You've probably heard the clamor about Ronan Farrow actually being the son of Frank Sinatra and not Woody Allen.

No DNA test has been done to compare to Sinatra's other children, and I don't know if it will ever happen. But, I think that most people are like me- they are content to conclude that he's Sinatra's son just from the images.

Who in his right mind is going to deny that that is Sinatra's kid? 

And especially since we know that Sinatra and Farrow were married, and she has admitted to continuing to sleep with him after their divorce, saying that "we never really broke up"?  Are we supposed to believe that it's just a strange happening that the kid came out looking like Sinatra under those circumstances?

Well, it's exactly the same with Oswald, Lovelady, and Doorman. 

Sorry, Woody: You ain't the young man's daddy.  And sorry, Kennedy-killers: Your scheme to defraud the world about Doorman's identity has failed. He was Oswald, and we're going to believe our sightful eyes, not your lying lips. 

Hey Backes! Did you know that there were 5 pages of the Fritz notes? Most people are only familiar with the first page in which he wrote "out with Bill Shelley in front."

But, guess what Fritz wrote down on the second page, Backes?

He wrote: "On 11/22/63 rode bus."

He wrote: "got trans"

He wrote: "got off bus after seeing jam"

He wrote: "got cab .85 fare"

Now, you think the bus ride and the cab ride were fabricated. But, these were notes that Fritz wrote to and for himself. He never intended for them to be seen by anybody but him. And, they were never seen by anybody but him until after his death in 1984.

So, why would Fritz falsify his own notes to himself?

Methinks Oswald rode the bus and took the cab.

Look what the Idiot Backes put out:

Now, why would Gerald McKnight align with you, Backes, instead of me, when it's he and I who share the same conviction? He believes that Oswald was standing in the doorway, and I heard him say it on national television just a few months ago.

So, what exactly would be his reason be for denouncing me? Is it because I'm not advocating Oswald in the doorway the right way, that there's a better way of doing than what I'm doing? That doesn't make sense. Why would he oblige a guy who devotes every spare moment to denouncing the very thing that he believes in? Do you think he is as insane as you are, Backes? He's not. And you really are insane. Here's Backes' letter to Dr. McKnight:

Dear Dr. McKnight,

Joseph Backes here, and this concerns Ralph Cinque and the Oswald Innocence Campaign. He, like you, believes that Oswald was standing in the doorway. I do not believe it; I think Lovelady was the Doorway Man, and I believe that Oswald was somewhere in the building during the shooting, but I can't say where.

But, even though you agree with him and not me about this matter, it is, after all, only a narrow issue, and I ask you to denounce Cinque and his group because I don't like him. I don't like the way he burst on the JFK scene so cock-sure of himself. I don't like the way he convinced other prominent researchers, such as David Wrone and Vincent Salandria, to join his group. And I really think he needs to be put in his place because of his combative nature.

So, I would consider it a personal favor if you would renounce him, even though you agree with him, and even though he started the only group in the world that champions Oswald in the doorway, which is something that you have championed for decades. But, I hope you agree with me that it's more important to put down such a cocky individual. We don't need anyone like him in the realm of JFK assassination research. Isn't that a bigger issue than the narrow issue of whether Oswald was in the doorway?

Hopefully, Cinque will disappear soon, and we can get back to the status quo between LNs and CTS that has served us well, nigh these 50 years.

Thank you, Dr. McKnight, and I'll let you know when the danger has passed.

Sincerely,

Joseph Backes