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

[David Von Pein]

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.

I never said anything of the kind, of course.

Fetzer, like most conspiracy theorists, thinks he has "proof" that the Government lied about a million things in the JFK case. But, of course, the "proof" that Fetzer and his buddies think exists doesn't exist at all (except in the minds of the CTers who claim the Govt. faked this and altered that and framed Oswald, etc.).

My previously-stated observation is still very accurate and rational -- i.e., the more and more theories that are heaped onto the table in this case (featuring wholly disparate and contradictory facets and conclusions concerning the murders of JFK and J.D. Tippit), the more likely it is that NONE of those theories are correct at all and the more likely it is that all of those unsupportable theories were merely born out of the fertile ground that resides in the minds of people who WANT a conspiracy to exist in the JFK murder case. That is what I truly believe, and, in fact, that is exactly what the totality of evidence in this case suggests -- because there's not a SCRAP of physical evidence to support Oswald's innocence in either the JFK or Tippit murders, and everybody knows it (deep down) -- even the Internet conspiracy mongers.

Notice that Von Pein does not "explain away" Doorman's missing shoulder...

There is no "missing shoulder". It's merely the angle of the photo and the angle of Lovelady at the time the picture was snapped.

...the BTM in front of and behind Doorman at the same time...

Is this the same type of loony theory that some CTers (possibly even Fetzer himself) have purported in the past regarding another photo/film taken in Dealey Plaza? You know, Professor, the theory that in one of the photos or films (I think it was the Nix Film), Marilyn Sitzman is supposedly standing both in FRONT of and BEHIND Abe Zapruder at the same time, thereby indicating some kind of crazy "fakery" involving that film too?

Of course, none of these films/photos have been faked by anybody. What we're treated to here, once again, is merely the overactive imagination of a conspiracy theorist who sees some anomaly that he can't quite explain, and so he immediately jumps to the conclusion that the photo or film MUST have been altered or faked, even though in many instances such kooky fakery doesn't even make any sense whatsoever -- such as the Sitzman/Zapruder Dance on the pedestal. Why was there any NEED to fake the positions of those people in any Dealey picture or film?

And why would there be a need to eliminate Bill Shelley in the Altgens picture? We have Shelley HIMSELF testifying that he was out in front of the building when the shooting occurred. And Buell Frazier is another witness who verified that Shelley was out in front too. Did the plotters think that Shelley would lie and say he wasn't standing in front of the TSBD at 12:30?

...the obfuscated face, or the profile of the black man, which conceals the lower part of Doorman's shirt.

More silliness from Fetzer. According to Fetzer, the photo-fakers decided to conceal only a PORTION of Oswald's shirt, but they left the bulk of the shirt in the faked picture, to give brilliant CTers like Prof. Fetzer just enough clues to figure out the photo is a fraud.

I'll repeat my earlier thought (which applies just as much to James H. Fetzer as it does to Dr. Ralph Cinque) ---

"The fact that [Jim F.] 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. .... Doesn't [Fetzer] even wonder WHY some of the silly things were altered in Jim Altgens' picture that [Jim] 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?" -- DVP

-----------------

This excerpt from the HSCA's Final Report is worth mentioning again too (which is an official report on the "Doorway Man" issue that Jim Fetzer will, of course, totally ignore):

"Lovelady or Oswald? -- It has been alleged that a photograph taken of the President's limousine at the time of the first shot shows Oswald standing in the doorway of the depository. Obviously, if Oswald was the man in the doorway, he could not have been on the sixth floor shooting at the President.

The Warren Commission determined that the man in the doorway was not Oswald, it was Billy Lovelady, another depository employee. Critics have challenged that conclusion, charging that Commission members did not personally question Lovelady to determine if he was in fact the man in the photograph. In addition, they argue that no photograph of Lovelady was published in any of the volumes issued by the Warren Commission.

The committee asked its photographic evidence panel to determine whether the man in the doorway was Oswald, Lovelady or someone else. Forensic anthropologists working with the panel compared the photograph with pictures of Oswald and Lovelady, and a photoanalyst studied the pattern of the shirt worn by the man in the doorway and compared it to the shirts worn by the two men that day.

Based on an assessment of the facial features, the anthropologists determined that the man in the doorway bore a much stronger resemblance to Lovelady than to Oswald. In addition, the photographic analysis of the shirt in the photograph established that it corresponded more closely with the shirt worn that day by Lovelady.

Based on these analyses, the committee concluded that it was highly improbable that the man in the doorway was Oswald and highly probable that he was Lovelady. The committee's belief that the man in the doorway was Lovelady was also supported by an interview with Lovelady in which he affirmed to committee investigators that he was the man in the photograph."

-- House Select Committee on Assassinations Final Report; Page 58

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0044b.htm

Edited December 1, 2012 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

In Groden's new book, he will further demolish Bugliosi and Dale Myers. JFK and JBC were perfectly lined up on top of each other in the car. That is the kind of research VB did for that crappy book. He never even asked Groden for photos of the car from behind. There was not the inboard positioning that VB advocates.

So, we can add a whole bunch of additional "fake" pictures to the growing list of fakery in this case, right Jim? Like the following items, which PROVE that Connally was positively sitting INBOARD of JFK in the limo. Apparently Jim even thinks the Hess & Eisenhardt body draft must be fake:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/12/robert-groden.html

Edited December 1, 2012 by David Von Pein

[Ralph Cinque]

Doorman was not leaning forward. No one would lean forward to watch a parade. When you lean forward, It shifts your center of gravity, and it becomes difficult to maintain your balance. And it's uncomfortable. Stand up right now and lean forward. Hold it for 20 seconds. Are you going to watch a parade like that?

And Doorman didn't drop his shoulder. Nobody drops his shoulder. It's ridiculous. You can raise your shoulder, but you can't drop it.

Doorman was standing upright. He was slightly rotated to the right, and he was indeed facing Altgens. And he was clasping his hands in front, left over right, just as I did during the reenactment.

And there was no vee neck shadow, not on me, and not on Doorman.

And that means that his vee was just the cut of his t-shirt, and that alone means that he had to be Oswald. And that's checkmate.

[David Von Pein]

So, Bob Groden has a photo taken at the time of the assassination which shows Connally sitting directly in front of Kennedy, eh?

Groden's not really going to try and pass off Dave Powers' film as a film that was taken in Dealey Plaza, is he? And he surely isn't silly enough to claim that Connally was sitting "directly" in front of JFK in Powers' film, is he? Because Dave Powers' film clearly shows Connally sitting INBOARD of President Kennedy:

Anyway, I can't wait to see Groden's case-breaking photo, and I'm sure Dale Myers is anxious to see it too, since such a photo would completely contradict Dale's very detailed computer animation, which is an animation that has been Key Framed to the Zapruder Film itself, with the end result of such key framing being: one single bullet coming from the sixth floor of the Book Depository most certainly could have passed through the bodies of both JFK and Governor Connally and injured the two men in just exactly the places where they were wounded on 11/22/63.

The "Key Framing" in Mr. Myers' computer animation also confirms that Governor Connally was most certainly sitting to the LEFT-FRONT of President Kennedy when the bullet from the Depository struck both victims.

But conspiracy theorists like Jim DiEugenio must believe that Dale Myers' 10 years of work on this project is just another part of the continuing "cover up" in the JFK case. Right, Jim?

And I also can't wait to read about Mr. Groden's new "bombshell" witness, who apparently spoke up for the first time in her life (just before she died) and said that she was on the second floor of the Book Depository with Lee Harvey Oswald when the assassination was occurring outside the building.

I have an inkling, however, that Groden's new bombshell witness is going to be about as reliable as any "new" Dealey Plaza picture of the limousine. Wanna bet?

BTW, regarding your comment above about Linnie Mae Randle:

Let me remind everyone of something Jim DiEugenio said on October 3, 2012:

"Linnie [Randle] could not have seen Oswald with a bag that day, unless she had x-ray vision." -- J. DiEugenio; 10/3/12

My response to DiEugenio's blatant misrepresentation of Mrs. Randle's observations concerning the paper bag she saw Oswald carrying on the morning of November 22, 1963, can be found here.

This seems like a good time to throw Jimbo's words right back in his face, so I'll do that now:

"If you were a lawyer and did this kind of stuff in a murder case, you would be disbarred."

Yes, Jim, maybe you would.

Edited December 1, 2012 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Jimbo, once again, wants to pretend that the ONLY time Linnie Mae saw Oswald with a package was after she looked into the carport from her kitchen door. It's obvious that Jimbo, in the quote below, wants people to believe that Randle NEVER saw LHO walking across the street:

"Linnie [Randle] could not have seen Oswald with a bag that day, unless she had x-ray vision." -- J. DiEugenio; 10/3/12

And Jimbo also now wants to pretend that I have never addressed Linnie Mae's testimony regarding her supposed "X-ray vision" as she looked into the carport. But Jim knows (or should) that I have addressed that testimony. I wrote a post about that very subject more than three years ago, on October 21, 2009. And I even linked to that 2009 post (below) when I put together Part 79 of my DVP Vs. Jimbo series in October of this year:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3eff31c3d5517b90

So, as we can see via the above post from back in 2009, I haven't left out anything. But Jimbo sure did when he said this in 2012:

"Linnie could not have seen Oswald with a bag that day, unless she had x-ray vision."

The above quote is just a blatant misrepresentation of Linnie Randle's observations, because Randle saw Oswald as he CROSSED THE STREET heading to the Randle carport area. Was she lying about seeing LHO crossing the street too, Jimbo? And, of course, Jimbo needs to paint Wesley Frazier as a big fat xxxx too, because Frazier has always said he saw Oswald with a package.

So who is really the flimflam man when it comes to the topic of Oswald's package? The answer is obvious, because James DiEugenio of Los Angeles will do and say ANYTHING to take that package (rifle) out of Oswald's hands. Anything at all. And Jimmy doesn't care how many people he has to call liars in order to accomplish his ludicrous "There Was No Package At All" goal.

Edited December 1, 2012 by David Von Pein

[Ralph Cinque]

Look at this collage. What Dale Myers did was totally corrupt.

He distorted Kennedy's posture- and grotesquely. Kennedy did not thrust his neck forward and pinch his head back. He actually had good head/neck alignment. Myers did that in order to get the Single Bullet Theory to work. This is really awful

[Ralph Cinque]

Getting back to the reenactment, which is the subject of this thread, here we have a collage which demonstrates a problem in the Altgens photo.

I presume no one is going to argue about the fact that Doorman's cuff appears to be in front of the Black Man's neck. We don't see his neck because Doorman's cuff comes in front of it. But, that was impossible. There was a lot of distance between them. And as I demonstrated, I couldn't get anywhere near his neck. You can see my hand floundering.

The Black Man was on a very low step, and as you went down, you went forward. The steps are both steep and deep. The black man that I placed there was tall: 6' 4", as was the black man in Altgens. He is way lower and way forward of me. My position on the landing was correct, and that is something that we figured out through trial and error. Look at the distance between his head and the column and my head and the white column. It's the same, right? I was standing at the edge of the landing, and it had to be the edge because if I stepped back much at all and I would have been in shade. And I was placed correctly from east to west. And as you can see, in actuality and in appearance, I could not get my arm anywhere near his neck. And this was using Tri-X film.

There is no logical explanation for why Doorman's cuff is wrapped around the Black Man's chin in the Altgens photo. It is an anomaly, and it should be triggering alarms in your head- especially since there are so many other anomalies in this photograph, which is strewn with them.

[Ralph Cinque]

I made this new collage because someone asked me whether I think they did anything to Doorman's arm. I don't think they did anything to his forearm. It's coming down to overlap his right wrist, as Oswald liked to do. But, they mangled his upper arm when they squeezed Black Tie Man in there next to him.

If you look at me on the right, I have a left shoulder. It comes across from my neck, and it reaches what we call the "point" of the shoulder. And at the point, there is an acute angle from which my upper arm goes down. Note that women, as a rule, have a softer angle. They are not as squared off at the shoulder as men are; they have rounder shoulders. But, we can put that aside since Oswald, Lovelady, and I were all men.

On Doorman, what you see is that he has no point to his shoulder- none; it's missing- and his upper arm has a weird trajectory where it is rising vertically, adjacent to and parallel with his breast bone, and way too far to the inside. If Doorman had a point to his shoulder, it would have extended way out into the white of the shirt of Black Tie Man. Look how far the point of my shoulder extends into Black Tie Man. And keep in mind that it's not like I am broadshouldered. I wear a size 15 shirt, which is between small and medium.

So, from the elbow, the upper arm should rise to the point of the shoulder- on everybody. But they took away the point of Doorman's shoulder, which meant that they had to redirect the line of his arm. It was like during the Civil War when the Union engineers rerouted the Mississippi River to deprive the city of Vicksburg of water, and to this day, the river follows the altered course.

So, they re-routed Doorman's arm up vertically and mangled it in the process. You can't do stuff like this without mangling. It's only the tiny stuff you can do without mangling. The whole junction between Doorman and Black Tie Man looks butchered, and it was butchered, and the only ones who can't see it are those who don't want to see it.

[Craig Lamson]

Getting back to the reenactment, which is the subject of this thread, here we have a collage which demonstrates a problem in the Altgens photo.

I presume no one is going to argue about the fact that Doorman's cuff appears to be in front of the Black Man's neck. We don't see his neck because Doorman's cuff comes in front of it. But, that was impossible. There was a lot of distance between them. And as I demonstrated, I couldn't get anywhere near his neck. You can see my hand floundering.

The Black Man was on a very low step, and as you went down, you went forward. The steps are both steep and deep. The black man that I placed there was tall: 6' 4", as was the black man in Altgens. He is way lower and way forward of me. My position on the landing was correct, and that is something that we figured out through trial and error. Look at the distance between his head and the column and my head and the white column. It's the same, right? I was standing at the edge of the landing, and it had to be the edge because if I stepped back much at all and I would have been in shade. And I was placed correctly from east to west. And as you can see, in actuality and in appearance, I could not get my arm anywhere near his neck. And this was using Tri-X film.

There is no logical explanation for why Doorman's cuff is wrapped around the Black Man's chin in the Altgens photo. It is an anomaly, and it should be triggering alarms in your head- especially since there are so many other anomalies in this photograph, which is strewn with them.

The logical explanation is that as we can all see quite clearly you simply screwed up your test.

And YOU complain about Myers...sheesh.

[David Von Pein]

I wonder why conspiracy theorists pretend that the wall in Mrs. Randle's carport was totally SOLID. It wasn't, as CE446 shows. I can easily see through the slats in the carport wall. And Linnie Mae no doubt could too, as I explained in my 2009 post linked earlier (and reprinted below).

And: Jim D. was dead wrong earlier when he implied that Randle had to look through "TWO" walls to see Frazier's car. There was actually only one "wall" between the kitchen door and Wesley's car, and that wall (as we can see in CE446) was certainly not a solid piece of wood or metal.

Also: I get a continual "pot/kettle"-like chuckle out of DiEugenio when he says that it's ME who "clips" things from Randle's testimony, when we find a blatant falsehood/misrepresentation like the one below coming from the e-lips of the Great Jimbo. Despicable.

"Linnie could not have seen Oswald with a bag that day, unless she had x-ray vision." -- Jim Di.

Quoting from 2009 post:

A FORUM MEMBER ASKED ME:

Do you think it is possible for her [Linnie Mae Randle] to have seen this [LHO putting the package in the back seat of Frazier's 1953 Chevrolet sedan], David?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'm not sure. But I certainly think it's possible, given the amount of

space between the slats in the carport [as seen in CE446].

I certainly don't think Linnie Mae was lying at all. She possibly

HEARD more than she SAW.

I.E.,

She peeks out the kitchen door and HEARS the person who she just saw

walk toward her brother's car (Lee Oswald). It's obvious that the

person at Frazier's car at that point in time was the person Randle

just saw cross the street (Oswald).

Randle then HEARS the door of Frazier's car being opened. It's also

possible that she gets enough of a glimpse of Oswald through the slats

of the carport to see at least a portion of Oswald as he places the

bag in the car.

So, the combination of HEARING what Oswald was doing at the car and

very likely SEEING a little bit of Oswald through the slats was

certainly enough information, IMO, for Mrs. Linnie Mae Randle to

reasonably testify in the following manner:

"He opened the right back door and I just saw that he was laying

the package down, so I closed the door."

Original 10/21/2009 post:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3eff31c3d5517b90

Edited December 1, 2012 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

I think it time this man [Wes Frazier] comes clean instead of being invited to promote the same barrel of crap he's been telling for 49 years.

Oh, brother.

Note to Jim Fetzer and Ralph Cinque:

I am sorry for sidetracking this thread and sending it off into a discussion about Linnie Randle.

My apologies.

Edited December 2, 2012 by David Von Pein

[Ralph Cinque]

No, Craig, I set the test up correctly. If you look at the distance between my head and the white column and compare it to Doorman's position relative to the column, you'll see that it's the same. And that was difficult to accomplish. From Altgens angle, there is a lot of leverage involved. Move an inch or two the wrong way, and it throws it off a lot. It took a lot of trial and error to arrive at that. And then with the Black Man, it was easier because we found out right away that he was indeed adjacent to the column, but very low on the steps. We have him perched on the second step, and even going one step higher began to obscure him from Altgens angle.

And what the test showed is that there was a lot of distance between Doorman and Black Man, and I mean from front to back. Surely, you'll grant that it looks like Doorman's arm is coming around in front of the Black Man in Altgens, and I say surely because no one has disputed this on any of the forums. But, it was impossible for us to reproduce that- as I expected.

In the collage below, I was wearing the Lovelady shirt, rather than the Oswald shirt. And another difference is that I was standing closer to the white column.

I'm a little too close to it, actually, and it put me closer to the black man, in the east/west plane. And, in this instance, I am standing as Doorman did, clasping my left hand over my right. But, you'll notice that I am still completely behind him. There is no part of me that is obscuring any part of him. And that's because a person behind cannot obscure a person in front. And I am way behind him. Not just a little bit, but a lot. And that's why what we see in the Altgens photo doesn' t make sense. It didn't make sense before I went to Dallas, and it makes even less sense now.

[David Von Pein]

The right hand side of Frazier's car was furthest from Randle. She had to SEE through the slats and through to the other side of the car.

Explained in my prior post.

To counter this you have to invent what Linnie Mae Randle HEARD instead.

And you think that Linnie Mae heard NOTHING that was going on when she opened the kitchen door, eh?

She undoubtedly did HEAR the "sticky" right-hand back door being opened. And she might have HEARD the crinkling of Oswald's bag as he placed it in the car. And she probably also HEARD the car door closing when Oswald shut the door.

And since there's plenty of light showing through those slats in CE446, she certainly could have seen some of Oswald, even if he was on the other side of Wesley's car. (Oswald was taller than the roof of the car, you know.)

On another driver related question. Do you lock your car at night, Dave?

You CTers should belong to The Nit-Pickers Association Of The World. You're tailor-made for that clique.

I thought perhaps Jimbo DiEugenio was the only person on the Internet who actually was silly enough to think that Wes Frazier AND Linnie Randle BOTH lied about seeing Oswald with a paper bag on 11/22/63. But I see I was mistaken. Lee Farley has now joined Jimmy's odd "No Bag At All" club. Incredible.

BTW, no, I do not lock my car at night. It's always parked in a closed garage.

But you, of course, know that many people in 1963 didn't even lock up their houses at night. It was a different era. And an unlocked car would not be unusual in the slightest. But by all means, call Frazier a xxxx in that "lock doors" regard too. Might as well accuse him of more lies, right?

[David Von Pein]

Jimbo is so out of it that he thinks I think that Frazier parked his car INSIDE the carport. I guess Jimbo just totally ignored my 2009 post. Geez.

[David Von Pein]

And BTW, whatever your 2009 post was, it's invisible.

Are you trying to hide it?

~sigh~

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19720&st=45#entry263628