Customer Discussions > History forum

Doorway Man in the famous Altgens photo WAS Oswald

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 201-225 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 3, 2012 8:26:38 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 3, 2012 8:29:41 PM PDT
Henry.ooooooooooohh.LOLOL!!!!I'll tell teacher that you pulled Suzy's pigtails.Better folks than you have tried to get my hundreds of posts like this pulled down all to no avail.

Posted on Jun 3, 2012 8:33:24 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 4, 2012 12:26:08 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 4, 2012 8:05:13 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 4, 2012 2:43:41 PM PDT
I have done none of what you claim. I may have denigrated some of the points Linda made, but none of them are her original thoughts, and I did not denigrate Linda. I was never profane, obscene, etc.

On the other hand, your posts are wholly off the entire subject matter, and would be akin to me posting a long article I found online on the New York Football Giants chances of winning the Super Bowl in 2012.

If you believe otherwise, please note that Linda called me "dense" (and used other similar language other times) for doing nothing more than questioning her posts. She has labelled me and others "disinformationists", and she has called me "a CIA mole" or a CIA operative (OP for short). She has also been abusive of most any lone nutter that posts here. She has mocked my name. She has repeatedly posted the same messages over and over (quoting word for word messages posted in other forums), without ever even attempting to respond to questions about the points she raised.

Here are some examples:

Linda Hadley says:
May 16th: "Are you dense?"
May 25th: "David Von Pein, one of the Internet's leading JFK disinformationists"
May 29th: "Are you dense?"
May 30th: "Now, I realize that you ops..."
May 30th: "More disinformationist rubbish. That's what you guys do, in a word, lie."
May 30th: "No dice, Sin-zant."
May 30th: "Well, we figure it may be a phony name anyway, like SV Anderson. We know how CIA moles operate; they don't use their real names."
May 30th: "You CIA moles are all alike."
May 31st: Linda K. Hadley says: "Lawrence, we suspect it isn't his real name. His ally SV Anderson is using a phony name. It's common for "ops" to do that."
May 31st: "Ralph told me to tell you that he curses you and the horse you rode in on." (in a different thread).

I have not responded in kind.

Posted on Jun 4, 2012 9:37:12 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 4, 2012 9:38:09 AM PDT
"any lone nutter "

Hank,I am afraid to tell you lest you lapse into a state of apoplexy but the word "nutter" is negative and falls into those categories.There are much better terms that are not judgmental and inflammatory.Just because it is rampant on Amazon does not make it correct.

You stand guilty as charged.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 4, 2012 9:46:00 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 4, 2012 9:51:42 AM PDT
Lawrence A. Dickerson says: "any lone nutter " Hank,I am afraid to tell you lest you lapse into a state of apoplexy but the word "nutter" is negative and falls into those categories.There are much better terms that are not judgmental and inflammatory.Just because it is rampant on Amazon does not make it correct. You stand guilty as charged."

Straw argument.

A "lone nutter" is one who believes that Oswald, a lone nut, shot and killed JFK. It is the term I accept as best descriptive of my own beliefs and is applied to myself and others who think like me. You are therefore concluding I am using a perjorative term against myself -- lol. It is a short-hand term that is used universally to describe those who believe Oswald was the lone guilty party, and the "nutter" part refers to Oswald, not to those who believe Oswald was a lone nut.

I dislike the term "Warren Commission Defender" as the Warren Commission could have concluded something else entirely, and I would still believe Oswald did it by his lonesome. I would like to know what term you think is better.

A "conspiracy theorist" is on the opposite side of the fence, one who believes -- like Linda -- that more than Oswald was involved.

Posted on Jun 4, 2012 10:09:28 AM PDT
Nonetheless Hank,don't throw stones in your own glass house.When your act is clean then you might has a basis for cajoling others for their beliefs.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 4, 2012 10:25:54 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 4, 2012 2:08:45 PM PDT
lol. Still a straw argument, as the term "lone nutter" does not refer to those who believe Oswald shot Kennedy in either a perjorative, judgmental, nor negative way. As noted, and you ignored, the "NUT" part of "Lone NUTTER" refers to Oswald, not to those posters who believe Oswald was a lone gunman (people like me).

My act is clean. See above for some examples of Linda's act.

And you don't get to decide what term I get to refer to myself as. I want to be called a "Lone Nutter." It is a term that goes back a long way, to when I was posting on AOL's message boards in the early 1990's (before there was an internet).

PS: Please advise what term you think I should refer to myself as. You said there were better terms. Still waiting to hear one.

Hank

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 4, 2012 2:11:47 PM PDT
Lawrence A. Dickerson says: "Hank, not to throw stones but you are quite guilty of these infractions against Linda and they equally are aginst the ToU.Your glass house just cracked.Beware or it will fall down before you.

Profane or obscene, inflammatory or spiteful comments
Messages that abuse, denigrate or threaten others "

Any examples you care to cite?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 4, 2012 3:08:08 PM PDT
Linda -- do you intend to respond to any of these points anytime soon?
Linda K. Hadley says: " You are just obfuscating. I put what he said in quotes to indicate that it was him communicating, but I was also paraphrasing for expediency sake. But I have now clarified it: he himself only saw one version, the altered version, and he knew right away that it had been altered from certain visible characteristics. And I'm not talking anything based on the content. It was based at the time soley on technical considerations. And then he became aware of another copy that was skirted out of sight. That was, and is, the story. The only one who is confused is you, or I should say, the only one who is trying to confuse is you."

Aha, I knew a fourth version would be coming along shortly. Now, although the original statement is in quotes, that wasn't a "real" quote. You say now it was only a paraphrase. I would know that how? It certainly appears like a quote, down to the first person "I" in the quote: " Just today, we were contacted by a man who told us that 'On 11/23/1963, I was working for the Dayton Daily News in the Composition department, and the Altgens photo came off the AP wire- twice: the second time in an altered state.' "

If anyone is trying to confuse, it's you. You're responsible for the quote-that's-not-a-quote. Not me.

Even so, it says there in that quote-that's-not-a-quote that were two different versions he could attest to on 11/22 (after you corrected for your admitted typo). Now you say he only saw one version, saw that on 11/23, and only heard about another version existing, but never saw. Again, this depends entirely on your credibility. Given you've given four different accounts now, why should we believe this latest iteration? You told us the first one was correct. It wasn't. You then told us the second one was correct. It wasn't. You told us the third version was correct. It wasn't. Now you're telling us the fourth version is correct. Yeah, so?

Any luck tracking down that evidence of the order that went out over the AP wire to not use the original version? Any luck obtaining a copy of that unaltered Altgens photo your source says may exist someplace or other?
Any luck verifying your source's account - or are you just accepting him at his word that he saw this?

And wait -- according to you, the published [what you claim is an altered] version HAS MARKINGS ON IT that expose it was faked!

Let me quote what you wrote: "Our contact only laid eyes on the altered copy which came through at 7AM on the Saturday, and he knew right away that it had been altered from various and multiple technical observations."

That would mean the copy that was printed world wide and is widely available on the internet can be proven to be false from something on the altered copy itself.

You need to post what these various and multiple technical observations are. You will then establish the evidence of conspiracy, and alteration of the Altgens photo, even in the absence of the original. However, if you are mute on this subject, I am going to conclude you are just blowing smoke (or your witness is), and there aren't any technical markings that reveal it's altered.

If it was that readily apparent to this person, supposedly half the newsrooms in the U.S. would have someone who could attest to these markings. So they shouldn't be hard to find nor prove. I'll await your proof before making a call here on whether this witness even truly exists. You should also be able to establish the proof of the "order not to use" you say went out with the original (in fact, there should also be evidence of the Altgens original in the original AP wire transmissions, yet you haven't yet cited anything of that nature).

So there's three things you should be able to document easily enough:

1. The original unaltered Altgens photo that your witness claims went over the AP Wires.
2. The order not to use the above photo.
3. The technical markings that reveal the second wire photo is an alteration.

None of that depends on the witness. All should be easy to document and prove.

I await your evidence.

Hank

Posted on Jun 4, 2012 3:23:54 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 4, 2012 3:24:55 PM PDT
The WFAA film of the Dallas PD footage did an amazing thing. They actually took the re-enacted Lovelady footage and combined it with the real footage in which Lovelady was embedded. So, they started with the DeNiro Lovelady. Then they moved this big linebacker cop in the way to block the view. And then when that big cop moved aside, it was a different Lovelady sitting there, Embedded Lovelady. It was a classic bait and switch.

But notice how dark and blurry these frames are. They didn't have to be that way, and we know that because the DeNiro sequence is not so blurry in the Three Shots film, which Robin Unger posted on EF. And the Embedded Lovelady sequence isn't blurry in the Wolper film, Four Days. But, I can understand why they had to make it blurry in WFAA because there they spliced together two radically different films, and the only possible way to sell it was to blur the heck out of it. So, view these three frames as evidence of classic disinformation, like a Nazi propaganda movie.

http://tinypic.com/r/1z2j674/6

http://tinypic.com/r/2hfut5y/6

http://tinypic.com/r/adc0te/6

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 4, 2012 4:28:11 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 4, 2012 4:30:02 PM PDT
Why did they do all this, Linda? Who is "they", and when was this altered? What is your source of the 'blurred' film? Where precisely did you get it from, and can you vouch that it is the same as the official version (e.g., the aspect ratio wasn't changed, for example).

It couldn't have been to frame Oswald for anything, because Oswald was already in custody.

True to form, you are ignoring all the rebuttal posts that went before this. That implies you have no answer to those rebuttal posts.

Hank

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 5, 2012 7:28:43 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 5, 2012 7:29:02 AM PDT
Linda K. Hadley says: " The WFAA film of the Dallas PD footage did an amazing thing. They actually took the re-enacted Lovelady footage and combined it with the real footage in which Lovelady was embedded. So, they started with the DeNiro Lovelady. Then they moved this big linebacker cop in the way to block the view. And then when that big cop moved aside, it was a different Lovelady sitting there, Embedded Lovelady. It was a classic bait and switch."

Speaking of "classic bait and switch", did anyone notice that the discussion has previously centered around the Altgens photo (that's the title of the thread, after all), and now Linda is changing the subject immediately after I ask her (for the second time) to try to explain some of the sticking points of her argument about that photo?

Classic bait and switch, Linda?

Hank

Posted on Jun 6, 2012 5:56:25 PM PDT
keith stone says:
Oswald was a patsy to hide the real facts. Those facts are...JFK went back in time to help Lincoln hunt and kill vampires. While traveling through the different dimensions he met Q of the Q Continuum and together they are traveling through space and time, trying to figure out why they haven't been able to cure Captain Picards baldness.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 6, 2012 6:45:51 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 6, 2012 6:57:33 PM PDT
Urgent message coming in Larry.....

Urgent message from Secret Agent VD69.....

Ultra code violet-blue...Smegma rating ACDCR2D2C3PO

Message as follows....

Earth to Larry! Earth to Larry!

This is Amazon Larry! This is Amazon Larry! Not the High Court of the Land! Wake up Larry! Time to wake up Larry!

Translation Larry? That means we don't have to sit by and listen to you babble about a topic you know nothing about Larry!

You weren't even born then Larry!

You don't know anything apart from what you wanted to read and chose to accept Larry!

In other words Larry, you had already made up your mind about this incident so don't try and tell us you arrived at your hypothesis, after much research and investigation, Larry!

You would be telling us a lie Larry! And we know when you are lying Larry!

Get a life Larry! Get a clue Larry! Get a girl Larry! We're talking a real girl Larry! Not the kind you have to inflate, Larry!

That way you don't need to wait with baited breath Larry!

Beauty is more than skin deep as the old saying goes. The same is true for the male species. Wow Larry that sure was deep! About as deep as a kiddie pool Larry!

Now go take your Excedrin Larry! In order to have come up with something that profound, must have given you quite a headache Larry!

Say good night Larry!

Posted on Jun 6, 2012 7:26:33 PM PDT
You enjoy being statist moles, don't you. Well laugh it up. Knock yourselves out. But, you can laugh; you can cry; you can do you anything you want because the statist lie about JFK's murder is dying no matter what you do.

Here are the two Loveladys from the Dallas PD footage. It wasn't enough for them to make one phony piece of footage; they had to make two. What do you figure was the weight difference between those two Loveladys? Ralph figures about 25 pounds, and he's good at that kind of thing. Very good.

http://tinypic.com/r/2iiuy4l/6

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 7, 2012 5:53:51 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 7, 2012 7:16:09 AM PDT
But he's apparently not very good at understanding film or photography. Not very good at all.

What do you think about the fact that you are using internet footage after it was on broadcast television instead of the original footage? The broadcast footage had the aspect ratio modified to fit the television screens, which changes the apparent dimensions of anyone in the film / photos. That alone accounts for the apparent different dimensions of the two Lovelady's. This has been pointed out to you (and therefore Ralph) before (on MANY Occasions), but you and he simply continue to ignore it and simply continue to post the same silly - already rebutted - points again and again. Do you think that makes you more credible? It makes you and Ralph less credible.

You also continue to ignore the simplest questions about your theory: Why would they bother making two versions of the same event with two different stand-ins for the real Billy Lovelady? Why would they bother even making ONE? Why didn't they simply use the real Billy Lovelady and just film him ONCE? Did they do this simply because they wanted Ralph to discover this 49 years after the event and bust it wide open, or did they have some other reason?

What evidence do you have to answer those questions?

It is apparent that you (and Ralph) think that every photographic anomaly you and he see is evidence of a conspiracy. The problem is neither you nor Ralph have bothered to educate yourself about photography and film in the least, so what you breathlessly reveal to the world as "New Evidence of a Conspiracy!" (complete with Youtube videos) is quite typically something that has a different explanation altogether, a quite mundane one, one you didn't even consider, and one you weren't even aware of.

Good luck convincing anyone when you can't be bothered to get even simple things correct.

Hank

PS: The only case that withstands scrutiny is the one brought by the Dallas Police Department on the evening of the assassination -- Lee Oswald did, with malice aforethought, shoot both President John Kennedy and officer J.D.Tippit, killing both. The lies that are dying are the bogus conspiracy claims.

PPS: Now i'm a statist mole! Linda, please. Call me a CIA agent provocateur. That has more cachet. ;D

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 7, 2012 7:33:53 AM PDT
Bull, you can't play the aspect ratio card. And that objection applies to all 4 versions of the film equally. Furthermore, it's just plain bogus. If you go back and look at the pictures, you'll see that the size of the piece of paper on the table looks the same in both. The aspect ratio is the same. They are two different men.

http://tinypic.com/r/2iiuy4l/6

Their builds are different.
Their hair styles are different.
Their shirts are different, one sprawled open and the other not.
Even their lighting is different.
They are different men.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 7, 2012 8:46:44 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 7, 2012 11:41:06 AM PDT
You're just giving me your opinion again. But you have no expertise in photographic analysis. So why do you think what you're saying now should be convincing, when what you said before about the photos wasn't?

Now there's FOUR different versions of this film? lol. You were originally claiming two versions, now you're claiming FOUR?

Sorry, I can point you in the right direction but you actually have to want to go there. Otherwise you can stay stuck forever. As the saying goes, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink".

You also continue to ignore the simplest questions about your theory: Why would they bother making two -- nay, FOUR --versions of the same event with FOUR different stand-ins for the real Billy Lovelady? Why would they bother even making ONE? Why didn't they simply use the real Billy Lovelady and just film him ONCE? Did they do this simply because they wanted Ralph to discover this deceit 49 years after the event and bust the case wide open, or did they have some other reason? Even if you can't answer it for me, try to answer it for yourself. If you can't think of a possible reason the conspirators would want to do this, then does that tell you they didn't? You should ask yourself this the next time you get the urge to post a new blockbuster discovery in the photographs that you've found. Does it make any sense that they would do this? Why would they do this? This could save you from having to defend some silly assertions like the man in the blue shirt in the image below is actually just a "white blob" (I colorized the image, but the original is black-and-white). Even after seeing the man in the blue shirt, you continue to post that he doesn't exist, and that his presence there is evidence of photographic forgery.

http://simfootball.net/JFK/colorized.jpg

PS: Wasn't Ralph the guy who was originally claiming Lovelady was *STANDING* in the images you cite, and was therefore too low in the image to be really there, unless he was extremely short? Is he still claiming that? Or did he realize yet that Lovelady has bent himself at the knees and the hip and deposited his buttocks onto something called a "chair" here in America? It's really all the rave nowadays here in the U.S., and most people have at least one in their home. I don't know where Ralph is from, but from his original claim on this subject, it's pretty apparent he had no familiarity with that simple utilitarian object.

Good luck with proving that conspiracy, Linda.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 7, 2012 11:26:16 AM PDT
Secret Agent VD69??? Smegma rating ACDC-R2D2-C3PO???

lol. Did he incur that VD in the line of duty?

Hank

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 7, 2012 12:30:28 PM PDT
Linda K. Hadley says: " Bull, you can't play the aspect ratio card. And that objection applies to all 4 versions of the film equally. Furthermore, it's just plain bogus. If you go back and look at the pictures, you'll see that the size of the piece of paper on the table looks the same in both. The aspect ratio is the same. They are two different men.

http://tinypic.com/r/2iiuy4l/6

Their builds are different. Their hair styles are different. Their shirts are different, one sprawled open and the other not. Even their lighting is different. They are different men."

It turns out that the Lancer forum and Robin Unger has exposed this as nonsense far better than I could.

See this thread (copy & past all the below into your web brouser as one line):

http://1078567.sites.myregisteredsite.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=set_linear_mode&forum=3&page=&topic_id=96178&prev_page=show_mesg

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 7, 2012 4:45:57 PM PDT
Why It Matters

We believe these basic facts in the assassination of President Kennedy and the wounding of Governor John Connally:
JFK Lancer Assassination statement of beliefs:

there was more than one shooter
there has not been a trueor complete investigation of this crime by our government
the intelligence agencies did not give those investigatory bodies the information they should have
the assassination case is still open and therefore, research should be ongoing.

http://www.jfklancer.com/JFK2.html

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 7, 2012 4:48:12 PM PDT
Henry Sienzant says:
PS: Please advise what term you think I should refer to myself as. You said there were better terms. Still waiting to hear one.

A schmedrick might be an appropriate self lable.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 7, 2012 5:17:03 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 7, 2012 6:30:36 PM PDT
lol. Thanks, Lawrence. That retort would be more meaningful if it hadn't taken you a week to come up with it. As this point, you might as well shout, "yeah, well, same to you, buddy!"

I still prefer 'lone-nutter'. The challenge to you was to come up with a label that applied to my beliefs in the Kennedy assassination. 'Lone nutter' still seems to fit better than anything you've suggested to date. As you might remember, I used the term "lone-nutter" and applied it to those who believe Oswald was the sole shooter. Lawrence said that was a perjorative term and I disagreed. At that point I challenged him to come up with a better term. The above was the best he could do, and it certainly isn't as descriptive as "lone-nutter".

As always, we see that conspiracy believers cannot carry on a civil conversation without insulting the opposition. But what else do they have, as ultimately, they have to admit all the evidence points to Lee Oswald as the guilty party. Ultimately, they get tired of having their silly points shot down one by one, and have to resort to insults. At which point I always accept that as their concession that they know they've lost the debate.

Hank

PS: Schmedrick is as schmedrick does. By the way, you mispelled "label".

PPS: Lawrence also accused me of posting "Profane or obscene, inflammatory or spiteful comments, Messages that abuse, denigrate or threaten others"

I challenged him to post a example or two. Nothing to date.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 7, 2012 5:22:46 PM PDT
Lawrence A. Dickerson says: "Why It Matters -- We believe these basic facts in the assassination of President Kennedy and the wounding of Governor John Connally:
... there was more than one shooter ... there has not been a true or complete investigation of this crime by our government ... the intelligence agencies did not give those investigatory bodies the information they should have ... the assassination case is still open and therefore, research should be ongoing."

It's not about beliefs, Lawrence, although you might think it is. I don't argue religion. It's about facts. I will discuss the facts in this case. When you want to bring up some facts that you think point to a conspiracy, I'll be here waiting.

Hank

Posted on Jun 10, 2012 7:15:43 AM PDT
Andrew says:
And Elvis shot JFK from the grassy knoll and is now on tour with Lord Lucan, Princess Diana and Shergar. But don't tell anybody . . .
Discussion locked

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  History forum
Participants:  81
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Jan 13, 2012
Latest post:  Oct 9, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 9 customers

Search Customer Discussions