the framing of Oswald and the framing of Ruby. In Oswald's case, doubters surfaced immediately, and I mean the very day, such as Vincent Salandria and Mark Lane. I don't know how far behind Harold Weisberg was, but it wasn't much. Note that two of them were Jewish, and one of them (Salandria) was married to a Jew. So, so much for the idea that disputing the JFK assassination is anti-Semitic. 

But, in Ruby's case, NOBODY doubted that he did it. And the people who questioned it did so on the basis that Ruby was even MORE guilty that he was supposed to be. They had him playing a role in killing Kennedy and shooting Oswald to silence him. That had to be music to the ears of the real killers. The skeptics were doing their work for them- making Ruby look bad. They were going in the exact opposite direction from the truth, which was that Ruby was innocent; he conspired with no one; and he was a very kind, gentle, loving man who did not have a mean bone in his body. He was childlike- that's how innocent he was. 

Ruby was also so very helpless, and that's why framing him was such a cruel act. They took stark advantage of a handicapped person. And I do believe that ultimately, they killed him. His death sentence came when he won a new trial because they were not going to go through that again. It was too risky. His defense team may have wised up when they looked at the evidence a second time, especially the photos and films. 

Discovering that Mary Mooman did not take the Moorman photo was a very big thing. The person who took that photo was standing at a diagonal to the limousine, and a professor of physics determined that, with a specialty in Optics. From the first day, and every day since, Mary Moorman claimed to take her photo squarely, when the Kennedys were directly across from her. And it doesn't really make sense either because Mary had been waiting for hours, and she had a lot of lead time as the limousine slowly rounded the curve and slowly descended the hill. She starte looking through her viewfinder very early. So, why wait until the Kennedys were across from her? She could have taken it a little before they reached her and that way, she would have captured their faces, which is a much more interesting view than a profile. But, even that is a moot point because the fact is that we see the back of their heads in the Moorman photo. Now, who would wait hours to take their picture and then capture the back of their heads? Nobody. The Moorman photo was taken by the Babushka Lady, and no doubt they cropped the picture she took and then converted it to a Polaroid. Why did they do it? It must be because Mary's photo contained something that they didn't want people to see. And I don't mean an obscure shooter in the background because they could have easily taken care of that and gotten rid of it. I'm talking about something in the limo. 

A great many people have pointed to Zapruder film alterations, but I feel very strongly that I found something that the others missed.  And that is that a large swath of the film was cut out to hide the fact that JFK was hit in the back high on the hill. You know about the Single Bullet Theory, and plenty of people reject it. But almost universally, they have assumed that there were two separate shots that were simultaneous or nearly so. They were not. The back shot came long before the throat shot. JFK got hit in the back a small split-second before the Croft photo was taken. That's because he was reacting to the back shot in the Croft photo. But, Croft was as photo, and we are talking about a film, the Zapruder film. So, they cut out the section on the Z-film that went from just past the obelisk to where the Stemmons freeway sign was. And as a result, when you watch the Z-film, the Stemmons freeway sign comes into view high on the hill. JFK gets a little past the TSBD, and he's instantly at the Semmons freeway sign. They cut out that whole section, and it was the steepest part of the hill. JFK must have had a very weird look on his face, and he must have seemed very detached. They got rid of all that, and it became that he was waving and smiling as he disappeared behind the sign and then, he was reacting to being shot when he emerged from behind the sign in a panic. It was like a magician's trick. 

"Look at Kennedy. He is smiling and waving. He must not be shot yet. Now, he has disappeared behind the sign. I wonder what is going on back there? Oh, I see, he must have been shot because now he is reacting bizarrely, and he is in a tizzy. So, it all happened behind the scene." 

That is the story of the Zapruder film, and it is totally fabricated. This is a much bigger deal than that they removed the slowing and stopping of the limo by deleting frames.

I'm very glad that the JFK community has embraced Zapruder film alteration in a big way. It seems that almost all the researchers who defend Oswald say that the Z-film was altered. But, what they need to realize is that ALL the films were altered. I found alterations in the Hughes, Bell, Towner, a ton in Wiegman, including altering Oswald's capture in the doorway there, Nix, Muchmore, Dorman, Couch, Martin, and more. They all wound up in government hands, and they were all altered. 

And let's not forget the phony footage of Lovelady sitting in the squad room. He was inserted there, and it wasn't even him. That particular fakery was done twice using different surrogates for Lovelady. 

There is quite a bit more that I have done, but I am going to end it on one more thing, and that is my conviction and my arguments that Joseph P. Kennedy Jr. was the first Kennedy to be assassinated. After all, he was the first son of that raving anti-Semite and Hitler-lover, Joseph P. Kennedy Sr.  And it was no secret that as he was leaving military service a war hero, that he was going to run for political office and with his eye on a rapid ascent to the White House. They couldn't let that happen. So, it went Joe Jr., Jack, Bobby, a stab at Teddy, and then JFK Jr. That's a lot of Kennedys to kill or try to kill. 

And ironically, and stupidly, in my opinion, they even wrote it into the JFK assassination saga, with Louis Witt claiming that his umbrella represented the appeasement of Hitler by Neville Chamberlain and Joseph P. Kennedy Sr.- as if JFK would have figured that out and given it any thought. I'm sure that every time he saw a guy with an umbrella, he thought, "why that guy is making fun of my dad." And for the record, Joseph P. Kennedy was not an anti-Semite, and he was just trying to prevent a world war, one that people in high places, including his boss FDR, very much wanted at any cost. 

Well, thank you for reading this. It has been quite a ride for me, starting in 2011. So, next year, it will be 10 years. And know this: not all, but most of the things I claim, I am sure of beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt.