JFK: 49 Years in the Offing -- The Altgens Reenactment

[Ralph Cinque]

Mike, that is the undecipherable union between Doorman and Black Tie Man. Which one of them is it? Who knows? It could be either, or both. The whole thing is wrong. They pieced Black Tie Man in there. He wasn't there. What you are seeing there is a physical and anatomical impossibility, and I am a doctor. And I have polled doctors who have agreed that Doorman's left shoulder is cut off; it's missing. They covered it up when they squeezed Black Tie Man in there.

Above, I am in the exact same position as him. I have a point to my shoulder; he does not. I have the point of my shoulder marked with a white arrow. There is no comparable point on Doorman. His shoulder was cut off.

[David Von Pein]

Good Lord, what a convoluted mess of a theory.

And just think--the plotters could have just destroyed the picture altogether. Instead, they decided to play Mr. Potato Head.

And why not just paste a WHOLE head/face of Lovelady into the picture? Why leave in those bread crumb clues, like Ozzie's ear? It's hilarious.

The crap CTers will believe never ceases to astound the senses.

Edited November 25, 2012 by David Von Pein

[Ralph Cinque]

Considering that this thread is to discuss my work, it is morally and intellectually unfair for the moderators to refuse to post my posts, which apparently is happening. And it is a mockery to the whole idea of open debate. You are practicing intellectual suppression, and I shall broadcast it.

[Ralph Cinque]

Every country has got its state lies. The Soviet Union began with a monstrous act. They huddled the Tsar's family (the Romanov family, Nicholas, Alexandra, and their children) together in a basement and then opened fire, slaughtering them all together in a bloodbath at close range. Then, they tried to vanish the bodies, even dissolving the bones in acid to destroy the evidence. For 75 years, they tried to keep it a secret, and since it was a totalitarian state, you could be arrested for discussing it.

The government of the USA has its state lies too, and there is none more heinous than the fact the apparatus of state killed President Kennedy and tried to pin the blame on Lee Harvey Oswald. And thankfully, this isn't the USSR, and we do have freedom of speech. So, they can't arrest me for talking about this. I don't know what else they might be plotting against me, and I assure you, I am concerned about it. Might they try to kill me? I take the risk seriously. But, what they cannot do is arrest me for it, and that's because of the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

But, even though there is freedom of speech, there is still suppression of speech. I was just informed that I have been banned from the JFK Lancer forum. I don't think I broke any rules. And the administrator, Jerry Dealey, even admitted that there is more traffic on the forum when I'm around. Nevertheless, I am out.

And on the Education Forum, which is another major forum for JFK debate, I am not officially banned, but they restrict me. Every time I make a post, it has to go through inspection and approval by a "moderator" before it can appear. That is bad enough, but in actuality, they just ignore my submissions. Presently, they have a thread going to discuss my Altgens photo reenactment, and my enemies are there, disparaging me, ridiculing me, and trashing the work, and I cannot respond. Officially, they say I have to be

restricted because I am insulting to the other members. Yet, they allowed Joseph Backes to start a whole thread entitled, "Ralph Cinque is a twat". Mr. Backes has taken the concept of incivility to the most extreme level I have ever seen.

I have also been banned from the JFK Assassination Forum by Duncan McKrae. He not only expelled me and my colleague Richard Hooke; he removed the posts of others who tried to talk about the Altgens reenactment.

Well, consider this an open letter to all of them. What you are doing is practicing intellectual suppression, and I could also call it intellectual dishonesty. It was Oswald in the doorway, and it has reached the point that it's insane to deny it. It's his outer shirt. It's his v-shaped t-shirt. It's his open sprawl, and let me tell you from experience that it's very difficult to find a shirt that will sprawl open as much as his did. His was a very unusual shirt, and most shirts won't behave that way, even when unbuttoned. It's his stance, with him clasping his hands in front, left over right. It's his square chin. It's his right ear. And there is more- much more. Every single piece of evidence relating to Billy Lovelady was bogus. The only authentic photo of Lovelady that we have from that time of the assassination was taken- without approval- by Mark Lane, and thank God he did. We know from it that Billy Lovelady was mostly bald at the time of the assassination. And that, by itself, rules him out as Doorman, who was not bald. It's no wonder the Dallas Police and the FBI tried so hard to prevent anyone from photographing Lovelady. They waited until 1971- 8 years- for an officially sanctioned photoshoot of Lovelady to take place, with Bob Jackson behind the lens- and I am sure they figured that that was enough time for the passage of time to account for his baldness. And, every one of the movies of Lovelady on 11/22/63 is fake. There are no legitimate images of him from that day at all, although we strongly believe he was in the Altgens photo- until he was taken out.

The official story of the assassination is a lie, but to deny Oswald's presence in the doorway is also a lie. The current situation in this country is that it's OK to be a CT, but you should be a respectable one, and don't be shining any lights on the doorway. Don't be talking about photographic alterations. Just speak vaguely about a conspiracy, or better yet, say that Oswald did it but that he had an accomplice on the Grassy Knoll. That is what the HSCA concluded. But, I ask you: if that were true, how long would it have taken law enforcement to apprehend that guy? Did they even look for such a guy? Of course not.

To all you Doorman-deniers, you can't practice your insanity around me. It was Oswald in the doorway, just as sure as it is Stevie Ray Vaughan overlooking the Colorado River in Austin, Texas. And I've got a strong hunch about whose side Stevie Ray would be on.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Well, if we had not done our homework, we would have been attacked on that ground. We can't choose how they did it, only explain how it was done. Notice that this guy doesn't actually identify anything we have wrong, which would be difficult to do. The gross features of Altgens6, such as the obfuscated face, the missing shoulder, the man in-front-of-and-behind Doorman and the black man's profile make that a rather daunting task.

NOTE: Thanks to Evan Burton for posting my submissions, which I had thought had disappeared into cyberspace. I appreciate having a fair shake.

Good Lord, what a convoluted mess of a theory.

And just think--the plotters could have just destroyed the picture altogether. Instead, they decided to play Mr. Potato Head.

And why not just paste a WHOLE head/face of Lovelady into the picture? Why leave in those bread crumb clues, like Ozzie's ear? It's hilarious.

The crap CTers will believe never ceases to astound the senses.

[Ralph Cinque]

There is no image of me from the photo-shoot in which I have a perfect vee shadow. Lamson is basing that claim on this picture below.

Perhaps you could say that it is "veeish", but it is also meandering like a river. Doorman has two straight, unwavering arms to his vee. Just compare.

And it's obvious that my roundneck t-shirt is not being obscured by the shadow. It is preposterous what Lamson is claiming: that there is a crescent of white t-shirt that is being completely obliterated, rendered invisble, on Doorman. How does the image of me corroborate that? It doesn't. It refutes it.

[David Von Pein]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/d9bb86a9976bdf21

IN A POST AT ANOTHER FORUM (LINKED ABOVE), RALPH CINQUE SAID:

All of the anomalies are confirmed: Doorman's missing left shoulder, his impossible fusion with Black Tie Man, the obfuscation of Bill Shelley's face (what we call the "white blob", the expansion of the black woman's hair, the phony placement of Doorman's cuff in front of the neck of the black man, the impossible relationship between the woman and boy, where she is seemingly holding him perfectly vertical with one hand- it's impossible! I'm telling you that as a doctor, and let's see you bring another doctor here to challenge what I'm saying. I'm telling you: she couldn't do it. If they altered that picture even once it was a crime and cover-up, and they did it multiple times. This thing is over! It was Oswald in the doorway! Stop fighting it!

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

One thing Ralph Cinque overlooks is this (and it's just basic garden-variety common sense):

The fact that Ralph is convinced that so many DIFFERENT portions of the James Altgens photo have been faked and manipulated and altered by evil plotters and cover-up agents is, to any sensible person, a pretty good indication that NONE of the various parts of the photo have been altered at all.

It's very similar (in a "common sense" way) to Robert Groden's "15 shots" theory. Since anybody with any sense at all knows that there were not anywhere near FIFTEEN (or even TEN) shots fired in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63, then it becomes very easy to totally ignore and deem as invalid Groden's "10 shots" and his later (2011) "15 shots" theory.

Doesn't Ralph even wonder WHY some of the silly things were altered in Jim Altgens' picture that Ralph does seem to think were altered? For example, why was there a need to alter the faces and arms of certain NON-Lovelady/Oswald people in the picture? Just...why?

Along this same line of thought, here's a good quote from John McAdams' book:

"The sheer number of extra bullets or confessions or spooky connections is evidence that none of them are strong evidence of anything." -- John McAdams; Page 192 of "JFK Assassination Logic"

http://Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com

Edited November 30, 2012 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

I love that quote you provided from McAdams, David, and cite it in my review of McAdams' book. It shows the confusion inherent in all too many LNers. They think that the more evidence there is that something is wrong with the official story, the more likely it is that this story is correct. And that's just lazy thinking. Juvenile stuff.

While one could make the argument that the large number of possible conspiracies decreases the probability that any individual theory is correct, one can't logically argue that it decreases the chance that one of the theories is correct. That's basic math. I mean if you have a bucket with one possibility--the official story--and another bucket filled with hundreds of conspiracy theories constituting another possibility--and then add another theory into the mix--that doesn't have any effect on the probability one of the buckets has the golden ticket. It's still one bucket or the other. (Which is not to say it's 50/50.)

[Craig Lamson]

There is no image of me from the photo-shoot in which I have a perfect vee shadow. Lamson is basing that claim on this picture below.

Perhaps you could say that it is "veeish", but it is also meandering like a river. Doorman has two straight, unwavering arms to his vee. Just compare.

And it's obvious that my roundneck t-shirt is not being obscured by the shadow. It is preposterous what Lamson is claiming: that there is a crescent of white t-shirt that is being completely obliterated, rendered invisble, on Doorman. How does the image of me corroborate that? It doesn't. It refutes it.

Of course its a vee shadow and it wanders because it is falling on an uneven surface...the fabric of your shirt collar. This is "how a shadow works101" and you just failed.

Example..this is the very same shadow.

And that folks is the entire ball game. Cinques loses and loses big time.

Bu there is icing on the cake. There is that image of a white tee shirt obscured by a shadow.

You what that one to finally nail this coffin shut Ralph? You should know the photo well, its a tri-x shot you claim is one of your favorites. too bad it destroys you.

[David Von Pein]

I love that quote you provided from McAdams, David, and cite it in my review of McAdams' book. It shows the confusion inherent in all too many LNers. They think that the more evidence there is that something is wrong with the official story, the more likely it is that this story is correct. And that's just lazy thinking. Juvenile stuff.

While one could make the argument that the large number of possible conspiracies decreases the probability that any individual theory is correct, one can't logically argue that it decreases the chance that one of the theories is correct. That's basic math. I mean if you have a bucket with one possibility--the official story--and another bucket filled with hundreds of conspiracy theories constituting another possibility--and then add another theory into the mix--that doesn't have any effect on the probability one of the buckets has the golden ticket. It's still one bucket or the other. (Which is not to say it's 50/50.)

Pat,

I can agree with you to a certain extent, especially if we were to change the subject and start talking about a murder case OTHER than John Kennedy's murder case (which is a case like no other in history, as you well know).

But in THIS (Kennedy) case, I disagree with your above "bucket" analysis. I think your reasoning is flawed via this quote of yours:

"If you have a bucket with one possibility--the official story--and another bucket filled with hundreds of conspiracy theories constituting another possibility--and then add another theory into the mix--that doesn't have any effect on the probability one of the buckets has the golden ticket. It's still one bucket or the other."

The major flaw in that line of reasoning, IMO, is when you use the words "hundreds of conspiracy theories" which you say can constitute just ONE single "possibility". It goes back to my thought in my previous post -- how can anyone possibly believe ANY of the many conspiracy theories when we are constantly bombarded with, as you implied, literally "hundreds" of theories, many of which totally contradict and defeat other theories in the same "bucket"?

If you throw hundreds of theories into the same bucket, you have to know, even if you're a conspiracist, that almost every one of them HAS to be wrong. I think that was Professor McAdams' main point when he wrote these words on page 192 of his book.

In other words -- Too many cooks spoil the stew (and a JFK conspiracy plot).

But by contrast, in the other "bucket", what do we find? We find ONE theory and only one -- Oswald did it by himself. (Which is the only theory that has ANY physical evidence to back it up, of course.)

Therefore, via basic math (and a little common sense thrown in), which bucket is most likely to contain the truth?

Not a hard choice, in my view.

Edited November 30, 2012 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

That makes no sense, which is nothing new for DVP and Paul Nolan.

It makes perfect sense. No conspiracy theory in your "bucket" has been proven. Let alone the "hundreds" that occupy space in that same bucket.

OTOH, Oswald's guilt in Tippit's and Kennedy's murders has been proven beyond all reasonable/sensible doubt. (Far, far beyond.)

But, as per usual for Jimbo "Garrison Was Right" DiEugenio, the common-sense resolution is beyond his grasp, such as the oh-so-obviously-correct SBT and the oh-so-guilty LHO, even though Jimbo wants to pretend that Oswald was totally innocent of ALL of his 1963 crimes.

Talk about "patently impossible". Jimmy's "LHO Is Innocent Of All '63 Crimes" theory is just that. And even James himself must really know it.

Edited November 30, 2012 by David Von Pein

[Ralph Cinque]

There was no vee-shaped shadow on me during the reenactment. Certainly, there was nothing comparable to the vee we see on Doorman, which was the shape of his t-shirt. Here is a view in which my collar was spread out of the way.

Here is another in which I was wearing my Oswald shirt.

For Lamson to say, or imply, that there was a perfectly centered vee on me with linear arms as we see on Doorman is a lie. Let's focus for a second on exactly what Lamson is claiming is going on in the Altgens photo. He's claiming that a perfect vee shadow is hiding a crescent of round t-shirt, such that what you see on the left below is actually what you see on the right.

That is a big claim. That is a huge claim. And, no one has the right to make it without demonstrating it, and I don't mean by lip-wagging, but by doing it. And even if you did it, it wouldn't actually prove anything because it would still be a far cry different than for it to have spontaneously happened on 11/22/63. But, at least it would be something, a start at substantiating it. But to just glibly assume it, as Lamson and Doyle and Haydon and others have done, is preposterous.

And to Von Pein, yes, we have theories as to why other figures in the photo, besides Doorman, were altered. Did you really think we didn't? Did you think that we thought that they altered images just for the heck of it? There is a saying in law that a lawyer never asks a question in court that he doesn't know the answer to. You need to start thnking like a lawyer.

They altered Black Hole Man, we believe because he was the real Billy Lovelady. And it makes good sense; it computes.

Notice that Black Hole Man is a little shorter than Doorman, maybe an inch. Oswald was 5'9" and Lovelady was 5'8". So that computes. Notice that Black Hole Man looks stockier than Doorman. Lovelady as 175 while Doorman was not an ounce over 135. He reported his weight to reporters as 140 pounds, and I'm sure he weighed that- back in New Orleans when he was arrested. But, he lost weight between New Orleans and Dallas, and he could not have weighed more than 135 on 11/22. So, that's a 40 pound difference. Then notice the short-sleeved shirt which conforms with the shirt that Lovelady said he wore- for months. He also posed in the shirt unbuttoned, that is, configured like Doorman. Of course, that shirt he posed in had vertical stripes and this one doesn't, but it would have been easy to get rid of the stripes with a little opaquing. We are drawn to the idea that Black Hole Man was Lovelady, and of course, they had to get rid of him. They were claiming that Doorman was Lovelady, and they couldn't have two Loveladys.

Obfuscated Man we suspect was Bill Shelley. Notice the match of white shirt and skinny tie, both circled in red in the collage below.

Fedora Hat Man we suspect was Jack Ruby, who, of course, wore a Fedora hat. And we have the testimony of Victoria Adams, who when she got outside said that she saw Jack Ruby "barking orders and acting like a cop."

How about removing my restriction? We're trying to have a discussion here. What are you afraid of? That I might behave like Joseph Backes, who started a whole thread just to bludgeon me with nasty words? I am not like him.

And I'm surpised at David Von Pein for asking why the non-Doorman figures would have been altered.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Let me say how much I appreciate the comments of Pat Speer and of Jim DiEugenio in this case. The idea that the greater the proof the government is lying, the more reason to believe it is telling the truth is bizarre beyond belief. Notice that Von Pein does not "explain away" Doorman's missing shoulder, the BTM in front of and behind Doorman at the same time, the obfuscated face, or the profile of the black man, which conceals the lower part of Doorman's shirt. Here's more proof that Doorman is Oswald, "50 points of ID for the 50th observance":

Edited November 30, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Ralph Cinque]

<removed by moderator>

[/url]

Keep in mind that we don't actually need any of this because the identification of Oswald as Doorman is made by examining their two figures, and it is conclusive. Richard found 50 matching points, which is way over the top in terms of certainty.

<removed by moderator>

It was Oswald in the doorway, and that photograph was "crudely altered" (to use Dr. David Wrone's term) multiple times.

Edited December 1, 2012 by Evan Burton
Removed unacceptable behaviour

[Craig Lamson]

Notice that Von Pein does not "explain away" Doorman's missing shoulder, the BTM in front of and behind Doorman at the same time, the obfuscated face, or the profile of the black man, which conceals the lower part of Doorman's shirt. Here's more proof that Doorman is Oswald, "50 points of ID for the 50th observance":

Whats to explain, There is NOTHING seen in Altgens that is abnormal. Your testing was less that professional nor informative.

Lets start with just this one.

Where are the images you took to show the body position of Lovelady from the Altgens camera position that show your stand in leaning forward, and turning towards Altgens with his shoulder dropped?

You do have these images, RIGHT?