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

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JFK: 49 Years in the Offing — The Altgens Reenactment

By Ralph Cinque (with Jim Fetzer)

This is the seventh in a series of studies of the Altgens photograph — technically, the Altgens6, out of the seven attributed to him, where the Altgens7 als0 appears to have been faked — where it is now beyond any reasonable doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald, the accused assassin of the 35th President of the United States, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, could not have killed him, since he was in the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository at the time and therefore cannot possibly have been a shooter, much less “the lone assassin”. Those who have not followed this research, which has been published here at VT, ought to read:

“JFK SPECIAL: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!” (with Ralph Cique)

“JFK SPECIAL 2: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!” (with Ralph Cique and Clare Kuehn)

“JFK SPECIAL 3: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!” (with Ralph Cique)

“JFK SPECIAL 4: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!” (with Richard Hooke)

“JFK SPECIAL 5: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!” by Ralph Cique and now, most recently, another fine study,

“JFK believe it or not: Oswald wasn’t even a shooter” (with Richard Hooke). The series began when Ralph Cinque contact me after I had published, “JFK: What we know now that we didn’t know then”, including copies of Will Fritz’s handwritten notes, where the Homicide Detective who was interrogating Oswald wrote “out with Bill Shelley in front” in response to a question about his location at the time of the assassination. That led me to discover this collage:

After its publication, Ralph contacted me to explain that, while my conclusion — that Oswald was in the doorway — was correct, the premises on which I had based my argument — that the only reason to have obfuscated a face in Altgens6 would have been if someone was there who should not have been there, where the only candidate for that role was Lee Harvey Oswald — were mistaken because, unless Lovelady was wearing Lee’s shirt, Doorman has to have been Lee.

We know now that Billy Lovelady, a co-worker who bore a resemblance to him, may have also been in the doorway but was not Doorman based upon comparisons of their clothing (where Billy had even shown the FBI the red-and-white, vertically striped short-sleeved shirt he was wearing at the time, but the government has insisted he was wearing the checked shirt show at the top/center), the right ear, the left eye, the cranium and the hairline with more than 27 points of identification that resolve the issue as decisively as possibly applying scientific reasoning to the available evidence.

The face that was obscured now appears to have been that of Bill Shelley, where it might have raised too many questions if Shelley HAD BEEN OUT FRONT and led to CLOSE STUDY FOR OSWALD. How anyone can persist in denying that Altgens6 has been faked when (1) the face has been obscured, (2) Doorman is missing his left shoulder, (3) the figure behind him, Black Tie Man, is also in front of him, and (4) a black man’s profile appears in front of Doorman’s torso is simply beyond me. But disinformation only works because it is based upon distortions and misrepresentations of truth.

49 Years in the Offing — The Altgens Reenactment

by Ralph Cinque

The Oswald Innocence Campaign has accomplished the first-ever professional reenactment of the Altgens photo, using posers for the figures in the doorway. I say “professional” because two professional photographers were involved. This should have been done 49 years ago, immediately after the assassination, and had there been an honest investigation and a real search for the truth, it would have been done. After all, they had Lovelady, and he had his shirt, and they had Altgens, and he had his camera. They could have put Lovelady in the doorway, and Altgens at his spot in the street, and then seen if they could replicate the exact look of Doorway Man. Considering how easily they could have done that, it is nothing less than criminal that they didn’t.

The photo shoot was done in two sessions: on Saturday, November 10th, and Saturday, November 17th. The reason we had to do it on the weekend is because there are Dallas city offices in the former TSBD building, and people use the steps to enter and exit. So, on a weekday, it would have been impossible to occupy the steps as we did. Most likely, someone would have complained, and a person in authority would have ordered us to leave. But, the building is closed on the weekends- except for the Sixth Floor Museum, which, fortunately, has its own entrance around the corner. So, on the weekends, those steps are up for grabs.

First, let’s introduce our photographers. The November 10th photographer was Doug Davis, an award-winning commercial photographer in Dallas and the owner of D-Squared Studios. http://d2studios.net/ Doug is a graduate of the photography program at Texas A&M University at Commerce, which is one of the top photography schools in the nation. Doug specializes in commercial advertising campaigns- local and international- and his clients include American Airlines, AT&T, Brinker International, Chick-fil-A, Dell Computers, Frito Lay, IBM, Johnson & Johnson, Pepsi Co., Southwest Airlines and Sprint.

Doug could not attend the November 17th session because he was the official photographer of the Formula 1 US Grand Prix auto races in Austin that weekend. So instead, he sent his associate, Tim Doughten, who is also a graduate of Texas A&M at Commerce.

The photos were taken with an old Cannon SLR 100 mm telephoto lens camera as compared to Altgens Nikkorex SLR 105 mm telephoto lens camera. Both used 35 mm Tri-X film, like Altgens and the same f/11 aperture. And as with Altgens, the focal point was set about 50 feet ahead, which was the approximate location of Kennedy’s limo.

We’ll start with the broadest view of our shooting space and compare it to the Altgens. As I look at it, I marvel at the fact that, after 40 years, everything is still so very much the same in Dealey Plaza. How fortunate for us that after half a century we were still able to do this.

If you look between the left column and the tree on each side, you’ll see that we got the angle about right. Keep in mind that it’s very difficult because there is so much leverage involved. Just one small step out of place has a huge effect to throw it off. This may not be perfect, but considering the degree of difficulty, it was masterful. This was taken by Doug using the Tri-X film.

Now, we are going to hone in and examine specific issues pertaining to the figures in the doorway. So, let’s move in closer on both sides.

First, observe the absence of a v-shaped neck shadow on Doorman in the reenacted photo. In the Altgens, you see Doorman’s plunging vee, but there is nothing comparable to that on me. Note that this was a digital frame, but we are going to look at a Tri-X frame in a moment. But first, look at me, as Doorman, closer yet.

http://s2.hubimg.com...389897_f520.jpg

You’d be surprised how many bloggers were certain that a vee neck shadow would appear. One even said that the laws of physics demanded it. This was at or very close to 12:30, and it was November 12, so just 10 days before the exact calendar match, and there was no perfect vee shadow, and not even an imperfect one. And note that I am wearing a round t-shirt.

This controversy arose because in the Altgens photo, Doorman’s t-shirt looks vee, as you can see above, and it is a match to Oswald. But, our detractors have claimed that the vee was due only to neck shadow, that it was a perfect illusion in which the high, tight, round crewneck t-shirt of Lovelady was made to look v-shaped by the overlying shade from his chin. The collage below depicts the essence of the debate.

http://s2.hubimg.com...389901_f520.jpg

According to our detractors, what you see on the left was really what you see on the right. But, we were unable to reproduce that. Be aware that Oswald’s vee was homemade; he had the habit of tugging on his t-shirt, which stretched it into a vee. The vee didn’t always manifest; it depended on whether his t-shirt was pulled down in front or in back. But, it often manifested, and what we see on Doorman is about middle of the road for Oswald.

Now let’s examine the neck shadow within a Tri-X frame.

http://s4.hubimg.com...390999_f520.jpg

Hey, look! It’s a vee! Is it a vee shadow? NO! That’s the shape of my t-shirt! I changed my clothes! This was my Oswald outfit. The other was my Lovelady outfit. Here, I was wearing a v-shaped t-shirt. The vee that you see is definitely the shape of the t-shirt. I was wearing it, so I should know. And I have witnesses.

I have come to think that the above image is my favorite among all that we took. And that’s because it shows the same dark vee on me that we see on Doorman. And, as I look at myself, I know full well what that darkness represents. IT IS MY SKIN. I am wearing a v-neck t-shirt, which I bought for the occasion, and all that darkness is the pure integument of Ralph Cinque. That’s all it is: my skin. And, it’s exactly the same on Doorman. His dark vee is simply his skin which is exposed and defined by his v-shaped t-shirt. Mine was store-bought, and his was homemade, but that doesn’t matter. Look at us both together. We are both manifesting the exact same thing, and it happens to be in the exact same place, at essentially the same time of day, and practically the same day of the year- except mine was 49 years later.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Vee-collage-640x368.jpg

But now, let’s ask Doug what he thinks:

Ralph: “So Doug, were you surprised that there was no perfect vee-shaped chin shadow?”

Doug: “No, I wasn’t. To make a vee-shaped chin shadow the subject has to be facing the sun directly, and the sun has to be high in the sky, so the rays are coming down from above and not coming in at an angle. The higher the sun is the better. And it helps if you have a large, prominent, well-chiseled chin, and not everyone does. But, even when vee shadows occur, they are rarely perfect. Usually, they are uneven, squirrely, and sloppy. They are just ‘vee-ish’ not perfect vees.”

Regarding the height of the sun, a British physicist determined that and on November 22, 1963, the altitude of the sun was only 36.973 degrees. That’s less than a pure diagonal of 45 degrees. Remember that the days start getting shorter, and the height of the sun in the sky starts decreasing as of June 22 each year- the day after the summer solstice. So, by November 22, or even November 12, the sun isn’t very high in the sky any more, even at solar noon. And it was only going to get lower in the sky between November 12 and November 22, so, conditions were only going to worsen in that respect.

Before we go any further, I must emphasize that this lack of a vee shadow forces us to conclude that Doorman’s t-shirt looked vee because it was vee.

Ralph: “Doug, what is your take on the shape of Doorman’s t-shirt?”

Doug: “I agree with you that it was definitely a v-shaped t-shirt. It was not due to shadow. It was the actual physical form of the shirt. There is no illusion going on.”

Ralph: “But what about the high contrast? Why does my exposed skin below my head look so dark?”

Doug: “Well, this was Tri-X film, and you have to understand the nature of it. With this film, the particles of emulsion are randomly placed. They are also randomly sized and shaped. There are also spaces which can occur between some of the particles. I liken it to a beehive. The result is that the photo comes out grainy, with a lack of detail, and with a loss of shades of grey. And, the process by which the negatives are developed and the pictures printed can add to the polarization. I don’t know if the Altgens photo was deliberately processed to increase the contrast – or if it happened that way accidentally. But, it is high-contrast, and the t-shirt definitely was vee-shaped, as it appears. Even by the late 1960s, there was much better film available.”

Here is an image of me alone taken by Tim on November 17. It’s taken from Altgens position but with a digital camera. However, we are only considering the location of my neck shadow at the moment, so it doesn’t matter. I am wearing my Lovelady outfit consisting of a plaid shirt and a round-neck t-shirt. But, there is no v-shaped neck shadow, and not much neck shadow at all.

http://s2.hubimg.com...390677_f520.jpg

This shows that Doorman’s t-shirt looked vee because it was vee- just like Oswald’s. And, that means that he was Oswald. Unless you are going to argue that Lovelady attacked Oswald in the bathroom, or elsewhere, and stole his t-shirt, you are split-out-of-luck when it comes to championing Lovelady as Doorman.

Now look at a Tri-X shot by Tim, and this was taken November 17, just 5 days ahead of A-Day.

http://s2.hubimg.com...389929_f520.jpg

As you can see, the whole gang is there. And on me, Doorman, there is no vee shadow. The reason why Obfuscated Man was bending his knees is because he was tall, and we didn’t want him to cover up Black Hole Man.

Now, look at some shots of Oswald displaying his v-shaped t-shirt.

http://s3.hubimg.com...389934_f520.jpg

http://s1.hubimg.com...389936_f520.jpg

Now, we’ll look further at Black Hole Man. For those who don’t know, Black Hole Man refers to the figure in the Altgens photo who has both hands atop his head, vizoring his eyes, where his face is completely blackened out- like a black hole in space.

http://s3.hubimg.com...389942_f520.jpg

The image on the right was taken with Tri-X film by Tim on November 17. Be aware that we tried to peak his right wrist and depress his left arm some, just as in the Altgens. But, as you can see, we didn’t reproduce the black hole. We can see the lower part of his face just fine. It was the same location, the same time of day, and practically the same day of the year. Yet, for Altgens, he had a black hole, and for us, he had a face.

But, I’m sure this comes as no surprise to anyone.It’s bizarre that we are even talking about it. Did anyone really expect that his whole face would be blackened out just from having his hands atop his head? Have you ever seen such a thing except in the Altgens photo? And you can’t blame it on shade from above because the nose comes out in front of the top of the chest. And since in Altgens the top of his chest is in the light, it means his nose should also be in the light. We have all been looking at photographs our whole lives, and we know that this doesn’t happen. The image of Black Hole Man in the Altgens photo is not legit. They must have blackened out his face deliberately. It is listed as an anomaly on the Anomalies page of the OIC site, and it shall remain there. And, for the record, we suspect that Black Hole Man was the real Billy Lovelady.

Next, we look at the relationship between Doorman and Black Tie Man.

http://s1.hubimg.com...389948_f520.jpg

I am starting with a digital photo by Doug because I want you to see something. You can tell that I was a little too far east because all of my right shoulder is showing, and half of it should be covered by the white column. That means that I should have been farther west. But, at that point, I was standing right smack dab in the middle, directly behind the center handrail that used to be there. This showed me that Doorman was definitely west of the center handrail, and it means that he could not possibly have been grabbing it with his left arm crossing in front of his body, as some bloggers allege. What Doorman was doing with his left hand is grabbing his right hand and wrist, as you see me doing. He was simply clasping his hands in front. We have several images of Oswald doing that in the last two days of his life. It was, apparently, a habitual stance of his.

Realize that no one would swing his left arm over for no reason because it’s tiring, uncomfortable, and pointless. He must have been resting his left hand on something, and since he could not have been resting it on the handrail since he was west of it, all that leaves is that he was resting it on was his other hand, just as Oswald often did.

http://s1.hubimg.com...389952_f520.jpg

Notice that in the picture above, he is not in handcuffs. In some of the other pictures we have of him standing that way, he was in handcuffs, and some are quick to attribute it to the handcuffs.

http://s2.hubimg.com...389957_f520.jpg

But, look what he was doing in his final seconds of consciousness.

http://s1.hubimg.com...389964_f520.jpg

There was a cuff around his right hand that was attached to Detective Leavelle in the white suit. But, Oswald’s left hand was free, and he brought it over to clasp his right hand. It was a matter of habit.

Now, we’ll return to Doorman’s relationship to Black Tie Man, and we’ll examine a Tri-X image by Tim.

http://s1.hubimg.com...389976_f520.jpg

Look closely, and you’ll see that I have a “point” to my shoulder. My shoulder goes across horizontally, and then my arm goes down vertically, and where they meet is the” point” of the shoulder. I have one. Doorman does not. We have been saying all along that his shoulder was cut off, and now we have confirmed it. Below, I have marked the point of my shoulder in white. There is no comparable point on Doorman.

http://s4.hubimg.com...389979_f520.jpg

I was cinched up closely to Black Tie Man- as closely as possible. It was the only way to come anywhere close to what we see in the Altgens. Some bloggers have maintained that BT Man was actually standing some distance away from Doorman. Well, he wasn’t because we tried it that way, and it didn’t work. If we placed him apart, he looked apart. And if we placed him deep, he was totally shrouded in darkness. It was hard enough for me to stay out of darkness standing at the edge of the landing.

In the Altgens, Black Tie Man looks fused to Doorman, and the only way we could approximate that was to cinch them together as tightly as possible, with Doorman in front and Black Tie Man in back, but diagonal to him. If anyone thinks that isn’t correct, feel free to go to Dealey Plaza on a weekend and try it yourself.

Compare the expanse of my left shoulder to Doorman’s. I have one, and he doesn’t. There is no way that Black Tie Man, standing next to me but also behind me, could cover up my shoulder, or any other part of me. Someone behind cannot cover up someone in front. We believe that in the Altgens photo, they squeezed Black Tie Man in there- after the fact. They added him in, and what we see in the Altgens is a photographic lie– an impossibility. Doorman and Black Tie Man look like conjoined twins.

But, is it possible that Doorman was just twisted and contorted so that his shoulder was severely depressed on that side? As a chiropractor with nearly 40 years’ experience, I can tell you emphatically: No! You can tell from the neutrality of Doorman’s head position that he is not contorting his shoulders. Doorman’s head is vertical. Compare it to the white column, which is vertical. They are in parallel. He is not doing anything but standing there watching the parade with his hands clasped in front. He wasn’t straining and twisting to look down Elm St.- and he had no need to. Again, I’ve been there, and the view of Elm St. from the top of those steps is just fine. You can see everything quite easily. A slight, subtle turn to the right is all he had to do to keep Kennedy in view, and he didn’t have to do anything with his shoulders. He was just standing there comfortably, in balance, watching the parade, with his hands clasped.

As an aside, I realize now that no one should claim anything about Doorman’s position without first going to Dealey Plaza and trying it. You can’t have an informed opinion about this without doing that.

But, let’s ask Doug about Doorman’s left shoulder.

Ralph: “Doug, what do you make of Doorman’s left shoulder in the Altgens?”

Doug: “I have a problem with it. It looks compromised. Look at the line of the man’s coat- the one you call Black Tie Man. That diagonal line is the inside margin of his coat. And that means that there is more of him- quite a lot more of him- going to the left, and yet, we are already encroaching upon Doorman. And, the idea that Doorman is dropping his shoulder way down on his left is not plausible. It’s nothing he had to do or would have done. This photo does not make sense.”

Now, let’s examine Obfuscated Man. The image of him on the right was taken by Doug using Tri-X film from Altgens position.

http://s2.hubimg.com...389981_f520.jpg

Note that in this particular shot, Black Hole Man was standing too close in, and we fixed that later. But, it has no effect on Obfuscated Man., and again, this was Tri-X, not digital. Some people have trouble seeing Obfuscated Man in the Altgens photo. He is standing on the right side of the image wearing a white shirt and narrow tie. And he had his arms folded across his chest. I suspect he is grabbing his right elbow with his left hand, and that way each arm is suspending the other. What you see on the right is actually quite ridiculous. But, I had the poser do it that way just to silence people like Robin Unger and Craig Lamson, who claim that that was what he was doing: vizoring his eyes with his right hand. They can’t deny that his left arm is going across his midsection. But, no one would do that with just one arm. It can be relaxing to do it with two arms because each arm can suspend the other. But, to do it with one arm alone is just useless, senseless, pointless work. No one would do it. He must have been crossing both arms, but they want to say he was vizoring his eyes with his right hand because they think it explains the white blotch that you see in the Altgens photo. But, as I suspected, we didn’t get a white blotch. Obfuscated Man came through bright and clear, and that was with Tri-X film and from Altgens position.

http://s4.hubimg.com...389995_f260.jpg

The white blotch is an amorphous, unintelligible, cloud-like area of whiteness strewn inexplicably in the picture. Someone described it, imaginatively, as a giant white tarantula mauling the guy’s face.

To me, that white cloud looks like a spot where someone applied some “Wite-Out” correction fluid. So, I had to chuckle when one of our senior members, Roy Schaeffer, a career photo processor for newspapers, who early on 11/23/63 in Dayton OH took the Altgens photo off the AP wire in an altered state, told me that it is technically know as “opaquing.” And, he said that it is applied much like Wite-Out. But, let’s let Doug describe it.

Ralph: “Doug, what do you make of that white blotch in the Altgens photo?”

Doug: “It looks like opaqing to me, and the way it would have been done is that with a very fine, sharp instrument and under bright light and magnification, the emulsion would have been scraped off that exact spot on the film. Then, dark opaquing solution would have been applied, and since it was a negative, once the film was developed, it would appear as white.”

If you’re wondering what they were aiming for, it was to vanish Obfuscated Man from the photo.

http://s2.hubimg.com...389997_f520.jpg

Do you see above how he is completely gone? Do you see how, on this scale, the white opaquing blends in very well with the white shirt of Black Hole Man? We think it was a two-step process. They used the white opaquing to cover up his face. Then they expanded the hair of the African-American woman in front of him to cover up his torso. The result was that they removed Obfuscated Man from the picture entirely.

There is only one copy of the Altgens photo on display at the Sixth Floor Museum. It’s small; it’s distant; and it looks exactly like what you see above.

The problem for the evil-doers is that in 1963, they didn’t anticipate the coming of home computing and the internet. They thought that people were going to be limited forever to small, distant, grainy images on newsprint. Advances in consumer technology have been their undoing.

For the record, we think Obfuscated Man was Bill Shelley, who was wearing a white shirt and thin tie. Oswald used Shelley as his alibi, referring to him as someone he saw outside while watching the motorcade. Shelley denied it, but Shelley was a career CIA agent, and we have reasons to believe he was deeply involved in the plot.

Now, we’ll compare the patterns of the two outer shirts. Note that we are comparing only the upper right quadrants of the shirts, which is the most reliable section to compare. The reason I am doing that is that the body of Doorman’s shirt and his left sleeve have a weird pattern which really doesn’t match Oswald or Lovelady. Richard Hooke is satisfied that it’s just light reflecting weirdly off Oswald’s tweed shirt, and he may be right. However, just to be safe, I am going to restrict the comparison to the upper right sides because it’s the only part of the shirt that I am 100% certain was not tampered with. We’ll be comparing that area across the board, so it’s still a fair test, and no one should have any reason to complain. We’ll start with me wearing my Oswald shirt, and note that this was Doug’s work using Tri-X film.

http://s1.hubimg.com...390008_f520.jpg

On the right, it’s me in my Oswald shirt, which was plain brown. I think the color was a pretty good match to Oswald’s. His shirt was tweed, which gave it a fine graininess which mine lacked. However, it was very subtle, and this was the best I could do to match it. Believe me, it was a very difficult shirt to match. I searched high and low.

His shirt looks mottled, but that’s from the pixelation of the enlargement, so you can just ignore it. And when you ignore it, you realize that it was a bland, uniform shirt like mine.

Now, look at me in the Lovelady shirt.

http://s2.hubimg.com...390013_f520.jpg

With the Lovelady shirt on the right, you can see that the complex geometric pattern- with the boxes and contrast- visibly manifested all the way up to, and including, the collar. And again: this was Tri-X film and taken from Altgens position. The Lovelady and Oswald shirts photographed very differently, but which one does Doorman’s resemble? On Doorman, you are not seeing the lines and boxes which are so clearly evident on the Lovelady shirt, and that’s because Doorman was not wearing such a shirt. He was wearing Oswald’s plain, bland, uniform, shirt which had no lines and boxes. Let’s look at one more collage of this:

http://s3.hubimg.com...390018_f520.jpg

On the right, you see those lines and cubes and rich contrasts of Lovelady’s shirt, and remember: that photo was taken from Altgens’ position using Altgens’ technique. If Doorman had been wearing that shirt, his shirt would have displayed the same geometric pattern- even with Tri-X film. But, it doesn’t. It looks mottled, but that’s just distortion. Even his white t-shirt looks mottled, and you know it wasn’t. So, just forget about the mottling. And once you put aside the mottling, what you are left with is a consistent, stable, dark brown coloring like my Oswald shirt on the left. Which two match, and which one is the odd man out?

Next, we’ll look at Doorman’s relationship to the Black Man in front of him.

http://s4.hubimg.com...390023_f520.jpg

Next, I reached for him, just to show you how impossible it was for me to get anywhere near his neck.

http://s1.hubimg.com...390040_f520.jpg

Doorman’s cuff being where it is in the Altgens just does not make sense. People in back don’t cover up people in front. Yet, Doorman’s cuff seems to be going in FRONT of the Black Man, obscuring his neck. We are seeing Black Man in two pieces. We see his head. And below it we see Doorman’s cuff. And then below that we see a white configuration which has to be Black Man’s torso. I say it has to be because there is no place else for his torso to be. It can’t be inside the column.

Joseph Backes, who is a JFK blogger, claims that the sleeve we see swooping down is actually Black Man’s sleeve that is swooping up. He thinks that Black Man is waving at somebody. I tried to explain to Backes that we can see the cuff at the end of the sleeve, so it must be Doorman’s arm coming down. Plus, the pattern of the sleeve matches Doorman’s shirt (although in this part of the shirt, we regard the pattern as suspicious). And if that isn’t Doorman’s arm, where is Doorman’s arm? He’s got to have one. And, if it’s Black Man’s arm going up, why don’t we see a hand on the end of it? His whole idea is crazy. Backes is whacked.

We have one final comparison to make, and it concerns the height of Fedora Hat Man.

http://s3.hubimg.com...390082_f520.jpg

On the right, our Baseball Hat Man, shot by Doug, is perched at the very highest spot that Fedora Hat Man could have been standing. He may have been down that slope a ways, but we’re giving him the benefit of the doubt. Again, this was Tri-X film from Altgens position. And note that that man was a couple inches taller than I am. Yet, I rise above him easily, and that’s because I was standing at the top of those steps. But, in the Altgens photo, there is parity between them. But, it doesn’t make sense for Fedora Hat Man to be as high as Doorman because those are some steep steps, and the walkway slopes down from the Depository to Elm St. It’s a descent into Dealey Plaza. I consider Fedora Hat Man’s elevation to be an anomaly, but the same is true of the Woman and Boy. All three of them are too high.

Here is Tim’s take on it, using different models, and here we first put the two men back to back and saw that they were the same height. Again, this was using Tri-X film from Altgens position.

http://s2.hubimg.com...390089_f260.jpg

That was some tall hat which really increased his height. Yet, the other guy still looms quite a bit higher- just as we would expect.

To silence another blogger, I’ll point out that the Boy is definitely not standing on a car bumper. The Woman and Boy are in front of Fedora Hat Man, meaning closer to Elm St., yet they are behind the African-American folks who are standing along the curb of Elm. The Woman and Boy are not standing along any curb, hence, they had no access to any car. And as I tried to explain to this blogger, it’s not easy to stand on a car bumper. It’s precarious! Try it yourself sometime if you don’t believe me. No one would watch a parade that way.

So, unless she brought something for the boy to stand on, she’s got to be holding him up. But how? He’s perfectly vertical, and that’s not how women hold boys. That’s the hardest way to do it. It puts all the strain on her arms, which are relatively weak. And he’s not a baby. He must weigh a good 40 pounds! Exactly how is she supporting him vertically? And she’s poised doing it with a gentle, easy look on her face, as though he’s light as a feather. Is she Superwoman?

Try to isolate the boy with your eyes and look at him alone. It really looks like he is standing. And I mean on solid ground. It doesn’t look like he is being held by anyone. All his anti-gravity reflexes are working. His back is straight; he is in full upright mode. He looks like he is standing solidly and rising vertically. He isn’t floundering in anyone’s arms. But, what could he be standing on? There’s nothing there.

Richard Hooke, who is a Senior Member of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, has proposed the theory that the Altgens Woman and Boy were superimposed over Fedora Hat Man, but that prior to that, his central core was removed and placed next to Doorman to create Black Tie Man. Look at the image below.

http://s4.hubimg.com...390095_f520.jpg

You see the Woman and Boy in front of Fedora Hat Man, but imagine that they weren’t there. What more of him would you see? You would see the lower part of his face, and you’d see his shirt and tie. Voila! Isn’t that exactly what you see of Black Tie Man? Hold on to that thought, and then glance your eyes back and forth between them. Doesn’t it seem to fit, like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle? They removed his core and mashed it in next to Doorman. This is only a speculation- I admit- but I find it intriguing, and when I mentioned it to Doug, his reaction was to say that he thought it was “plausible.”

I won’t elaborate about this now, but we suspect that Fedora Hat Man was Jack Ruby, and that would explain why they had to cover up his face. And, as you can see in the picture below, Oswald was slightly taller than Ruby. And that means that Ruby and Lovelady were right about the same height.

http://s2.hubimg.com...390097_f520.jpg

So, here is the bottom line about everything we’ve done: We know that Doorman was Oswald because he is definitely wearing Oswald’s t-shirt and Oswald’s outer shirt. And that clinches it by itself. Who else could be wearing Oswald’s clothes but Oswald? And, Lovelady was definitely not wearing such clothes.

And all the Altgens anomalies listed on the Anomalies page of the OIC site at http://www.oswald-in.../anomalies.html are still intact. Nothing got eliminated. Nothing got explained away. I’m actually disappointed about that. I was hoping that something would have gotten cleared up- if only for the sake of simplification. But, as we say on that page: if they altered that photograph even once, it proves subterfuge. And as Jim Fetzer says: the only reason to alter it would have been to take Oswald out of it.

I am sure my adversaries are going to object to these results. But, it’s not just the results they’ll object to, but rather, the whole idea, the whole experiment. It’s ironic that right while I was doing this in Dealey Plaza, the annual JFK Lancer Conference was taking place at the Adolphus Hotel on Commerce Street- just a few blocks away. I am sure that some of the presentations were interesting – but not more interesting than arranging men in that doorway and taking pictures of them in order to plumb the depth and meaning of the Altgens photo.

I liken this to a ski race. The first person down the slope sets the standard. For at least a minute or so, that person is in first place with the time to beat. It’s the same way here. This is the first and only Altgens re-creation ever done. If somebody thinks I got it wrong, he or she needs to go to Dealey Plaza and do it right. In a ski race, you can’t just say that you can ski the fastest and expect to be rewarded. You can’t just provide technical reasons why you should be considered the best. You actually have to ski down the mountain and do it faster than anyone else. Again, it’s the same way here. If you want to dispute these results, you can’t do it with mere words- not any more That’s just lip-flapping. The bar has been set higher. Get yourself to Dealey Plaza with a camera and crew and get to work. Nothing else will suffice at this point.

It has been obvious for a very long time that the official story of the JFK assassination is a monstrous lie. But now that there is rock-solid evidence that Lee Oswald was captured in the Altgens photo during the shooting, it has jolted the whole JFK community. Why do you think they are trying so hard to oppose us? Don’t you think they know what a threat this is? There are plenty of other JFK conspiracy theories. What about the one claiming that the driver, Agent Greer, turned around and shot the President? You don’t see them organizing and plotting to oppose that one. They are content to laugh that one off. But, they’re not laughing about this one.

We are down to the final year before the 50^th anniversary, and we are like a hook in their side, although perhaps I should say a Hooke. I’m sure they are going to be spewing out the same old pap, but perhaps they’ll tweak it a little- as Max Holland tried to do last year, which I regard as an act of desperation. But, we have a duty to oppose them, and not just for Jack Kennedy’s and Lee Oswald’s sake, but for our own. We have been lied to and manipulated about this for half a century. Enough already! Stop the lies! Oswald outside!

Surely, there is no one in power today who is culpable for the murder of President Kennedy. President Obama was 2 years old at the time. No current official has any personal reason to refrain from pursuing and exposing the real killers. Yet, they will continue to resist it. And, it’s not because they want to protect the individuals who were responsible, such as Lyndon Johnson, J. Edgar Hoover, Richard Nixon, etc. It’s because they want to protect the institutions that were involved, as those institutions are still very much with us. And I include among those institutions the mainstream media, which has vigorously defended the official story for 49 years.

What can you do? How about telling everyone you know about this article and urging them to read it? And while you’re at it, please encourage them to visit the Oswald Innocence Campaign at http://oswald-innocent.com. Also, you could visit the Oswald Innocence page on Facebook and click that you “Like” it. Here’s the link:

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

And, if you are a JFK author or researcher, or if you have an impressive resume, or if you happen to be a celebrity, please contact me about becoming a Senior Member of the Oswald Innocence Campaign. There is no cost or obligation. If you can provide me with a digital photo and a short bio, you’ll be good to go. If you can see the compelling logic of this, you should stand alongside me, Dr. David Wrone, Dr. James Fetzer, Phillip F. Nelson, Peter Janney, Richard Hooke, Craig Roberts, Orlando Martin, Dr. Donald Miller, Roy Schaeffer, and others. You can contact me at oswaldinnocent@yahoo.com.

In closing, I want to share an experience from the Sixth Floor Museum. They have copies there of many daily newspapers from November 22 and November 23, 1963, and I was able to flip through them. Most of them did not contain the Altgens photo. In fact, the only one that did, that I could find, was the New York Herald Tribune from November 23. And that was a highly cropped version of it. But, I was startled to discover that none of the three Dallas-area newspapers published the Altgens photo on November 22 or 23. But, the assassination occurred in Dallas. And the photo was taken in Dallas, so it was already there. It didn’t have to be faxed there. And, it was taken by a prominent Dallas photographer. And two of those newspapers were evening papers. How is it that neither one of them published the Altgens photo on November 22^nd? And how is it that none of the Dallas papers published the Altgens photo even by November 23^rd? Did they have an aversion to it for some reason? Richard Hooke thinks they did. He reasons that since Oswald lived and worked in Dallas, it was more likely that readers there would recognize him in the photo and scream bloody murder that it was him. But regardless, the claim that the Altgens photo was faxed everywhere by 1:00 PM on Friday is just plain nonsense. Even highly respected British researcher Paul Rigby admits that there was a “window of opportunity for alteration.” Paul alleges that the Altgens photo was faxed not to the world at large but only to AP headquarters in New York, and that was shortly after 1:00 PM.

It’s Oswald in the doorway. It’s his t-shirt, his outer shirt, his stance, his ear, his chin, and more. It’s beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s beyond any doubt.

Ralph Cinque, a chiropractor, health spa operator, and entrenpreneur, has published a series of articles on JFK at lewrockwell.com. His video series,

, is archived on YouTube.

James H. Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth and a columnist for Veterans Today, where his most recent studies of the assassination of JFK can be found.

[David Von Pein]

It’s Oswald in the doorway. It’s his t-shirt, his outer shirt, his stance, his ear, his chin, and more.

This just keeps getting more hilarious every day.

One day, Cinque thinks that the face we see in Altgens is REALLY Oswald's face ("his ear, his chin"). The next day, Cinque thinks the face of LOVELADY was superimposed over OSWALD'S head in the Altgens picture.

Will it be Larry Craford's head in the Altgens pic tomorrow?

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

Edited November 25, 2012 by David Von Pein

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Well, I suppose if we couldn't cope with the evidence, most of us would resort to sarcasm and ridicule, since that would be the best we could do. I find it embarrassing that this guy cannot even cope with the gross visual evidence: Doorman is missing his left shoulder; the Black Tie Man is both in front of and behind him at the same time; the face to his left/front has been obscured; and the profile of a black man has been introduced to cover up features of the shirt he was wearing that would have made it easier to identify him as Lee Oswald.

If would be refreshing if this guy had an actual argument. We have spelled it out in spades and in excruciating detail. He knows that we are right, which is why he is so desperately attempting to convince others not to bother. If anyone thinks we have something wrong, then (a) identify what we say and why we say it and ( explain what we have wrong and how you know. The reason this isn't happening is he knows we are right and has to fake it. When someone has an actual argument to present, then by all means present it, not this rubbish.

It’s Oswald in the doorway. It’s his t-shirt, his outer shirt, his stance, his ear, his chin, and more.

This just keeps getting more hilarious every day.

One day, Cinque thinks that the face we see in Altgens is REALLY Oswald's face ("his ear, his chin"). The next day, Cinque thinks the face of LOVELADY was superimposed over OSWALD'S head in the Altgens picture.

Will it be Larry Craford's head in the Altgens pic tomorrow?

http://jfk-archives....man-part-2.html

[Mike Rago]

I am posting to those four year old threads because I want to add my opinion to those threads. Do not worry they will quickly fall back into the past. However, I will heed your comment and not flood the board.

Edited November 25, 2012 by Mike Rago

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

The earlier thread by Ralph CInque has been superseded because the link he was using no longer works. I have to more recent threads only because I did not know this one had been posted. This one will come down and my more recent two (about different articles) should come up.

To the moderators:

I for one have been getting a bit frustrated with this forum of late.

First we have a certain person who seems to bring back four year old threads and then posts on them for no apparent viable reason. Except maybe to flood the board.

Now we have the CInque experiment taking up THREE THREADS!

Why?

This should all be on one thread. And one thread only.

So please do your duty and collapse these onto one thread.

[Mike Rago]

Here is a negative of the photo.

[David Von Pein]

If would be refreshing if this guy had an actual argument.

I do. Maybe you missed it the previous 11 times I've posted it:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/01/doorway-man.html

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

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/jim-garrison-part-1.html#Doorway-Man

We have spelled it out in spades and in excruciating detail.

So, is it Oswald's head we're seeing in the Altgens picture? Or is it Lovelady's? Which is it?

You can't have it being BOTH Oswald's head and Lovelady's head, you know. Although Cinque has apparently argued in favor of BOTH of those options in the past, as this quote in your earlier post verifies (because the last time I argued with Ralph about this matter, he was positively saying that Lovelady's head was pasted onto Oswald's body in the Altgens photo):

"It’s Oswald in the doorway. It’s his t-shirt, his outer shirt, his stance, his ear, his chin, and more."

Edited November 25, 2012 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Doorman is missing his left shoulder; the Black Tie Man is both in front of and behind him at the same time; the face to his left/front has been obscured; and the profile of a black man has been introduced to cover up features of the shirt he was wearing that would have made it easier to identify him as Lee Oswald.

There seems to be no end to the fakery in the Altgens photograph, eh Professor?

But instead of merely obscuring Oswald's shirt entirely (or just simply destroying the whole picture in the first place), those wizard photo-fakers decided to leave conspiracy theorists like James Fetzer and Dr. Ralph Cinque just enough clues so that they could figure out it was really Oswald's shirt and not Lovelady's. Brilliant.

The people who faked the Altgens picture must have been the same goofballs who also tampered with Zapruder's movie too. You know, leaving just enough clues within the fake film to allow the crackerjack CTers to figure out it was faked -- such as the brainstorm of an idea that the film-fakers had of leaving in the rear head snap, which is, of course, probably the #1 thing in this whole case, even to this day, that causes people to scream "Conspiracy!" at the top of their lungs. Again, a brilliant plan!

Edited November 25, 2012 by David Von Pein

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

As we have explained over and over again, they imposed features of Lovelady's face to create an ambiguous impression. We have done our homework by disambiguating that impression on the basis of the shirt, the right ear, the left eye, the cranium, the hairline and more than 27 points of identification. For more, see "JFK believe it or not: Oswald wasn't even a shooter!" The complete article can be found at this link:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/11/14/jfk-believe-it-or-not-oswald-wasnt-even-a-shooter/ Here's a sampler of just a few of the proofs:

Even the ears of Doorman can be compared with those of Oswald and of Lovelady, where again the features (indistinct as they may be) favor Oswald and undermine Lovelady. But those who were working with the photo took measures to create ambiguity about the face of the man in the doorway, where it was Ralph Cinque’s astute observation that the clothing was the decisive indicator of the identity of Doorman, not the face itself, that cracked the case wide open, but which, upon closer, minute inspection, the other comparable features of their faces provides extraordinary additional proof.

Rearranging Doorman’s Face

Careful scrutiny and extensive study of the Altgens6 reveals that it was tampered with, where features of Lee Oswald’s face were changed to resemble Billy Lovelady. The photograph proceeded through a series of stages until it was judged to be “good enough” to fool the public, which would remain the case until 2012, when a series of studies were published here at Veterans Today that lay out the case for alteration and obfuscation: “JFK Special: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!”, “JFK Special 2: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!”, “JFK Special 3: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!”, “JFK Special 4: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!”, and“JFK Special 5: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!” The case for Oswald as Doorman, which we are summarizing here, is simply overwhelming.

Of course, Von Pein knows these things, but he his tossing up dust in the hope no one will notice. Observe that he has not accounted for the missing shoulder, that Black Tie Man is both in front of and behind Doorman at the same time, that the face to his right/front has been obfuscated, and that the profile of a black man has been used to conceal the bottom of Doorman's shirt, which would have made the identification even easier to demonstrate.

If would be refreshing if this guy had an actual argument.

I do. Maybe you missed it the previous 11 times I've posted it:

http://jfk-archives....oorway-man.html

http://jfk-archives....man-part-2.html

http://jfk-archives....tml#Doorway-Man

We have spelled it out in spades and in excruciating detail.

So, is it Oswald's head we're seeing in the Altgens picture? Or is it Lovelady's? Which is it?

You can't have it being BOTH Oswald's head and Lovelady's head, you know. Although Cinque has apparently argued in favor of BOTH of those options in the past, as this quote in your earlier post verifies (because the last time I argued with Ralph about this matter, he was positively saying that Lovelady's head was pasted onto Oswald's body in the Altgens photo):

"It’s Oswald in the doorway. It’s his t-shirt, his outer shirt, his stance, his ear, his chin, and more."

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Here is a negative of the photo.

Excellent! Observe the obfuscated face, the missing left shoulder, BTM in front of and behind Doorman, and the black man's profile! Thanks.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Well, they got away with it for nearly 50 years until Ralph realized it was the shirts they were wearing that counted the most, not the faces. And I notice you have STILL said nothing about the missing shoulder (do you think that is normal?), the man both in front of and behind Doorman at the same time (do you think that is physically possible?), the face that has been obscured (do you think we should have expected that in this historic photo?) and the profile of a black man (who cannot possibly be watching the motorcade). You want to sweep all of this under the rug?

Points of Comparison

The official line, for nearly 50 years, has been that another TSBD employee, Billy Lovelady, was the real man in the doorway. Not the least of the problems with that story is that, on 2 March 1964, Billy Lovelady told the FBI that he had been wearing a red and white, vertically striped, short sleeved shirt buttoned near his neck–and the FBI took photographs of Billy wearing it. Lee Oswald, by comparison, had on a long sleeve, brown tweed over shirt, which was unbuttoned more than halfway down his torso. Beneath it, he was wearing a white under shirt (or “t-shirt”) with collar stretched into a V. His clothing, his stance and posture, his right ear, his left eye and brow, his mouth, expression, chin, and facial bone structure, points of light and shadow, and hair are the same as those features of Doorman (as this article explains). There are multiple unique and identifiable features of Doorman and Oswald’s shirt, collar and lapels, alone. First consider his left lapel and then consider the right, as follows:

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Here's more about how it was done. Go to http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/11/14/jfk-believe-it-or-not-oswald-wasnt-even-a-shooter/

More on rearranging Altgens6

We know the acquisition of new evidence or of novel hypotheses can make a difference to the likelihood of even the best supported alternatives. But as more and more genuine evidence is acquired–even in the course of proving fakery–when an hypothesis is true, then the strength of its support should increase and be borne out by additional studies. That is the primary reason why every serious scientist should support further research. It is like using a telescope to confirm findings that were originally made with the naked eye–which could be further explored using a radio telescope. If those original findings were correct, then they will be confirmed, which remains the case no matter how controversial the subject: where it might involve determining the parentage of a child by means of DNA, confirming the precision of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity by means of atomic clocks, or re-investigating the guilt of a felon on death row for murder. No matter how controversial the question or how surprising the results, the truth deserves to be pursued, nonetheless. And, in this case, we have ascertained that the transformation of Altgens6 to neutralize it as proof of Oswald’s innocence involved several steps or stages of these unexpected kinds:

Billy was in the doorway, but in the background, where his presence could be easily obscured. The crucial consideration was to obfuscate the short-sleeved, red and white vertically stripped shirt he was wearing, where they could simply black out his face and his cap. Since they were obliterating the face of the man immediately in front of him and to his right (whom we now believe to have been Bill Shelley), while leaving his arms raised to protect his view from the Sun, darkening his image was a piece of cake. But they had to obfuscate that distinctive left lapel on Doorman’s over shirt, which they did by moving most of the image of Fedora Man (whom we now believe to have been Jack Ruby) to conceal it, hoping that no one would notice that, in the process, they had obliterated Doorman’s left shoulder:

[Craig Lamson]

Well, I suppose if we couldn't cope with the evidence, most of us would resort to sarcasm and ridicule, since that would be the best we could do. I find it embarrassing that this guy cannot even cope with the gross visual evidence: Doorman is missing his left shoulder; the Black Tie Man is both in front of and behind him at the same time; the face to his left/front has been obscured; and the profile of a black man has been introduced to cover up features of the shirt he was wearing that would have made it easier to identify him as Lee Oswald.

If would be refreshing if this guy had an actual argument. We have spelled it out in spades and in excruciating detail. He knows that we are right, which is why he is so desperately attempting to convince others not to bother. If anyone thinks we have something wrong, then (a) identify what we say and why we say it and ( explain what we have wrong and how you know. The reason this isn't happening is he knows we are right and has to fake it. When someone has an actual argument to present, then by all means present it, not this rubbish.

It’s Oswald in the doorway. It’s his t-shirt, his outer shirt, his stance, his ear, his chin, and more.

This just keeps getting more hilarious every day.

One day, Cinque thinks that the face we see in Altgens is REALLY Oswald's face ("his ear, his chin"). The next day, Cinque thinks the face of LOVELADY was superimposed over OSWALD'S head in the Altgens picture.

Will it be Larry Craford's head in the Altgens pic tomorrow?

http://jfk-archives....man-part-2.html

Only two small problems, Jim.

1. Ralph is there standing on the steps with a perfect vee shadow.

2. We have a photo of him where is head shadow obscures his white tee shirt.

These are your so called "money proofs" and Cinque created both in the plaza, destroying his own argument.

Not to mention all of Hookes so call proofs got destroyed when Ralph proved there is not enough resolution in the Tri-x frames to support any of those claims.

So you see despite the long winded article, the experiment in Dealey plaza DISPROVED all of your claims.

Funny how that worked out for you.

[Mike Rago]

The only thing that I see in the Altgens photo that I do not understand is ... the shirt on doorway man appears to be a very loose fitting shirt. Is that true? Is that a very loose fitting shirt or some other optical illusion? And if it is a loose fitting shirt does that positively id the person in the doorway?

What is that to the left of the white line I have drawn? What is that? And who is it connected to?

Edited November 25, 2012 by Mike Rago

[Ralph Cinque]

This isn't that hard to understand. They saw Oswald in the photo, and they did things to "Lovelady-ify" him. And the most ostensible thing that they did, in my view, is alter his hairline and the shape of his forehead. That's the thing that really stands out as being Lovelady. Look at this collage:

On the left is Young Lovelady from about 1957, in the middle is Doorman, and on the right is Lovelady from the winter of 1964 as taken by Mark Lane. Obviously, there is a perfect match between the hairlines of Young Lovelady and Doorman. But, Lovelady lost a lot of hair in the ensuing years, and apparently, the alterers did not know that. Nobody told them. That's the thing about government work: the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.

Now do you understand why the FBI and the Dallas Police tried so far to keep photographers away from Lovelady? They didn't want anyone to find out that he was already mostly bald at the time of the assassination.

So, they waited until 1971 to let him be photographed (by Bob Jackson) and by then, enough years had passed that the baldness could be accounted for by the passage of time.

And by the way, after they used Lovealdy's "wedding picture" to forge Doorman's hairline, they flipped the wedding picture, right to left, to cover up their tracks. The only version I have ever fround circulating online is the flipped version, which is on the left.

How do I know which was which? I compared it to the Jackson image, where there are scant remants of hair left where you can see how it used to be. The one on the right is definitely correct, and that's the one that matches Doorman.

Where did I find the unflipped one? I didn't. I unflipped it myself.

So, it' s mainly the hairline and forehead of Doorman that match Lovelady.

What about the shirt pattern? As I look it at large, Doorman's doesn't match Oswald's or Lovelady's.

As I look at it, Oswald's looks plain and uniform but slightly grainy, Doorman's looks splotchy, and Lovelady's looks lines and checked. No two match very well. But look at the upper right quadrant of Oswald's and Doorman's shirts. I have them circled. They match perfectly. And when I say perfectly I mean perfectly. The pattern matches, the collars match, the little furls match, and the notched t-shirt matches. 'Dems the same. Methinks they added the splotching to Doorman's shirt, but the upper right part was too small to tamper with. And they were probably figured that nobody would notice. They were wrong.