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

 I watched PBS Cold Case: JFK from 2013.

I did vaguely remember it. It features a father and son who did some shooting experiments. But, the program started with them admitting that the Carcano rifle was extremely undesirable, that there were many better rifles that Oswald could have bought. So, why did Oswald buy the Carcano? Because it was cheap.

Let’s step back from that for a second because Oswald denied that he owned a rifle. I know that the FBI said that he mail-ordered one from Chicago, but who are you going to believe? The FBI or Oswald?

Some may think that’s funny, but it’s not. Oswald wasn’t stupid. He professed his innocence, and if he owned a rifle, he certainly would have admitted owning it. He would have said, “Yes, I own a rifle, but I didn’t shoot anyone with it.” It would be insane for an innocent person who owned a rifle to deny that he owned it. I own two guns. Do you think I would ever deny that to the police? If they told me my gun was used to murder someone, I would say, “Well, it wasn’t by me. Someone must have stolen my gun and done it.” I wouldn’t lie, and neither would Oswald.

But, you say you think Oswald was guilty? It doesn’t matter. This was supposed to be an investigation to determine if he was guilty. So, you can’t start off with the assumption that he was. You’re trying to find out if he was. So, you can’t presume he was. You just don’t have the right.

Here is John Armstrong’s brilliant analysis that proves that Oswald did not order a rifle from Chicago.

[https://harveyandlee.net/Guns/Guns.html](https://harveyandlee.net/Guns/Guns.html)

Back to Cold Case JFK, you hear a voice say “Dallas Police had found the rifle, the cartridges, Oswald’s fingerprints- they had the case sewed up in an excellent way in 2 days.”

That was a bold-faced lie. Dallas Police could not find Oswald’s fingerprints on the rifle. Neither could the FBI. Days later, after Oswald was dead, they claimed to find a partial palmprint. That was dubious and certainly not proven, but it’s not a fingerprint.

I’m just 13 minutes into the program, and it is already screaming to me that it’s propaganda.

They said very little about the autopsy, and they left out the most important thing. The autopsists did the whole thing without knowing that there was a bullet wound in the throat. They found what appeared to be a shallow wound in his back, which had no bullet in it. Why didn’t Humes dissect Kennedy and find out exactly where that wound went? The next day Humes talked to Perry and found out about the throat wound. So, why didn’t Humes insist on going back and CONFIRMING that the back wound and the throat wound were connected? And if they wouldn’t let him, then he should have gone on a public rampage of protest, traveling the country, and I mean akin to yelling in the streets that “Soylent Green is people!” Do you understand that there is just no excuse for not doing it?

They also mentioned that a bullet was found on a stretcher, but that bullet was associated with Connally, not JFK. The idea that they were hit by the same bullet wasn’t proposed until April 1964. It had no bearing on what was going on in 1963.

All the doctors except one who probed the wound said that it was located next to T3, including JFK’s personal physician, Admiral George Burkley. He even put it on JFK’s death certificate. A bullet that entered JFK’s back at a downward angle at T3 could not come out his throat.

But, what really matters, and what is screaming at us in no uncertain terms is THEY COULD HAVE EASILY CONFIRMED IF THE BACK AND THROAT WOUNDS WERE CONNECTED, BUT THEY DIDN’T DO IT. That is unforgivable, inexcusable, reprehensible, and intolerable.

Of course, the one doctor who said otherwise was Humes. He didn’t give a spinal segment. He made some arcane measurements and then said it was “slightly above the superior margin of the scapula” which would put it between T1 and T2.

No mention was made of the discrepancy between what the Parkland doctors reported about JFK’s massive head wound and what the autopsy doctors claimed. The Parkland doctors all said that it was in the lower right occiput, and they all demonstrated it with a fist behind their head on the right. However, Humes said the blowout wound was on the top and right side of JFKs’ head, above his right ear. He said that an entrance wound was found slightly above and to the right of the external occipital protuberance, which was in the area that the Parkland doctors said was blown out.

This discrepancy between the Parkland doctors and the Bethesda doctors is Ground Zero in the JFK debate, and the program didn’t even mention it.

Then, they went into the Zapruder film. They said that before JFK disappeared behind the sign, there was no sign that he was hit. That isn’t true. You can see that JFK’s face was obscured before he disappeared behind the sign. And you can plainly see that Jackie had stopped waving and had turned towards him long before they disappeared behind the sign. She knew that something was wrong.

In frame 206, JFK wasn’t waving. It looks like he was covering his face with his hand, but he didn’t do that either. They did it with paint. And you can see that Jackie is turned and looking at him. Supposedly, this was before anything happened to him, but that is a lie. He was already shot in the back, and he was reacting to it.

Then, they got to Luke Hague and his son Mike who were going to test the rifle. First, they wanted to determine if the bullet could cause 7 wounds in 2 men. So, they shot into pine. Huh. I have to laugh. Pine is soft. It’s not a hardwood. You’re lucky if you can pound a nail in it without it splitting.

Then, they shot into gels that were supposed to have the same density as muscle, and they were satisfied that it penetrated far enough into the gel to equal the density of all the tissue affected by the 7 wounds. But, stop a second. What difference does it make? What does it prove? Even if you think the test is valid, which I don’t, it certainly doesn’t prove that Oswald did it.

In other words, this whole thing just presumed that Oswald did own a rifle, that he was up on the 6th floor, and he was shooting at Kennedy. Therefore, all they had to do was establish that the rifle was up to the task, and voila, it meant Oswald must be guilty. But, that is ridiculous. Oswald didn’t even own a rifle. And he wasn’t up on the 6th floor. He was standing in the doorway during the shooting. And, it has never even been proven that any of the shots came from the infamous 6th floor window.

Then, they said that a shot from behind the fence would have traversed Kennedy’s head, meaning gone out the left side. Perhaps if it was an FMJ bullet, but the bullet used in the fatal head shot was a frangible bullet that was designed to explode. And they admitted that there were bullet fragments in Kennedy’s head. But, they assumed the same kind of bullet that caused 7 wounds in 2 men and emerged pristine was significantly deformed the instant it struck his head.

They ended with this old guy named Larry whose job it was to explain how a bullet shot from a downward angle, from way up on the 6th floor at the top of the hill, (remember, they went downhill) could hit Kennedy at the bottom of his skull in back and then for the bullet to go up and exit high on his head. So, supposedly, the bullet went down and then up. Larry explained that the bullet got deformed, which gave it yaw, and it rose like a plane inside Kennedy’s head. He even made a motion with his hand like a plane taking off. And he said that it caused a pressure wave in his head that stimulated every nerve in his body, “and since the back muscles are stronger than the abdominal muscles, it caused him to arch dramatically backwards” which he demonstrated.

Uh, no, he didn’t. JFK did NOT arch dramatically backwards. That’s a crock of bull shit, Larry.

Don’t watch this horrible this thing. It’s awful. It’s a waste of time. It’s just appalling sophistry dressed up in pseudo-scientific lingo. But, do watch Larry because that old blowhard is funny. He comes on near the end. He reminds me of Baghdad Bob from the Iraq War, the same kind of professional bloviator. And Americans liked Baghdad Bob, which is probably why they didn’t harm him. They didn’t execute him, nor did they imprison him. How could they when he was affectionately known as Baghdad Bob? You’ll get a kick out of Larry the same way. Here’s the link. He starts at 49 minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39SKBd8P9-U&t=1585s