Jump to content


Spartacus

My favorite photo from the Altgens "recreation"


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 Joseph Backes

Joseph Backes

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 274 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 November 2012 - 04:23 AM

This is a member of the Oswald Innocence Campaign. Oh, that's right I can mention the SOB's name here, the mouse fart that answers to the name, Ralph Cinque. Some of them think they can resurrect the idea that the man in the doorway looking at the presidential limousine from the steps of the TSBD really is Oswald. One of their ideas is to make an identification based upon this man's clothing, whether or not he is wearing a crew cut T-shirt or a V neck T-shirt is important to them. This area is partially in shadow in Altgens 6. This is caused by the sun hitting the chin of the man in question ( Billy Nolan Lovelady, not Lee Harvey Oswald ) and creating a shadow which falls upon his T-shirt, thus obscuring the ability to ascertain what kind of T-shirt it was.

So, these people think they can recreate the circumstances captured in Altgens photo. So, it would help to get someone who looked like the figure in question. They don't, one of them is far too vain for that. He stands in for this "Doorway Man."

He looks nothing like the man in question, so his chin is obviously different, his height is different, he is not positioning his body in the correct stance that "Doorway Man," was seen to be in Altgens 6, making the whole experiment moot.

Not only that, but this particular fool cannot get his face into the sunlight to begin with, which also makes the experiment completely pointless. Now, you can clearly, clearly see his face is half in the shadow caused by the proscenium arch of the TSBD entranceway. It's my favorite photo of their whole project and proves, pun intended, beyond a SHADOW of a doubt that they are incompetent idiots.

Attached photos have to be under 11K? Are you s**ting me?

Well, I had to crop it to get it under 11K.

Attached Files


Edited by Joseph Backes, 26 November 2012 - 05:17 AM.


#2 Lee Farley

Lee Farley

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,622 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 November 2012 - 04:37 AM

Amen to that

#3 Joseph Backes

Joseph Backes

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 274 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 November 2012 - 04:50 AM

Can you see the photo I attached? I'm having a little computer difficulty. Do such photos have to be under 1k in size or something?

BTW, the little swine seems to have a direct line to someone at Facebook, so whenever I mention his name on that site, some swine yells, "Sir, Yes Sir!" And deletes my site. It's happened 4 times so far. So, depending on if I'm sleeping or at work, later that same day I will put it back up. As long as I don't directly name the pig then the site seems to stay up.

Edited by Joseph Backes, 26 November 2012 - 06:51 AM.


#4 Joseph Backes

Joseph Backes

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 274 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 November 2012 - 05:00 AM

OH, BTW, i have a new blog - http://www.ralphcinq...h.blogspot.com/

And it just so happens to have a Facebook LIKE button at the bottom. So, you can like it to your heart's content, and the thing can't do squat about it.

Joe

Edited by Joseph Backes, 26 November 2012 - 06:50 AM.


#5 Joseph Backes

Joseph Backes

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 274 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 November 2012 - 05:20 AM

FWIW, the latest incarnation of The Oswald Innocence Campaign is a Fraud is at
http://www.facebook....25071988?ref=hl

Please drop by and LIKE it, if it's still up.

Joe

#6 Pat Speer

Pat Speer

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,372 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 November 2012 - 05:29 AM

Joe, your critiques of Ralph and Jim's re-creation photo is welcome, but your abusive language is not. Please go back and clean up your posts, or this whole thread will have to go bye-bye.

Edited by Pat Speer, 26 November 2012 - 05:30 AM.


#7 Joseph Backes

Joseph Backes

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 274 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 November 2012 - 06:52 AM

Whatever Pat.

Well, that seems to be the NAME of the game. Don't name the individuals at the OIC and your page stays up. So, let's see if we can get more "likes" than them, which is what they are really afraid of. BTW, if you create a page, for whatever reason, you can even have several pages that you administer, and from each and every one of them you can LIKE, whatever, so really all of you know who's likes could merely be him liking himself, which is ironic as, in a way, that's what we all want him to do.

#8 Ralph Cinque

Ralph Cinque

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 493 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 November 2012 - 05:45 AM

Backes, It was Oswald in the doorway, and the day will come when that fact registers in your brain like a hot poker, and may you live long enough to feel it. And to Pat and the other moderators who restrict me while allowing this foul-mouthed rage-aholic cretin to have free reign, you only expose your own corruption. And by the way, Backes: my Facebook page was asleep until you came along. I wasn't doing a thing with it. But now, thanks to you, it's come alive. So, bring it on, Backes.

Yes, my eyes were shaded in the photo that you posted. But, it's presumably the chin that makes the chin shadow. Right? And my chin was in the light. You complained about my height. I'm only 5' 6 1/2" and Lovelady was 5'8". But, I was standing on my toes, and that brought me to exactly 5'8". I checked at home before I left.

And yes, whether Doorman was wearing a crewneck or v-neck t-shirt is important to us. That's because Oswald was wearing a v-neck, and Lovelady was wearing a crewneck. And it would be important to you too if you really cared about the truth.

Regarding my stance, it was accurate: hands clasped in front with left over right. That's what Doorman was doing, so that's what I did.

And by the way, this is going up on my site. I want the world to know what Education Forum stands for and what they support. You wanna fight? Bring it on.

#9 Don Jeffries

Don Jeffries

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,091 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Writing fiction- my first work, the sci-fi/fantasy novel "The Unreals," is in Barnes & Noble bookstores across the country and has been purchased by hundreds of public and college libraries in the United States and around the world. I'm currently putting the finishing touches on a second novel, "Front Row At The Loony Bin," as well as working on a sequel to "The Unreals."

Posted 27 November 2012 - 08:56 AM

Joe Backes has gone way over the line here, which seems to be his wont. Actually, if you go to his new blog and read an expanded version of this, you'll see the personal vitriol directed at Cinque is even worse there. What is the point of making this so personal with Cinque? Why all the gratuitious profanity? You may be inadvertently making Cinque into a sympathetic character.

I don't understand why speculation that it may indeed have been Oswald standing in the TSBD doorway invokes such hostility now among so many believers in conspiracy. I have long suspected the figure we see in Altgens was Oswald, as did many of the original band of critics, and the majority of the research community as recently as thirty years ago. Of course, I realize that Oswald's innocence doesn't depend upon him being in the doorway. That doesn't mean that we should ignore the question, or to rigidly declare it was Lovelady, when nothing of the sort has been proven.

I equate the false consensus in the research community that the figure in the doorway is definitively Lovelady with the neo-con efforts, in recent years, to dismiss the mysterious deaths associated with this case, to identify Steven Witt as the Umbrella Man, to maintain there was definitely not a bullet hole in the limo windshield, to claim Boone and Weitzman were definitely wrong about the rifle on the sixth floor being a mauser, to believe that the obviously forged backyard photos are in fact genuine, and so many other similar aspects of this case that were once crucial to a belief in conspiracy, but have gradually been reduced to the point where "serious researchers" now dismiss them out of hand.

There is no reason to give ground on solid indicators of conspiracy.

Edited by Don Jeffries, 27 November 2012 - 09:01 AM.


#10 Joseph Backes

Joseph Backes

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 274 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 November 2012 - 09:55 AM

Typical.

Even the polite police defenders of Ralph Cinque cannot be bothered to do the homework and learn what nonsensical garbage Ralphie boy, the KING of not bothering to read and do his homework is spinning, even when all Jeffries had to do is review the recent history on this very forum.

Go to his site and read that garbage.

I mean it. Go. Read. It. http://www.oswald-innocent.com/

All of it. Every Word.

This is not a guy saying I think it's Lovelady. No. Read how much photographic alteration he insists is going on in the immediate area of Lovelady. He says there is an entire Addams family of fake characters around Lovelady, there's "Obfuscated Man," and "Black Tie Man," and "Black Hole Man," and "Afro-Woman," whose super power was that she could extend her afro hair to hide White people, and "Fedora Hat Man," and "Super-Woman," holding a child who is "clearly taller than her!"


For some reason he has fixated on Ike Altgens 6th photograph. So, if that was Oswald then obviously he wasn’t a shooter, he was innocent. Well, the world is very simple for simpletons. So, Cinque has latched onto this, presenting himself like he’s some kind of new wave Sherlock Holmes. Cinque thinks saying it was Oswald in Altgens all along means SHAZAM he’s solved the whole assassination. We can all stop now. It's solved. All questions now answered, all thanks to Cinque.

It’s that dumb. He’s that dumb. And it infuriates me. Why? Because it’s anti-intellectual, anti-science, and anti-fact being presented as though it is the definition of excellence in science and reasoning. He deliberately ignores everything and everyone in the whole history of the case, of 49 years of investigations and research. he has total contempt for any thought or idea that didn't come from his own head. And he has defenders?

It’s not Oswald, it really is Billy Nolan Lovelady.

Now I went through all of this to the best of my ability and posted the whole origin of this issue on the Education forum. I re-read Weisbergs “Whitewash,” solely looking for information on this Altgens photo and the Oswald/Lovelady issue. I ordered a copy of an obscure book that Weisberg mentioned, "The Kennedy Assassination and the American Public," by Greenberg and Parker (How many of you have this book sitting on your shelf? Hmm?) that told of how a TV station looked at the photo, asked themselves about it, choose not to air their questions, and instead contacted the FBI about it and the investigation into this issue starts. Now there is also an article in a New York newspaper. I went to the NYS library in Albany and got the entire article. Part of it is a WC exhibit. I went through all of it. Now this is primary, basic research that anyone can do, even you Jeffries, but Cinque can’t be bothered to do.

It’s not a personal choice he's advocating. It’s not, I think this, you think that. It’s more than that. It’s not, hey, look at the Altgens photo and tell me do you think this figure here in the doorway, seeming to be leaning out and looking at the limo as the shots are fired, does it look like Oswald or Lovelady to you? No, no, no, no, no.

This is way more than that, far-and-away more stupid beyond that. Fetzer and Cinque, especially Cinque, not only believe that it is indeed Oswald, which would be one thing, but they believe that the image has been MASSIVELY altered to make the figure look like Oswald. That there is this amalgamation of the face, like a bizarre game of Mr. Potato Head, using other faces from other people in Altgens, and part of Lovelady's face from his wedding, as though the conspirators had this photo ready to go, to use it, prior to the assassination, because they knew, prior to the assassination, exactly what Altgens 6th photo would look like and what they'd need to fake and to get it done in 30 minutes

And here’s where we enter wacko-ville.

Now stop giving idiocy a chance, Jeffries. The know nothings do not have something important to say.


The Problem of the Uneducated Mind

Some people who are uneducated, or for whatever reason have some kind of learning impairment, maybe they have one and it was never diagnosed, whatever is going on between their ears, these people turn the process of learning into a confrontation. For them learning is a status game. They will not admit they are having trouble understanding something and in a defense mechanism they project their ignorance onto the person who is trying to help them in understanding something. They project their ignorance, trying to use it as a bludgeon in an argumentative situation, that you, the one who is educated, and can understand simple things; you are the problem, not them. Nothing is wrong with them. Nothing is ever wrong with them. None of the beliefs or conclusions they have are ever wrong. Anything they can’t understand is the result of some external problem, of someone not “respecting” them or challenging their status or perceived status. They feel threatened and react in a way to gain a higher status to this person they perceive only as being confrontational to them by any way they can to avoid recognizing the problem is internal, that they lack either a skill or some knowledge.

He doesn’t know a damn thing about the JFK assassination or photography and makes stuff up. He doesn’t know anything about the physical process of photography in 1963, of lenses, shutter speeds, film emulsion, make and model of various cameras, the difference between film and still photography. His conclusions are clearly the ravings of an uneducated man. He’s been booted off every known JFK assassination forum, INCLUDING THIS ONE.

Why does he persist? Because to him, he’s championing the idea that there was a conspiracy in the JFK assassination, and that Oswald was innocent. And like the scoundrel whose last place of refuge is the American flag then for him the cloak of being this advocate, this flag bearer for conspiracy is supposed to wash away or distract from the bat-shit crazy claims.

This is the case with “Dr.” Ralph Cinque.

So, instead of doing any reading or any learning Cinque just repeats his nonsense. If you say 2 + 2 = 5.896 long enough, then it will.

So, lets’ examine his stuff. Cinque thinks that the Altgens photo was altered to make people think that “Doorway Man,” and I’m going to refer to him as this when Cinque gets goofy about the figure. The guy is Billy Nolan Lovelady, period. No matter what Cinque says its Lovelady. Please keep that in mind.

So, people have tried to tell both Cinque and Fetzer that there is a pretty solid chain of possession with Ike Altgens photographs. They won’t listen.

The fact that the Altgens photograph was always in the custody of Altgens and then put onto the AP wires within 30 minutes of the assassination means nothing to these idiots. No, somehow the Altgens photo was intercepted and massively faked, all within that 30 minute time frame. Is that really reasonable to you, Jeffries?

And Cinque has gone on to insist that Lovelady as seen in color, in profile, in the Martins film is a fake too.

Was the whole TSBD a fake? Was it really the Empire State building in disguise? Was all of Dealey Plaza a fake? Was it really the Grand Canyon in disguise?

Cinque claims Lovelady as seen in a still photo from the Charles Buck film is a fake inserted into the Charles Buck film. He has at various points claimed that this Lovelady is a “midget” that the others are all actors. He also said that this Lovelady was “DeNiro Lovelady.” Cinque has claimed that this was done to a film always in the possession of a local TV camera crew and which was aired that weekend!

That the “actors,” were pixilated into the film, a process that did not exist in 1963!

That the single frame he found somewhere on the internet was FAKED and inserted into the film. Think how stupid that is. He knows nothing about film or that 24 frames per second will reproduce motion. No, to him, they went to great effort to fake ONE film frame.

Do you really want to defend this Jeffries?

Now people on the Education Forum told Cinque where he can see the entire Charles Buck film. I showed him where we all can see it in a DVD that the 6th floor sells.

He doesn’t listen. He’s in his own bubble. And he’s acting now that he’s a victim. People who KNOW things are his "detractors."

His unending garbage makes people, like me, lose their cool, and he then pretends he's a victim.
It's called being an agent provocateur. It's the oldest game in this case. And you fell for it Jeffires.

If you like Cinque, good luck with that Bromance.

Joseph Backes

#11 Don Jeffries

Don Jeffries

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,091 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Writing fiction- my first work, the sci-fi/fantasy novel "The Unreals," is in Barnes & Noble bookstores across the country and has been purchased by hundreds of public and college libraries in the United States and around the world. I'm currently putting the finishing touches on a second novel, "Front Row At The Loony Bin," as well as working on a sequel to "The Unreals."

Posted 27 November 2012 - 11:11 AM

Joe, you consistently disappoint me with your immature posts. I don't have a "bromance" with Ralph Cinque. I wasn't impressed with his photographic interpretation skills. And you may very well have proven his theory to be completely ridiculous. That doesn't mean that the question of the figure in the doorway has been settled to a certainty. It also doesn't explain why this is so personal to you. Why aren't you incensed enough about O'Reilly's LN best seller, to start a Facebook page about that? Also, it just makes you look petty to derisively refer to me by my last name. I remember that was popular in middle school. At least you didn't resort to caling me "Donnie," as others have called their fellow posters Davey, Jimbo, etc. here.

I noted in other threads about this subject that to say the figure in the doorway may well be Oswald does not equate to supporting the studies of Ralph Cinque. He has a right to his views, and his studies suffer from the same flaws that all photographic debates in this case suffer from- they are largely subject to personal interpretation. Badge Man, Bllack Dog, the general question of Zapruder Film alteration- they're all basically just arguments over what one claims to see in shadows on film. Thus, I don't really get involved in those debates beyond a hard core conviction that no matter how absurd you or anyone else thinks a particular theory is, it can't be as absurd as the official story, and no one has a right to censor it.

The 50th anniversary is fast approaching. We should be concentrating on exposing the easily understood lies and distortions in O'Reilly's book and Tom Hanks' upcoming production. Why do you let yourself get so worked up about Ralph Cinque? At least he recognizes the essential truth that there was a conspiracy.

#12 Ralph Cinque

Ralph Cinque

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 493 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 November 2012 - 01:22 PM

I have repeatedly informed Mr. Backes that he mis-states my positions. One would think that before trashing my positions - and especially to the extent that he has and in the manner than he does- that he would have decency- and the good sense- to get them straight.

Backes faults me for finding so much photographic alteration in the immediate vicinity of Doorman in the Altgens photo. Yet, I provide the basis for suspicion for each of the anomalies I cite, and it's only in the area around Doorman that we find such anomalies. That area can't represent more than 3 or 4 percent of the vast photo, yet, all of the puzzling, inexplicable observations are found there. That is suspicious in itself if you think about it mathematically.

Backes cites me saying that regarding "Super-Woman" -who is holding a 40 pound boy perfectly vertical with one hand- that the boy is "clearly taller than her." Those weren't my exact words, and if I had put it that way, I would have said "taller than she is." But I meant taller in the sense of being more elevated, being higher up in the picture. I did not mean that the young boy was biologically taller than his mother. And the fact is, he is higher up in the picture. If you can't see it, put a ruler to it.

Posted Image

Backes trashes me for claiming that aspects of Lovelady's face were superimposed on Oswald's in the Altgens photo. But, didn't they have to do that? I mean: would they have seen Oswald in the photo and decided to just declare him to be Lovelady without doing anything to "Lovelady-ify" him? Would they have relied entirely on the "power of officialdom" to make the case? Well, I dare say that not even officials put that much stock in the power of officialdom. They had to transfer some of Lovelady's features to Doorman- particularly facial features because that's what people go by. Backes acts like it's impossible- even theoretically- but that's absurd. Photographic aleration has been a tool of propaganda and misinformation for a long time- since before 1963. There are several good books on the subject, and one is Faking It: Manipulated Photography before Photoshop by Mia Fineman.

Backes trashes me for claiming that they used Lovelady's wedding picture to fashion part of Doorman's face, but my claim was actually that they used it to fashion his hairline. And the fact is that Doorman's hairline does match the hairline of Young Lovelady perfectly, while it does not match the hairline of Lovelady of the time. Below you can see, from left to right, Young Lovelady, Doorman, and Lovelady as of the winter of 1964 as taken by Mark Lane.

Posted Image

Do the hairlines match between Young Lovelady and Doorman or not?

And before we go any further with Backes critiques of my photographic analysis, let's look at one of his. He insists that Doorman's arm coming down was actually the Black Man's arm going up. Even though Robin Unger, Steve Haydon, Craig Lamson, Albert Doyle, and numerous other adversaries of mine have willingly granted the obvious- that it's Doorman's arm- Backes can't see it. Here is Robin Unger's colorization alongside Backes raving-mad interpretation. And he calls me "bat-sh_t crazy."

Posted Image

Backes repeats the fallacy that Altgens6 "was always in the custody of Altgens and then put onto the AP wires within 30 minutes of the assassination" but this is what highly respected British researcher Paul Rigby says about it, and this is from the OIC site:

British JFK researcher Paul Rigby maintains that the Altgens6 photo (there were 7 altogether) was handled differently than the other 6. There was a delay in the release of Altgens6 because it was first wired to AP headquarters in New York, where it was "cropped twice." Rigby maintains that there was roughly a two to three hour window of opportunity for them to alter it. His exact words were: "I don't wish to exaggerate the window of opportunity for alteration. It was, at most, I hazard a guess, two to three hours. But, a window of opportunity there does appear to have existed."

Paul Rigby is a well-respected JFK researcher, so we are going to let him expound:

"On the basis of the available evidence, we can, provisionally at least, conclude the following: 1) Altgens did not develop his own photos; 2) Altgens6 went by fax, not to the world at large, but to the AP New York HQ, at just after 1:00 PM CST; 3) the negatives were sent by commercial airline, ostensibly to the same destination but did not arrive until hours after the initial fax; 4) the dissemination of the image from NY did not occur until at least 2 hours after the fax arrived but before the arrival of the negatives; 5) Both the AP and Altgens appear to have sought to conceal this hiatus; 6) AP acted against its own commercial interest in delaying release of Altgens6; 7) the version which first appeared in the final editions of newspapers in Canada and the US on the evening of November 22 was heavily, and very obviously, retouched; 8) point 7 may not be the explanation, either full or partial, for the concealed delay; it is quite conceivable that obvious alterations were used to draw attention away from other more subtle stuff."

And yes, I do maintain that Lovelady from the so-called Martin post-assassination footage was an imposter, and I've got a gang of doctors who agree with me that he was anatomically a different man than Billy Lovelady. Then, Backes expands it, wondering whether I think all of the TSBD was fake and all of Dealey Plaza was fake. Backes, you're not clever, and you're not funny.

Then he gets to the Dallas police footage. He claims that I claimed that the Lovelady in it was a "midget." I never claimed such a thing. That was a piece of ridicule that originated with Lee Farley that Backes has oft repeated. Then he said I referred to that figure as "DeNiro Lovelady." I did not. It was another figure to whom I gave that moniker. Then, he said that I claimed that "actors" were "pixilated" into the film. In reality, I claimed that the figure of Lovelady in one version of the police footage was "embedded." I never used the word "pixilated". And, I compared it to the movie Mary Poppins which came out in 1964 in which embedding occurred. Then he claimed that I claimed it was a single frame that was embedded, and that is not true. In the embedded version, the entire sequence involving Lovelady is phony. Lovelady wasn't there. It was the squad room of the Dallas police detectives, deep within their inner sanctum. Lovelady was part of a group that was brought there to make statements. Why would they have singled him out and perched him at a desk there? He was a warehouse worker! Look at this picture closely. Look at his hair- the swept-back, ducktail effect. Look at the black-bleed going on. Why can't we question this? Nobody else in the footage -only Lovelady- disintegrates like this. Why can't we ask why?

Posted Image

Backes called me an "agent provocateur" which he got from Charles Drago. Well, I am not an agent of anyone but myself. And I have no ulterior motive for doing this other than JFK truth. I am not selling anything. I am not writing a book. I am trying to become famous, other than as a screenwriter, which has nothing to do with this.
So, why am doing all this? There is only one reason. It's because it’s not Billy Lovelady. It really was Oswald in the doorway.

This post is already visible on my Faceboook page.




#13 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10,526 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 27 November 2012 - 03:10 PM

Typical.

Even the polite police defenders of Ralph Cinque cannot be bothered to do the homework and learn what nonsensical garbage Ralphie boy, the KING of not bothering to read and do his homework is spinning, even when all Jeffries had to do is review the recent history on this very forum.

Go to his site and read that garbage.

I mean it. Go. Read. It. http://www.oswald-innocent.com/

All of it. Every Word.

This is not a guy saying I think it's Lovelady. No. Read how much photographic alteration he insists is going on in the immediate area of Lovelady. He says there is an entire Addams family of fake characters around Lovelady, there's "Obfuscated Man," and "Black Tie Man," and "Black Hole Man," and "Afro-Woman," whose super power was that she could extend her afro hair to hide White people, and "Fedora Hat Man," and "Super-Woman," holding a child who is "clearly taller than her!"


For some reason he has fixated on Ike Altgens 6th photograph. So, if that was Oswald then obviously he wasn’t a shooter, he was innocent. Well, the world is very simple for simpletons. So, Cinque has latched onto this, presenting himself like he’s some kind of new wave Sherlock Holmes. Cinque thinks saying it was Oswald in Altgens all along means SHAZAM he’s solved the whole assassination. We can all stop now. It's solved. All questions now answered, all thanks to Cinque.

It’s that dumb. He’s that dumb. And it infuriates me. Why? Because it’s anti-intellectual, anti-science, and anti-fact being presented as though it is the definition of excellence in science and reasoning. He deliberately ignores everything and everyone in the whole history of the case, of 49 years of investigations and research. he has total contempt for any thought or idea that didn't come from his own head. And he has defenders?

It’s not Oswald, it really is Billy Nolan Lovelady.

Now I went through all of this to the best of my ability and posted the whole origin of this issue on the Education forum. I re-read Weisbergs “Whitewash,” solely looking for information on this Altgens photo and the Oswald/Lovelady issue. I ordered a copy of an obscure book that Weisberg mentioned, "The Kennedy Assassination and the American Public," by Greenberg and Parker (How many of you have this book sitting on your shelf? Hmm?) that told of how a TV station looked at the photo, asked themselves about it, choose not to air their questions, and instead contacted the FBI about it and the investigation into this issue starts. Now there is also an article in a New York newspaper. I went to the NYS library in Albany and got the entire article. Part of it is a WC exhibit. I went through all of it. Now this is primary, basic research that anyone can do, even you Jeffries, but Cinque can’t be bothered to do.

It’s not a personal choice he's advocating. It’s not, I think this, you think that. It’s more than that. It’s not, hey, look at the Altgens photo and tell me do you think this figure here in the doorway, seeming to be leaning out and looking at the limo as the shots are fired, does it look like Oswald or Lovelady to you? No, no, no, no, no.

This is way more than that, far-and-away more stupid beyond that. Fetzer and Cinque, especially Cinque, not only believe that it is indeed Oswald, which would be one thing, but they believe that the image has been MASSIVELY altered to make the figure look like Oswald. That there is this amalgamation of the face, like a bizarre game of Mr. Potato Head, using other faces from other people in Altgens, and part of Lovelady's face from his wedding, as though the conspirators had this photo ready to go, to use it, prior to the assassination, because they knew, prior to the assassination, exactly what Altgens 6th photo would look like and what they'd need to fake and to get it done in 30 minutes

And here’s where we enter wacko-ville.

Now stop giving idiocy a chance, Jeffries. The know nothings do not have something important to say.


The Problem of the Uneducated Mind

Some people who are uneducated, or for whatever reason have some kind of learning impairment, maybe they have one and it was never diagnosed, whatever is going on between their ears, these people turn the process of learning into a confrontation. For them learning is a status game. They will not admit they are having trouble understanding something and in a defense mechanism they project their ignorance onto the person who is trying to help them in understanding something. They project their ignorance, trying to use it as a bludgeon in an argumentative situation, that you, the one who is educated, and can understand simple things; you are the problem, not them. Nothing is wrong with them. Nothing is ever wrong with them. None of the beliefs or conclusions they have are ever wrong. Anything they can’t understand is the result of some external problem, of someone not “respecting” them or challenging their status or perceived status. They feel threatened and react in a way to gain a higher status to this person they perceive only as being confrontational to them by any way they can to avoid recognizing the problem is internal, that they lack either a skill or some knowledge.

He doesn’t know a damn thing about the JFK assassination or photography and makes stuff up. He doesn’t know anything about the physical process of photography in 1963, of lenses, shutter speeds, film emulsion, make and model of various cameras, the difference between film and still photography. His conclusions are clearly the ravings of an uneducated man. He’s been booted off every known JFK assassination forum, INCLUDING THIS ONE.

Why does he persist? Because to him, he’s championing the idea that there was a conspiracy in the JFK assassination, and that Oswald was innocent. And like the scoundrel whose last place of refuge is the American flag then for him the cloak of being this advocate, this flag bearer for conspiracy is supposed to wash away or distract from the bat-shit crazy claims.

This is the case with “Dr.” Ralph Cinque.

So, instead of doing any reading or any learning Cinque just repeats his nonsense. If you say 2 + 2 = 5.896 long enough, then it will.

So, lets’ examine his stuff. Cinque thinks that the Altgens photo was altered to make people think that “Doorway Man,” and I’m going to refer to him as this when Cinque gets goofy about the figure. The guy is Billy Nolan Lovelady, period. No matter what Cinque says its Lovelady. Please keep that in mind.

So, people have tried to tell both Cinque and Fetzer that there is a pretty solid chain of possession with Ike Altgens photographs. They won’t listen.

The fact that the Altgens photograph was always in the custody of Altgens and then put onto the AP wires within 30 minutes of the assassination means nothing to these idiots. No, somehow the Altgens photo was intercepted and massively faked, all within that 30 minute time frame. Is that really reasonable to you, Jeffries?

And Cinque has gone on to insist that Lovelady as seen in color, in profile, in the Martins film is a fake too.

Was the whole TSBD a fake? Was it really the Empire State building in disguise? Was all of Dealey Plaza a fake? Was it really the Grand Canyon in disguise?

Cinque claims Lovelady as seen in a still photo from the Charles Buck film is a fake inserted into the Charles Buck film. He has at various points claimed that this Lovelady is a “midget” that the others are all actors. He also said that this Lovelady was “DeNiro Lovelady.” Cinque has claimed that this was done to a film always in the possession of a local TV camera crew and which was aired that weekend!

That the “actors,” were pixilated into the film, a process that did not exist in 1963!

That the single frame he found somewhere on the internet was FAKED and inserted into the film. Think how stupid that is. He knows nothing about film or that 24 frames per second will reproduce motion. No, to him, they went to great effort to fake ONE film frame.

Do you really want to defend this Jeffries?

Now people on the Education Forum told Cinque where he can see the entire Charles Buck film. I showed him where we all can see it in a DVD that the 6th floor sells.

He doesn’t listen. He’s in his own bubble. And he’s acting now that he’s a victim. People who KNOW things are his "detractors."

His unending garbage makes people, like me, lose their cool, and he then pretends he's a victim.
It's called being an agent provocateur. It's the oldest game in this case. And you fell for it Jeffires.

If you like Cinque, good luck with that Bromance.

Joseph Backes


I think the bolded describes the Narcissistic Personality Disorder. This is an unfortunate condition as it by its very nature is very hard to treat and many attempts are doomed to fail as the logic of the afflicted affirms the condition. It's very hard to connect and understandably leads to extremes of frustration particularly the more wounded or exposed the sufferer becomes. However, it is important to recognise it becuse then one can take appropriate steps aand step out of 'the game' and take time out from it and focus on the real. This is an experience that the sufferer must also undergo, in tandem but in their world, but now without the same level of control and therefore hard-won insights may penetrate and change can occur.

#14 Thomas Graves

Thomas Graves

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,873 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:La Jolla, California
  • Interests:Activities of Sicilian-born brothers Anthony and Paul Mirabile (both deceased) in Detroit, Canada, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Tijuana, Mexico

Posted 27 November 2012 - 10:24 PM

.........

Backes called me an "agent provocateur" which he got from Charles Drago. Well, I am not an agent of anyone but myself. And I have no ulterior motive for doing this other than JFK truth. I am not selling anything. I am not writing a book. I am trying to become famous, other than as a screenwriter, which has nothing to do with this.

.........

[Ralph Cinque]

(emphasis added by T. Graves)

_______________________________________________________________________________________


Ralph,

Even if you only want to become famous as a screenwriter, I suggest that you hire someone to proofread your screenplays before you submit them.

--Tommy :sun



Edited by Thomas Graves, 28 November 2012 - 01:04 AM.


#15 Ralph Cinque

Ralph Cinque

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 493 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 November 2012 - 12:10 AM

Yeah, Tommy. You got me. I left out the word "not". I meant that I am not trying to become famous other than as a screenwriter, which is true. But, you'll be pleased to know that I caught that mistake before I posted it on my Facebook page. And you might want to keep track of my Facebook page because there, I'm the boss, and I can post whatever whenever I want. And lately I have been doing a lot of posting about your friend, Mr. Backes. So, here's the link:

http://www.facebook....?ref=ts&fref=ts

But, the big question, Tommy, is why, after everything I said, the only thing you could harp on was a typographical error. Was that the best you could do? It seems rather petty to me, especially since the intended meaing was still rather clear.

Here are the facts, Tom: It was Oswald in the Doorway, and the only authentic picture we have of Billy Lovelady from the time was taken- without approval- by Mark Lane. And what that picture showed us is that Lovelady was already mostly bald by the time of the assassination, which means that he could not have been Doorman. Doorman's shirt and t-shirt are the spitting image of those worn by Oswald, and recently one of our senior members, Richard Hooke, has put together a graphic chart showing 50 matching points between Doorman and Oswald. How appropriate considering that this is the 50th year.

And really, what reason is there to think that it wasn't Oswald? The whole world first thought it was Oswald- until the US government announced otherwise. But, why believe them? Is it paranoid of me to suggest that we need to be suspicious of announcements that the government makes?

And why believe Lovelady? The man was a convicted felon. After months, he changed his story about which shirt he wore, and that was after posing in the first shirt in a manner like Doorman (unbuttoned) and letting the FBI photograph him. The FBI had put it in writing that Lovelady stated that he had worn a red and white striped shirt and blue jeans, which referred to a short-sleeved shirt. And it was only after that that the movies of Lovelady wearing a plaid shirt started showing up- not that it was Lovelady in the movies. The magnitude of the fabrication that took place is breathtaking.

I don't know why you want to defend it. I don't know why Backes does. But, if that makes us enemies, so be it, because we are going forward with this. It was Oswald in the doorway, and there isn't the slightest doubt about it. You are shovelling sand to stop the tide.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users