Calling Paul Rigby: please clarify your Altgens timeline

[Ralph Cinque]

Paul,

On Amazon forumm, Hank Sienzant is disputing what you said about the handling of the Altgens photo, calling it conjecture. He denies what you say and insists that the Altgens photo was released- to the world- at 1 PM. He backs up this claim by pointing out there are 5 newspapers in the US that are purported to have published the Altgens photo on 11/22- although no big metropolitan newspapers. At the time, there were well over 1000 evening newspapers in the United States, and there may have been close to 1500 evening newspapers.

Here is what you have stated, Paul. If you would please provide the evidentiary basis for it, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. Ralph Cinque

British JFK researcher Paul Rigby maintains that the Altgens6 photo (there were 7 altogether) was handled differently than the other 6. There was a delay in the release of Altgens6 because it was first wired to AP headquarters in New York, where it was "cropped twice." Rigby maintains that there was roughly a two to three hour window of opportunity for them to alter it. His exact words were: "I don't wish to exaggerate the window of opportunity for alteration. It was, at most, I hazard a guess, two to three hours. But, a window of opportunity there does appear to have existed."

"On the basis of the available evidence, we can, provisionally at least, conclude the following: 1) Altgens did not develop his own photos; 2) Altgens6 went by fax, not to the world at large, but to the AP New York HQ, at just after 1:00 PM CST; 3) the negatives were sent by commercial airline, ostensibly to the same destination but did not arrive until hours after the initial fax; 4) the dissemination of the image from NY did not occur until at least 2 hours after the fax arrived but before the arrival of the negatives; 5) Both the AP and Altgens appear to have sought to conceal this hiatus; 6) AP acted against its own commercial interest in delaying release of Altgens6; 7) the version which first appeared in the final editions of newspapers in Canada and the US on the evening of November 22 was heavily, and very obviously, retouched; 8) point 7 may not be the explanation, either full or partial, for the concealed delay; it is quite conceivable that obvious alterations were used to draw attention away from other more subtle stuff."