JFK believe it or not: Oswald wasn't even a shooter!

[Ralph Cinque]

Another thing we proved is that, with Tri-X film, shade over a white t-shirt does not turn it black. It turns it grey.

Do you see how my shaded white t-shirt looked grey? It's skin that gets turned black, not white t-shirt. And that's just the way it goes.

Tonight, Facebook shut down the evil Joe Backes. His page against me was filthy, rageful, venomous, and truly hate-spewing. The amazing thing is that I no sooner reported him that they took one look at it and shut him down.

And yet, the irony is that he is still a member in good standing here. And there was a guy who was supporting him vigorously, cheering him on with the hatemongering named Charles Drago who is the monitor of another site like this called Deep Politics. Even Dawn Meredith- a woman no less- was not the least bit deterred by all the f-words- as long as they were directed at me. Well, hate all you want, people. I'm pretty thick-skinned. It's Oswald in the doorway. And as we head towards the 50th, that's the lead story. Like it or not.

[Karl Kinaski]

There is a word what Cinque is doing: Junk-Science.

Now, I ll leave that building...

KK

[Craig Lamson]

Lamson, I spent a total of 4 days there. I had a lot of pictures taken, and only a small number went into the report. Here's one I did in your honor. It shows me right in the middle of the doorway at 12:30- right in the spot where you said he was: behind the median handrail. And I'm bending forward, like you said, and I'm imaginatively grabbing the median handrail in the manner you described. And there's no vee shadow.

I've got dozens of pictures like this. You want we go through them one by one?

It is preposterous to claim that Doorman's t-shirt was anything but what it appeared to be, which is v-shaped. That perfect vee was the cut of his shirt- just like on me. And you're not going to tell me that it wasn't the cut of my t-shirt, are you? Because I think I know very well what the cut of my t-shirt was. I bought it for the occasion. Prior to this, I never owned a v-shaped t-shirt in my life. But that one on me was v-shaped.

Thanks for posting that one Ralph, it totally destroys your claim.

So lets ask the simple question first. Wheres is the shadow from your head and chin?

You claim that Doorman, in a similar position as you, shows a vee of skin THAT IS NOT IN SHADOW...a vee of skin that is in FULL sunlight but has the same tone as skin in full shade.

If we look at your posted photo we can see the shadow from your head and chin falls DIRECTLY under your chin and down over your chest. It falls OVER the plaid shirt, which HIDES the fact the shadow is a vee. We KNOW it is a vee because it does not extend to any great extent over on the plaid shirt.

This pretty much seals the deal. Its Lovelady in the doorway with a vee shadow.

The VERY BEST you can hope to claim is that by an amazing coincidence the shadow from doormans head, WHICH YOU JUST PROVED IS IN THE EXACT PLACE WE SEE IT IN ALTGENS, falls PERFECTLY within the margins of a vee necked tee shirt.

And you have stated many times you don't believe in coincidences.

Too bad you can't do photo analysis...might have saved you this embarrassment.

Added on edit.

Do you see the bright spot in the window? That's a light. Fill flash was used in this picture to open up the shadows, that is make them less dark than they really are.

That's not a very honest thing to do....

Edited November 23, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Another thing we proved is that, with Tri-X film, shade over a white t-shirt does not turn it black. It turns it grey.

Do you see how my shaded white t-shirt looked grey? It's skin that gets turned black, not white t-shirt. And that's just the way it goes.

Tonight, Facebook shut down the evil Joe Backes. His page against me was filthy, rageful, venomous, and truly hate-spewing. The amazing thing is that I no sooner reported him that they took one look at it and shut him down.

And yet, the irony is that he is still a member in good standing here. And there was a guy who was supporting him vigorously, cheering him on with the hatemongering named Charles Drago who is the monitor of another site like this called Deep Politics. Even Dawn Meredith- a woman no less- was not the least bit deterred by all the f-words- as long as they were directed at me. Well, hate all you want, people. I'm pretty thick-skinned. It's Oswald in the doorway. And as we head towards the 50th, that's the lead story. Like it or not.

This from the guy who has deleted all opposing views from his comments page. Imagine that.

Now, on to your second point, the dark skin.

In your image with the dark vee you show us CONCLUSIVELY that the area under Doormans chin MUST be in full shade. So you lose point one, since you claim the opposite. Your image proves that to darken the skin under LOVELADYS chin, it must be in full shadow.

With that resolved we must ask where does that shadow fall and in what shape.

You have proven conclusively that a vee shadow IS possible {x lady) and that we see that very shadow ( even though you lightened it with fill flash) falls exactly where it does in Altgens ( You in the center of the doorway)

Which tells us we are seeing one of two things in Altgens. A vee shaped shadow ver a round neck tee shirt or a vee tee shirt and a vee shadow that falls PERFECTLY within the margins of the vee shirt...which would be an amazing coincidence.

So how do we settle it? You say, look at my picture, you can still see the white of my tee shirt.

Only one problem with that, b/w images can be processed to many different tonal "looks" and the stuff supplied by your photographer was not even close to what we see in Altgens. You were attempting a forensic photo shoot and your photographer failed on many points, the quality of the resulting images just being one.

Lets compare his work to the Altgens:

The first thing you will notice is the photographer did not even come close to matching the look of the Altgens. That was his job, in this instance and he failed miserably. This was not an advertising shoot but rather a forensic shoot and in this instance the photographer did not do his job properly.

And since the images were NOT properly processed, any attempts to compare tonally, like Cinques has done here are fatally flawed. His attempt at a proof fails.

So where does that leave us?

We now know that a VEE shadow is possible.

We now know that the shadow from doormans head falls just like it is seen in Altgens.

We can PROVE that it is fact a shadow falling over a round neck tee shirt by MEASURING the tonality of the Altgens.

And when we do we find that it is exactly that, a vee shadow as confirmed by Cinque, falling over a round neck tee shirt.

It is Lovelady in the doorway.

Edited November 23, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

BTW, lets illustrate where the lightened shadow falls...

[Ralph Cinque]

I've got tons of pictures, Lamson.

Mighty Mouse Mytton would draw thick black angle brackets around that and call it a vee.

How many times do I have to tell you that perfect, balanced, centered, even vees like we see on Doorman are extremely rare- as far as the shape of shadows goes. It wasn't the shape of the shadow. It was the shape of the t-shirt.

I don't say that shadow wasn't involved. I'm saying that the shape, the actual controu, the margin of the shadow was determined by the shape of the t-shirt. There was a junction there between white t-shirt and brown skin, and that is what you are seeing. And the contrast got exaggerated by the high-contrast Tri-X film. It's true on Doorman as it is on me. You're looking at the same thing, the same phenomenon.

You have got no right- intellectualy speaking- to assert that round t-shirt got rendered invisible- on Doorman or on me. This isn't Imagination Day at Kindergarden. It's a plain photo in which we see a man wearing a v-cut t-shirt- and that's on both sides. To dispute that is insane. Nothing is being hidden. There is no white t-shirt underneath the black. That is what you are trying to claim. Stop it already! It's Oswald in the doorway!

[Ralph Cinque]

Here's another one, Lamson. I'm leaning forward. I'm turning. I'm twisting. I'm reaching. But, there's no vee shadow.

All I'm saying is that Doorman's t-shirt was exactly as it appears to be. There was no optical illusion going on. There was no shadow covering up and obliterating white t-shirt. It is a preposterous claim. It is so preposterous that you can't demonstrate it. You can't perform an experiment in which you produce such a thing. All you can do is wag your lips and conjure up your fanciful explanations and excuses.

It's Oswald in the doorway wearing the t-shirt that only he could have worn. And that clinches it rock-solid. It's over for you, Lamson. You've been checkmated.

[Craig Lamson]

BTW, just a clairification.

The images I used in my posts are direct links to the images Cinque has posted, I've not copied or reused them in any way, OTHER than the comparison image of the shadow in my last post. This usage falls under the fair use provisions of US copyright law.

Fair use is a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. In United States copyright law, fair use is a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include commentary, search engines, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship. It provides for the legal, unlicensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test.

Edited November 23, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Ralph Cinque]

I want to thank Jerry Dealey at JFK Lancer for lifting the ban on me. Fortunately, Jerry has a sense of fair play and open debate, which I respect. Over here, the situation is that Craig Lamson gets to post repeatedly at will while I'm left at bay- at the mercy of moderators. Is Craig a better person than I am? Is he more polite? Is he more respectful? It's hard to type all that with a straight face.

Anyway, if anyone would like to continue the discussion in a fair, balanced, unobstructed format, here is the link to the Lancer discussion. And Craig, you might want to venture over there- unless you enjoy fighting a guy who's got one hand tied behind his back.

http://1078567.sites.myregisteredsite.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=3&topic_id=96883&mesg_id=96883&page=

[Pat Speer]

Before you leave, Ralph, I have a question. When you were here before, you were pushing that the pattern of the shirt in the Altgens' photo was Lovelady's, but that that was because some mysterious "they" had nabbed the negative of the photo and inserted Lovelady's shirt pattern over Oswald's. You're now claiming the shirt pattern in the photo is in fact Oswald's.

SO...does that mean you no longer believe there was mass conspiracy to make the shirt look like Lovelady's?

Have you retreated from your claim the footage of Lovelady wearing his shirt at the police station was faked?

Or are you now claiming there was a mass conspiracy to pretend Lovelady was wearing a plaid shirt on 11-22-63, and that nothing from this shirt--not the pattern, not the cut--can be seen in the Altgens photo?

Because...well..what would be the point?

I mean, it seems like you've made a sharp turn. You used to claim they nabbed the photo in part to fake the shirt. And now it seems like you're claiming they nabbed the photo to wipe some faces out of the photo, and left the shirt.

Is this in fact what you're claiming? Did they insert Lovelady into that footage to show him wearing a shirt he didn't wear that day, even though that shirt was not in the Altgens photo?

P.S. I spotted a mistake in your article. When you compare the shoulders in the Altgens photo and your re-enactment wearing a shirt close to Lovelady's, the shirts are very close in appearance. A little further down, however, you compare your re-enactments in which you wear a brown shirt, and a plaid shirt, to the shirt seen in Altgens. And your image of the plaid shirt here is much lighter, giving the appearance it doesn't remotely match the shirt in Altgens. Even though your earlier comparison proves it does. You may want to fix that.

[Ralph Cinque]

Pat, I haven't retreated from anything. And you are misstating my position. I never said that the pattern of Doorman's shirt was that of Lovelady's. I said that the pattern of Doorman's shirt looks exactly like Oswald's- but only in the upper right quarter of it. The rest of Doorman's shirt has a weird pattern that does not match Oswald and does not match Lovelady. An undiscriminating person might think it matches Lovelady, but they're not looking closely. It doesn't match either of the shirts that Lovelady claimed to wear on 11/22 at different times.

I believe they did doctor the shirt-pattern, but that narrow section on the upper right was too small for them to tamper with. So, they had to leave it. Maybe they thought no one would notice. They were wrong.

And Pat, don't put "they" in quotes because YOU are supposed to be a CT, and in being a CT, you automatically admit that there was a "they" who killed the President and tried to cover it up. So, word to the wise: don't put "they" in quotes because it makes you come across as a complete phony and charlatan. Lone-nutters can do it- but you can't. Again, you are supposed to be a CT, so act like one.

The footage of Lovelady at the Dallas PD was totally faked, and in two ways. In one version, they embedded a Lovelady figure into the footage. But, it's pretty fake; he bleeds, he runs; and he looks like a ghost. So, they came up with another one which was a complete reenactment of the few seconds, which they spliced in. That's the one you see in the 2009 History Channel program "Three Shots That Changed America". And there is a version in which they strung the two together, but to do that, they had to speed it up and blur it up in order to accomplish the bait and switch. They also had to slim DeNiro Lovelady down, so they applied some kind of narrowing filter to the whole thing. Here, take a look:

So: Doorman's shirt is all Oswald: the form, the fit, the lay, the wear, all except for a weird pattern over the body of the shirt and left sleeve which cannot be associated with Oswald or Lovelady. The only part of the shirt that we can count on as being accurate is the upper right. So, that is what I used. Comprende?

And, Lovelady did not wear a plaid shirt on 11/22. He wore a short-sleeved, red and white shirt with vertical stripes, which he maintained for months.

Regarding your complaint, we had to shoot right at 12:30 on each day, and on each of them, the sun was going in and out. We had no control over that. And it happened to be shining brightly at the moment to which you refer. And you might think it was a help to me, but it was also a hindrance. I'm sure it was too my advantage at all. The point is that if Lovelady had been wearing a plaid, checkered shirt, the plaid and checks would have shown up- even with Tri-X film. That's Oswald's shirt, not Lovelady's.

Before you leave, Ralph, I have a question. When you were here before, you were pushing that the pattern of the shirt in the Altgens' photo was Lovelady's, but that that was because some mysterious "they" had nabbed the negative of the photo and inserted Lovelady's shirt pattern over Oswald's. You're now claiming the shirt pattern in the photo is in fact Oswald's.

SO...does that mean you no longer believe there was mass conspiracy to make the shirt look like Lovelady's?

Have you retreated from your claim the footage of Lovelady wearing his shirt at the police station was faked?

Or are you now claiming there was a mass conspiracy to pretend Lovelady was wearing a plaid shirt on 11-22-63, and that nothing from this shirt--not the pattern, not the cut--can be seen in the Altgens photo?

Because...well..what would be the point?

I mean, it seems like you've made a sharp turn. You used to claim they nabbed the photo in part to fake the shirt. And now it seems like you're claiming they nabbed the photo to wipe some faces out of the photo, and left the shirt.

Is this in fact what you're claiming? Did they insert Lovelady into that footage to show him wearing a shirt he didn't wear that day, even though that shirt was not in the Altgens photo?

P.S. I spotted a mistake in your article. When you compare the shoulders in the Altgens photo and your re-enactment wearing a shirt close to Lovelady's, the shirts are very close in appearance. A little further down, however, you compare your re-enactments in which you wear a brown shirt, and a plaid shirt, to the shirt seen in Altgens. And your image of the plaid shirt here is much lighter, giving the appearance it doesn't remotely match the shirt in Altgens. Even though your earlier comparison proves it does. You may want to fix that.

[Craig Lamson]

LOL! You can post all the photos you want from now until eternity and it all too late. You posted TWO images from the steps of the TSBD with vee neck shadows and no amount of shucking an jiving...or posting more photo with incorrect subject to sun positons... will ever change that fact.

You destroyed yourself. Deal with it.

As for the tee shirt being turned black its still same as it has always been. We can MEASURE it, and it destroys you...

And until you offer up a wet...as in done in a darkroom...print from your tri-x tests PROCESSED TO MIMIC the tonality of the Altgens, you are comparing apples to oranges and you prove nothing.

That's how the real world works Ralph, deal with it.

You played your hand and you lost. At least admit it for once.

Edited November 23, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Ralph Cinque]

I don't know what Lamson is talking about. There is this image in which the woman had a vee, but the vee was on her neck, not on her chest. Compare her to Doorman.

Lamson, I know you have never made a formal study of the process of rational analysis, but conclusion-jumping is one of the worst mistakes people make.

I have marked the spot in black where the vee would have to reach on the woman to correspond to Doorman.

I've pointed this out to you repeately already, Lamson, and yet, you keep going back to it. Alright, let's try blowing it up.

Can you see it now?

[David Von Pein]

You're now claiming the shirt pattern in the photo is in fact Oswald's. .... It seems like you're claiming they nabbed the photo to wipe some faces out of the photo, and left the shirt. Is this in fact what you're claiming?

That is exactly what Cinque has been claiming for at least the last couple of months. And I point out the absurd internal contradictions of his "Fake Face, But Not A Fake Shirt" theory in my article below. In addition to pointing out a number of other things that Ralph has gotten wrong, even though he won't admit to anything being wrong with his theory--at all. .....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/10/doorway-man-part-2.html#The-Shirt

Edited November 23, 2012 by David Von Pein

[Ralph Cinque]

To get a clear idea about the pattern of Oswald's shirt, you should watch this video.

Keep in mind that it was taken indoors. But, it was a woven tweed shirt, that was well worn, and in the sunlight, it had a tendency to sparkle. But as far as the actual pigment that it had, it was all one color. But, let's compare it to Doorman's and Lovelady's shirts.

So, whose does Doorman's match? Neither really. And listen up: you can't just go with what you think is closer. This isn't horseshoes or hand grenades. Close doesn't cut it. I happen to think that Oswald's is closer. But, it remains a question mark.

Except for the upper right side of Doorman's shirt, which is an excellent match to the upper right side of Oswald's shirt. Here it is again circled.

So, that's what I go by when comparing all three shirts.

I request to be allowed to post freely like the others.