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

[Ralph Cinque]

David Josephs, you are being ridiculous. The lay of a sleeve is going to fluctuate. Sometimes it pulls up and other times not. You can't make a definitive conclusion based on that. And there was never found in Oswald's room a soiled shirt that was supposedly the one he changed out of. That is nonsense. He never changed his shirt, and even the Warren Commission admits that he didn't change it.

Mary Bledsoe described Oswald's shirt on the bus, and it was the same shirt in which he was arrested. She even described it as being, not just unbuttoned, but with multiple buttons missing. It was the same shirt!

Richard Hooke has developed a chart which presents 50 matching points between Oswald and Doorman. If even half of them were wrong, 25 is more than enough matching points to clinch it for Oswald.

And Doorman most certainly was not anywhere close to bald. He happens to have the exact same hairline as Young Lovelady from 6 years before.

Look at them! Do they, or do they not match? Those hairlines are spot-on identical. What is your explanation for that?

Lamson, you said I stood in the doorway with my white t-shirt obscured by shadow. I deny it, and you post that picture if you've got it. But, in the meantime, here is one in which I was definitely wearing a v-shaped t-shirt. That vee on me was not due to shadow. It was the shape of the shirt. I bought it for the occasion. It was the first time in my life that I wore a v-neck t-shirt. Doorman and I have matching vees, and both show the same thing: the junction of white t-shirt and brown skin. That Tri-X film was very polarizing. That is what you are seeing in the Altgens photo. The high-contrast made his skin look dark, the same way it made my skin look dark. Are you going to claim that there was a round t-shirt buried in my darkness as well? Because if you are going to do that, I can produce at least 6 witnesses who will confirm that it was the actual shape of my t-shirt. Doorman's t-shirt looks vee because it was vee. It was the shape of his t-shirt.

Why is this so hard to accept? All I'm saying is that it is exactly what it appears to be, what it looks like. What you see is what it was. There was no optical illusion. To claim such a thing is fanciful and desperate to the extreme.

Now, if I may, I would like to respond further to a longstanding charge of Craig Lamson concerning Doorman's so-called vee neck shadow. This is important because if Doorman's t-shirt was vee-shaped, he had to be Oswald. After all, who else could be wearing Oswald's distinctive t-shirt but Oswald?

The dark vee that you see on Doorman is the shape of his t-shirt. The vee is formed by the junction of his white t-shirt and his brown skin.

Craig Lamson is going around saying that a v-shaped shadow occurred at the top of my chest in Dallas, and that is a lie.

First, here is me wearing a round-neck t-shirt. This was my Lovelady outfit, with the plaid shirt and the round t-shirt....

Go back up and look at me wearing my Oswald outfit with the v-cut t-shirt. My dark vee matches Doorman's quite well. The vee that you see on me was the shape of my t-shirt. I ought to know- I was wearing it. And I bought it for the occasion. It was the first time in my life that I wore a v-shaped t-shirt. Notice how similar Doorman and I are. You're seeing the same thing: a guy standing there wearing a v-shaped t-shirt. My vee was not caused by shadow, and neither was his.

But, in the other collage, my t-shirt looked round because it was round. There was no neck shadow obscuring it to make it look vee. And that was at 12:30 from Altgens position using Tri-X film.

Doorman's t-shirt looked vee because it was vee. And, it was Oswald's v-shaped t-shirt. He wore such a t-shirt, and Lovelady did not. That is a fact.

And by the way, which two shirt patterns match? It isn't hard to tell, is it? And the big question is: Who is that guy on the right from the so-called Martin film? He sure as heck isn't Billy Lovelady.

Look at the Lovelady on the right below. And what I want you to notice about him is not his Herculean arm, not his hair going straight back, not his bull neck, but rather: the nature of his shirt-sprawl.

If a shirt is buttoned at the bottom, and unbuttoned at the top, we expect it to separate and come apart in a gradual way and produce a triangular-shaped opening. You could even call it vee-shaped. That's because where it's buttoned, the margins are overlapped, and then they start coming apart, and it's a gradual process. It involves a "point" where the separation begins. But, it's gradual, and that's why it's vee-shaped.

But, his opening is not vee-shaped. It is squared off at the bottom, making it rectangular.

What is going on there? There is a bridge of material going across with nothing above it, and it shouldn't be there. There should be overlapped margins that gradually spread apart. There shouldn't be a strip of material at the bottom of the splurge, squaring it off. But, that is what we're seeing there.

And what is that black horizontal stripe going across? The shirt is supposed to be buttoned at that point, which means that one margin is overlapping the other. How could that result in such a smooth, perfect black line going across with the look of a solid piece of material?

And, look at his open left margin, which is curled. It isn't folded. It's isn't creased. It's curled. And, it's going all the way down to a squared-off bottom? What shirt behaves like that?

Not the shirts of the other two guys.

The guy on the left was supposed to be him at the same moment in time and space. But, the shirt is behaving drastically different on him. You can't account for that by spouting "aspect ratio." His shirt margins are lying together neatly all the way up, and it doesn't look like there is any shirt-sprawl at all going on. One certainly has to admit that it's vastly different. But, it's supposed to be him at the exact same time.

What about the guy in the middle? That's him about an hour and a quarter before. Look how neat and tightly cinched his shirt is. Do you see any curling going on? Do you see any parting of the Red Sea, as there is on the right? How could his shirt change so much in an hour?

And look at that huge pocket-flap on the guy in the middle. That is one big mama of a pocket-flap. They don't come any bigger than that. But where is it on the right and on the left? We're not seeing it. On the right, there is this little discoloration, a darkening above the pocket, but it doesn't look anything like that big flap we see in the middle.

And, do you figure that he picked up the pack of cigarettes within that hour? Because obviously, there are no cigarettes stuffed in the pocket with the big flap. In fact, that looks so neat and tidy, it looks unused, like it's never had cigarettes stuffed in it. You don't think Lovelady started smoking that very day, do you? Don't you think he was a habitual smoker? Don't you think he had the habit of stuffing packs of cigarettes into that pocket, over and over and over? Doesn't it look a little bit too pristine for a pocket that was used that way? And compare it to the guy on the left. Where is his pocket flap? How could that possibly be the same shirt across the board?

I've got to tell you people something honestly: I am getting sick of this- that so many people on both sides of the debate - meaning both lone-nutters and CTs - defend this crap. And that's what it is: CRAP! It is obviously three different men wearing three different shirts.

Why won't they admit it? I understand why the lone-nutters won't admit it. It's because of what it means, and what it means, and what it proves, is that an evil cabal murdered President Kennedy in a coup d-etat on November 22, 1963. That's what it means, and they obviously don't want to admit that.

But, why won't CTs admit it? I'll tell you what I think. I think that half or more of the CTs who blog are fake. I think they are agents for the other side pretending to be CTs. I think it was decided long ago that the only way to control the debate was to take both sides of it. And that's what they're doing. It's all an act. A big act.

So, I want you to look at the collage again. It's supposed to be the same man. On the right and left, it's supposed to be him at the exact same moment in time and space. And in the middle, it was only about an hour before. Now, either admit that they are different men or expose yourself for the phony that you are. Did you hear me, Backes? I said: either acknowledge that they are different men or expose yourself as the phony CT that you are.

Edited December 12, 2012 by Ralph Cinque

[David Von Pein]

There is no handwrriten [sic] affidavit from Mary Bledsoe. Why not?

What's the difference? Bledsoe SIGNED the typewritten copy.

Let me guess -- Farley thinks Bledsoe's signature here is a forgery. Right, Lee?

~another yawn~

Edited December 6, 2012 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

I'd like to see the handwritten copy, Dave.

Life's a bitch sometimes, ain't it Lee?

Repeating --

Is Bledsoe's signature forged in the typed affidavit, Lee?

[David Von Pein]

So, the handwritten version of Bledsoe's affidavit doesn't exist either then? It's gone? Down the memory hole? You know the reason why I'm interested in seeing it don't you, Dave?

Thrill me with that info, Lee. Please!!

I take it you skipped my post containing all of the things you have to accept to believe this fairy tale? Any particular reason?

Because every single item on your list concerning Bledsoe and McWatters is nitpicking meaningless crap stirred up by a conspiracy theorist who will ALWAYS look sideways at everything connected with the JFK murder case. And every item on that nitpicking list has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Lee Oswald shot and killed JFK on 11/22/63.

And here's another official report concerning Mary Bledsoe for you to (probably) claim is fake. It's L.C. Graves' brief report about how he took an affidavit from Bledsoe on 11/23/63, and how Bledsoe said "she knew Oswald and saw him get on and off of a bus on Elm Street shortly after President Kennedy was shot".

Edited December 6, 2012 by David Von Pein

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Here are some comments on your "six points", where none of you has even "explained away" the four major proofs of alteration, even before we reach the points of comparison. If you can't account for the obfuscated face, the missing shoulder, BTM being in front of and behind Doorman at the same time, and the black man's profile, it comes as no surprise you don't have anything serious to contribute.

1) Doorman's hair is more abundant, like Oswald's, and you can clearly see it going up from the top center of his head in Altgens6 and coming around from the left side of his temple; Doorman's hair is not real short and fuzzy like Lovelady's FBI photo. Lovelady's round dome topped head does not match the flat topped cranium of Doorman (Lee Oswald).

2) The picture shown, of Oswald in the elevator, has his left cuff pushed up because he is in handcuffs. The photo of the bogus Lovelady at the Dallas PD is not legit. How can anyone take you seriously when you can't even distinguish between Billy Lovelady and this guy who looks like a gorilla? It's pretty embarrassing, since we have emphasized it so many places.

Moreover, Lovelady was wearing a short sleeve red and white stripe shirt on 22 November 1963, as he told the FBI, was photographed in, told researcher Jones Harris, was quoted saying such in The Herald Tribune, and was also quoted as saying as much in the Warren Commssion record. Check out "The Lovelady Caper" chapter by Harold Weisberg, which Larry Rivera noticed.

3) Doorman's (Oswald) T-shirt is a thumb-tugged V-neck, which we have shown in many photos and collages, which was confirmed not to be a shadow by Ralph Cinque during the Dallas photo shoot, which no one here is discussing.

4) The bone structure of Doorman's head and face match Oswald; the Lovelady FBI photo was altered, where the bone structure was softened to look like Oswald.

5) Doorman's left cheek bone and ear are not clearly visible because the area is a mess of sloppy touch-up applied to Doorman's left cheek all the way over into Black Tie Man's neck.

6) Doorman's nose is crooked because it was altered; there are cut marks, in the shape of a cresent, across his nose bridge to his right ear and back under his nose to his left ear. The crescent cut-out was not centered correctly.

I don't understand the game you are playing, David Josephs. We have established the sameness of the right ear, the left eye, the shape of the skull and even the hairline. We have 50 points of identification, which would have a miniscule probability by chance. There is a special destiny for those, like you, who use your talents, such as they may be, to conceal truths and promote falsehoods.

Not to raise an obvious question, but what does most of the discussion on this thread have to do with the Altgens6 reenactment? Have any of you been able to "explain away" the obfuscated face? the missing shoulder? the Black Tie Man's being in front of and behind Doorman at the same time? the profile of the black man covering his torso? Because these are four independent proofs that Altgens6 was altered, which I take it most of you want to deny. Given four blatant proofs of alteration, where is your response? Are you trying to bury the issue under irrelevancies? It would probably be appropriate for the moderator to move those posts to a separate thread.

I usually dont repost my stuff, but Jim here ran from the discussion on DPF when I directly confronted his conclusions and his misleading probability statements about IF THEY WERE THE SAME SHIRT what are the odds of things Matching.... y'all are being played.

https://deeppolitics...61698#post61698

Here is your EXPLANATION JIM... the one you ran from on this forum when I pointed out your MATH was wrong, the way you described probability was wrong,

The MATCHES you claim to have made are poorly supported AND I identify 6 areas in which the images are NOT the same in Altgens and your post arrest photo.

Any one, 100% correct MISMATCH reduces the chances of the shirts being the same to ZERO... I found 6 that you don't even bother to address

The most obvious being the sleeve lengths... look at Lovelady afterward and Doorman... the left sleeve is down past his wrist while Oswald's shirt barely reaches his wrist.......

and the bald heads just don't match... they are both lovelady's.

We also discuss how Fritz's notes say that Oswald was out with Shelley - yet you IGNORE comments both from that same page AND the previous page:

On a previous page of the same notes Fritz tells us:

Changed shirts + tr. Put in dirty clothes - long sleeve red sh + gray tr.

On the SAME PAGE AS THE LOVELADY reference is:

home by bus changed britches

(britches being clothes btw)

If JF is going to give Fritz's note 100% reliability to PROVE DOORMAN IS OSWALD... then how does he dismiss Oswald TWICE mentioning changing his clothes, Bookout confirming in HIS report and them finding these clothes in his room and listing them on the inventory?

“Obvious proof” is obviously in the eye of the beholder (or creator) in this case Jim. UNTIL you can adequately address MY SIX POINTS OF MISMATCH and mitigate them to a ZERO PROBABILITY and support why you are even better than 50/50 on your Items... you can have a thousand matching items and STILL they would not be the same shirt….

You’re reaching for straws with an argument that is terribly inaccurate to the point of misleading….

One would think that Jim Fetzer would be extra careful not to employ the same underhanded tactics as those he is trying to expose.

DJ

Edited December 6, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Rodney Rivers]

Not sure if this was ever posted here, but assist to Jim Fetzer - excellent job as usual :

JFK Part I: A National Security Event

JFK Part I: A National Security Event

[Greg Burnham]

This so-called reenactment photo is worthless except to demonstrate how shoddy these research methods are proving to be.

[Robin Unger]

I agree Greg.

The Cinque Re-Enactment photo is a complete failure when it comes to the positioning of the people in the doorway.

Standing heights wrong. ?

Standing positions wrong. ?

I asked Cinque numerous times, to Email me the "LARGE VERSION" of the photo below, he has refused to do so.

He obviously doesn't want his re-enactment photo to be studied in large resolution, and prefers instead to hide behind that tiny little thumbnail image..

In doing so, he hopes that no one will notice the glaring mistakes.

If i had done such a shoddy re-enactment, i wouldn't want it studied up close either.

The Re-Enactment is a huge failure and should be considered as such.

Edited December 29, 2012 by Robin Unger

[Thomas Graves]

This so-called reenactment photo is worthless except to demonstrate how shoddy these research methods are proving to be.

Hi Greg,

FWIW, I've always wondered: What was the guy who was standing behind Lovelady looking at?

--Tommy