Calling Paul Rigby: please clarify Altgens timeline

[Ralph Cinque]

Paul, I have this statement from you regarding the handling of the Altgens photo, but Hank Sienzant is disputing it. Would you please provide the evidentiary basis for 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."

Paul, they are not letting me post here. The moderators are supposed to approve my posts and get them up, but they're not doing it.

But, what I want you to know is that Pete Mellor, who is a senior member of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, and who likes you is from England, found a reference in Harold Weisberg's Photographic Whitewash:

"Mr. Mike Shapiro, of WFAA Television, advised that immediately after this (Altgens) photograph was taken it was forwarded by wire to the Associated Press at New York, New York, and subsequently distributed to other AP offices throughout the country.

So, you were right, Paul. It did go to the AP in New York before it was sent out widely.

Paul, this is an update as of January 23. Backes is now claiming that Harold Weisberg didn't mean it when he talked about Mike Shapiro saying that the Altgens photo was wired first to AP New York and subsequently to other AP offices around the country. Backes claims that Weisberg only said it to dispute the idea that the FBI didn't find out about the Altgens photo until November 25. Weisberg was definitely calling Hoover a xxxx, but I have no reason to think that he was calling Mike Shapiro of WFAA, which was an AP affiliate, a xxxx.

Edited January 24, 2013 by Ralph Cinque

[Paul Rigby]

Hi Ralph,

Yes, I'm happy to, but you'll have to give me time to pull all the diverse bits and pieces I collected - and which led me to the conclusions summarised above - into coherent form. I should be finished, "redecoration issues" with my teenage daughter permitting, within ten days or so.

Paul

PS Fascinating find with respect to the Benton Harbor News-Palladium's final edition of November 22, 1963: well done!

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/01/18/jfk-an-open-letter-to-robert-f-kennedy-jr/

[Ralph Cinque]

Paul, I can't tell you how happy I am to hear from you .This is great news. And, I need to update you. Besides Hank Sienzant, there is Joseph Backes who is bashing you now. In fact, just tonight he did so. Here's the link to his page, and I apologize for his profane language. They wouldn't let him talk like that here on Education Forum, so he took his rants elsewhere.

http://www.ralphcinqueisastupidbitch.blogspot.com/

When you have the time, please do lay out the basis for your contentions about the handling of the Altgens photo. I know you are aware of how important this is to the whole case. And there are others who have been waiting with bated breath to hear from you too about this, and I'll reassure them that you are indeed going to come through for us. Thank you so much, Paul. Ralph

[Ralph Cinque]

Paul, this is the write-up that I did about hearing from you for the OIC Facebook page:

I am very happy to announce that I have heard from British researcher Paul Rigby, and he going to lay out the evidentiary basis for his claims about the handling of the Altgens photo.

It's perfect timing too considering Backes' latest rant which attacked Paul and as much as it did me.

Here is Paul's note to me:

Hi Ralph,

Yes, I'm happy to, but you'll have to give me time to pull all the diverse bits and pieces I collected - and which led me to the conclusions summarised above - into coherent form. I should be finished, "redecoration issues" with my teenage daughter permitting, within ten days or so.

Paul

PS Fascinating find with respect to the Benton Harbor News-Palladium's final edition of November 22, 1963: Well done!

And let's use Paul's thumbs-up for my finding the News-Palladium Extra Edition as a segue to discuss it further:

There is still one very big question looming about that extra edition: Where else did it appear?

Most of the articles were written by the AP. Two of the articles were credited to another news service: the NEA, which stands for Newspaper Enterprise Association. And, there were also a few very short articles pertaining to local stuff.

So, very little of the crowded 10 pages was written by the Benton Harbor News-Palladium, while most of it was written by the AP.

The AP could not possibly have written it all just for the Benton Harbor News-Palladium. So, I want to know which other newspapers around the country published essentially the same thing, the same extra edition, only substituting their own few short articles pertaining to the local coverage.

This is very important because if we don't find other "extra editions" that mirror this one, something is terribly wrong. It can't possibly be that all of this was channeled down just to appear in the Benton Harbor News-Palladium and nowhere else. You'd have to be fresh-fallen off the turnip truck to believe that.

So, I am going to provide you with the titles to the articles in this Extra Edition, and I am hoping that others will get involved in finding out if these articles appeared elsehwere.

We'll start with the two articles from the NEA.

New First Lady: Dynamic, Charming, Wise

Push Again for (German) Unity; Reds firm

Now, here are the many AP articles:

Sniper's Gun Kills JFK in Dallas TX

Shame, Tragedy Hit US in Dallas (mostly a picture album)

Romney Speaks State's Grief

President's Life is a Moving Story

Success Studs JFK's Career

Will Take Body to White House; Expect Funeral in Boston; Children not told

Governor Connally in no danger/Condition called "very serious"

(an odd match of title and subtitle; someone call Jay Leno)

Red Sympathizer Arrestged (all about Oswald, obviously)

Photog Sees Rifle/Sniper at 45 degree angle

by Bob Jackson

(Yes, that is the same Bob Jackson who 8 years later took his famous pictures of Billy Lovelady in the doorway. In the article, he cites the official story to a tee even before it became the official story. Note that this was the only article that listed an author.)

Dallas Cop Killed Says US official (about Tippit, obviously)

Wall Street Prices Fall; Reacts sharply to assassination

President killed by Sniper's gun (continuation of cover story)

London is shocked by assassination

US closes border to Mexico

Administration Highlights

Stilled is the Loving Heart/ President was part of a close-knit family (all Kennedy family pictures)

As you can see, it's a colossal output. The Benton Harbor News-Palladium could not possibly have churned it out, and it is just as preposterous to think that the AP churned it out just for them. So, we really need to find out where else these articles appeared, either organized into other "extra editions" or even separately.

But as of tonight, January 21, 2012, the Benton Harbor News-Palladium is the only home for these articles. And that is none too bueno.

Personal note to Joseph Backes: You are confused. We NEVER said the Altgens photo in the Sheboygan Press is unaltered. And we NEVER would say such a thing. And that's because you can see the same alterations in it that you can see on all the other published versions of the Altgens photo.

[Ralph Cinque]

Great news, Paul! Pete Mellor, who is a senior member of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, and who likes you is from England, found a reference in Harold Weisberg's Photographic Whitewash:

"Mr. Mike Shapiro, of WFAA Television, advised that immediately after this (Altgens) photograph was taken it was forwarded by wire to the Associated Press at New York, New York, and subsequently distributed to other AP offices throughout the country."

So, you were right, Paul. It did go to the AP in New York before it was sent out widely.

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

As I predicted the 50th Anniversary would be the year that all researchers put their personalization of disputed facts aside, and began to work on shared common denominators of the most contested points in the assassination narrative, hence creating a more unified opposing narrative to the government and corporate media's beyond-defensable one.

Wait. Sorry ...had my telescopes on backwards.

[Paul Rigby]

As a wise American nearly remarked, a research community that is afraid to let its members judge truth and falsehood in an open market is not engaged in research and is most definitely not a community. It is, rather, an instrument of, and accessory to, the cover-up.

Or as John F. Kennedy put it:

“Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth.”

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

It should be noted that my comment was not directed at Mr. Cinque. It was a warning about a process that I expect to see a lot more of in this 50th anniversary.

I would say, that given how roundly Mr Cinque has been attacked some degree skin thickener could only be expected. I type this as someone who remains entirely ignorant of the details of what got Mr. Cinque in so much unpopularity.

Finally let me say that "if I were the CIA" to use that old preable to stories once told in my nursery school, I would have to consider the possibility of "Ashtraying it" i.e. burying some very important truths by allowing SOME airtime but in the context of a figure who is generally renounced by the vast majority of researchers, thus creating by association, a tar-baby of the truth. The sparks of initial oxygen will die because all kindling will be frightened to the far edges of the ashtray.

I must emphasize that I BY NO MEANS say that is going on in the case of Mr. Cinque or Mr. Fetzer because I am a father an alleged husband and a teacher and have not had the friggen time to follow very important stuff.

SO WHY DO I CORRUPT THIS THREAD WITH THIS BLATHER, it might be reasonably asked?

Simply to say this: We must NEVER allow the popularity or lack of popularity of a given presenter to cloud our view of the evidence presented. It is very likely that there are those, paid by the hour, who we will never know, who are paid to get us to do just that. And again, I emphasize that I in no way here allude to Mr. Cinque or Mr. Fetzer. It is a point that needs to be recalled on all threads.

Beware the ashtray.

Edited January 28, 2013 by Nathaniel Heidenheimer

[Ralph Cinque]

Here is our latest pursuit at the Oswald Innocence Campaign.

I want to look further at this issue of Hard vs. Soft Lovelady.

http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/606/collage433.jpg

Which was the original released by the FBI in 1964? Which came later? Why are there two versions?

... First, I have no found no evidence that either was actually released in 1964. It was tucked into the back of the Warren Report as an attachment to a document. It’s not as though most Americans bought the 26 volume Warren Report. Did the newspapers publish Lovelady’s pictures so that all Americans could see them? No, they did not. Nor did they discuss them.

Nor did the Warren Report discuss them. Nor did the Warren Report use them as a basis for ascertaining Doorman’s identity. Even the HSCA admitted that the Warren Commission reached its conclusion based entirely on two things: “Lovelady’s identification of himself as the man in the Altgens photograph, and the statements of others who were present in the entranceway of the TSBD at the same time.”

In other words: they relied on LIP-FLAPPING, and that’s all. No photographic analysis. Did they even ponder Lovelady’s trustworthiness to tell the truth? They did not. They were apparently unaware that he was a convicted felon. Or, if they knew, they certainly didn’t mention it. It took Larry Rivera of the Oswald Innocence Campaign to unearth the documents pertaining to Lovelady’s 1961 arrest, incarceration, and conviction in the Air Force for being part of a gun-stealing, gun-running ring.

It is very hard to find Document 457 which has the pictures of Lovelady. Here is the US National Archives presentation of the Warren Report. See if you can get to Document 457.

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/

There is also a page called “Inventory” that refers to documents and photographs, but it says:

"For access to these records, contact the Special Access and FOIA Staff, National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740, (301) 837-3190, E-mail: specialaccess_foia@nara.gov."

So far, the only source I have found online for Document 457 is the Mary Ferrell Foundation:

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Photos_-_WCD_Photos_-_Billy_Lovelady_-_p1

That’s all I could find in all of cyberspace, but is it legit?

One thing is for sure: in 1964, the only objective the FBI had was to sell the idea of Lovelady looking like Doorman. They weren’t worried about any other pictures. So, which of these two images looks more like Doorman?

http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/606/collage433.jpg

Soft Lovelady on the right definitely looks more like Doorman than Hard Lovelady on the left. His hair coverage is a better match, as is the contour of his face. Plus, that shadow on the right side of his face matches Doorman's most compellingly. It’s like it casts a spell over you to make you think they’re the same.

Furthermore, that weird, wavy disfigurement of Hard Lovelady’s face on his right side was no part of him. He looks like a boxer who got banged up too many times. It is DISTORTION. And I have to think that it was deliberate distortion.

But eventually, the image of Lovelady from outside the TSBD became widely circulated. It became THE image of Lovelady wearing a plaid shirt.

http://img803.imageshack.us/img803/7084/collage434.jpg

Above, Hard Lovelady makes the better match to Gorilla Man. And it’s not that they look alike; they don’t. Their hair is nothing alike; their noses are nothing alike; their ears are nothing alike. But, they both look hard. It’s not much, but it’s something.

The bottom line for me is that, in all probability, Soft Lovelady was put forward to sell the idea of Lovelady as Doorman from the Altgens photo, and then later, Hard Lovelady was put forward to sell the idea of Lovelady as Gorilla Man from the Martin film. And that’s why we have two versions.

At this point, even if I did write to the government asking for a digital copy of Document 457, I don’t know if I could trust them. I’m just going to have to get my hands on the physical Warren Report and see which version of Lovelady is there.

[Ralph Cinque]

Paul, my latest interest is pursuing Oswald's study of Russian. There is nothing concrete until he gets to El Toro Air Base after Japan. And at El Toro, all he had going for him was Russian newspapers and Russian songs on record. He never took any instruction or undertook any formal course work in Russian. Yet somehow, in two months, he was reasy to take a proficiency exam in Russian, which he passed, though just barely.

I am increasingly drawn to the work of John Armstrong about the Two Oswalds. Apparently, it was between Japan and El Toro that the switch took place.