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

There is a 2019 film about the moon landings that debunks them completely; better than anything else I have seen. It is over 3 1/2 hours long, and you can watch it for free on Youtube. It stomps out every glimmer of hope that the moon landings actually happened. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=KpuKu3F0BvY  \

I have never addressed the moon landings issue before, publicly, and I am not going to get into the nuts and bolts of it. But, I will say that it is as preposterous to claim the Man went to the moon as it is to claim that steel skyscrapers collapsed straight down, through the path of greatest resistance, at freefall speed.   

But, I would like to address the sociology of it because for several decades, there wasn't much resistance to moon-landery. If there were, would they have repeated it? Supposedly, there were a total of 6 manned moon landings between 1969 and 1972. So, something they can't do today at all, they did 6 times in 3 years back at a time that computer science was still in its infancy. But obviously, the first 5 fake moon landings must have been well received for them to want to do a sixth. If there was trouble brewing, if there were leaks in the story, they would have quit before that. 

But, I think we should recognize that it was a different era, where respect for government and media were much greater than they are today, and respect for authority, in general, was too. Consider what happened at the JFK assassination in 1963. You had all these people in Dealey Plaza taking photos and shooting films, and every single bit of that imagery wound up in government hands. Obviously, they had authority figures combing the Plaza and confiscating cameras. Does it seem odd to you that not one person protested having to turn over their private property? I would have refused. I would have said, "This is mine. It's private property. I didn't steal it. I refuse to give it to you. So, take me to a judge."  

And of course, those images were very important. Do you realize that every single one of them was altered? There are alterations in every one of the motorcade films: Zapruder, Martin, Bell, Hughes, Wiegman, etc. And the same goes for the photos: Croft, Betzner, Willis, Altgens (of course) Jackson, etc. The Moorman photo, which is the most famous one after Altgens6, went to the moon, so to speak. It was altered to the point of replacing it. What we call the Moorman photo was not the one that Mary took. The so-called Moorman photo was taken by Babushka Lady. It was shot from a diagonal angle from behind, which was confirmed by a physics professor who has a specialty in Optics. He gives lectures to other physicists about Optics. And he established that the Moorman photo was taken from a diagonal angle from behind. Do this experiment: compare the Moorman photo with the Muchmore film. 

The perspective is very similar, is it not? But, why should it be? Mary was right across from the Kennedys. She said, many times, that she took her photo right when they passed her. Just as they, the Kennedys, their bodies, had reached her, she pressed the shutter. So, it was a perfect perpendicular shot, according to her. But, Muchmore was up by the reflecting pool. She wasn't far from Houston Street. So, she was at the top of Dealey Plaza. So, how could two photographers, shooting from two vastly different locations and angles, capture the exact same image, the exact same perspective? 

And if Mary Moorman took her picture when the Kennedy's reached her, why does her picture show the back of their heads? Who waits three hours in the hot sun to photograph a couple, only to capture the back of their heads? And remember, the limo was approaching her very slowly. Reportedly, it was going just 15 mph. Why would she wait until the limo passed her and then shoot the back of their heads? If anything, she would have snapped the shutter slightly BEFORE they reached her. Because: the idea was to capture their faces, right? But, the likeness of those two images tells you that it is impossible for Mary Moorman to have taken the Moorman photo. 

But, let's leave that and go back to talking about the sociology of the moon landings, and the fact that they must have sold well for them to have repeated them 5 times after the first one. And note that two Presidents were involved in the sham: LBJ and Nixon. By the first one, LBJ was already out of the White House for half a year, but there was a lot of planning that went into it; planning that started under Johnson. So, the scheme originated under Johnson.  Just think, that was another thing that Johnson, a Democrat, and Nixon, a Republican had in common besides the JFK assassination, which Nixon referred to as "that Bay of Pigs thing." 

I don't know when the tide started turning against the moon landings, but I do know that it accelerated with the rise of the internet. But, they pretty much got away with it for 25 years. 

But, that is nothing compared to how long they got away with the ruse of Jack Ruby killing Oswald. They got clean away with it, where, apparently, not a single person in the world doubted that Ruby shot Oswald, until 2013, when the great Maxim Irkutsk, the Russian, posted his video on Youtube "Jack Ruby did not shoot Lee Harvey Oswald." You can still watch it today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oh3zvoj9HVc&t=60s

How did they get clean away with it for 50 years? After all, from the very beginning, by which I mean the day it happened, there were Mark Lane, Vincent Salandria, and Harold Weisberg screaming bloody murder that the official story was a lie, that Oswald was innocent. So, how did they miss what really happened to him, Oswald, when he was conveniently and urgently taken out? 

Well, let's compare. In the case of Oswald, he vociferously denied having done it. We could all see and hear him deny it, and he did it with great passion and conviction. He devoted his MPP address to declaring his innocence and exposing the Dallas Police for denying him a lawyer. And I think to a great extent, those great researchers (Lane, Salandria, and Weisberg) took their cues from Oswald. 

But, what about Ruby? He accepted that he did it, but solely because the Dallas Police told him that he did. His account of what happened was that he went down to the garage; he was jumped by police; they dragged him up to the 5th floor, and there, they told him that he shot Oswald. He said he had no memory of doing it; no mental vision of doing it; and no thought or intention of ever doing it. His entire basis for accepting guilt was: "The Dallas Police said I did it." 

And it was a long time before we heard anything directly from Ruby. He said nothing in the hallway that day or any other day. It really wasn't until the time of his trial in 1964 that the public heard anything directly from him. And it wasn't much. 

So, Oswald denied doing it, and it lite a fire of doubt within the public. Ruby said nothing. All we had to go on was what authorities were telling us. So, why didn't ANYBODY doubt the official story? The answer, I think, is that they just didn't have an alternative. There was a lone shooter. He was identified as Jack Ruby. And the idea that it was really someone else masquerading as Jack Ruby was something that nobody's mind could do. Not even Ruby's lawyers were capable of doing it. It was staring them in the face. All they had to do was look CLOSELY at the images of the Garage Shooter and compare him to Ruby, and they would have easily seen that he wasn't Ruby. But, they couldn't do it because of the disease that I call Americana, the belief that this is a good country, and that degree of police monstrousness is not possible in the United States.

And that is exactly what the perpetrators were relying on: the expectation that no one's mind would be capable of going to what they did because it was beyond anyone's wildest imagination. 

And even now, after having blogged about Ruby's innocence for nearly a decade, I realize that we have just barely made a beachhead. The number of people who have any awareness of it is very, very small. However, it's still satisfying knowing that they are never going to get the genie back in the bottle. That's right: the Genie of Jack Ruby innocence is out and about, and she will never be contained again. 

But, watch that film that delivers a death blow to the moon landings hoax. It's impressive; it's inspiring; and it's refreshing. Bravo.