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 226-250 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 10, 2012 7:41:23 AM PDT
Your post makes no sense.

What's the point of having a tour and not telling anyone?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 10, 2012 7:44:53 AM PDT
Andrew says:
Somewhere out there there must be an American who understands sarcasm but s/he never posts here!

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 10, 2012 8:41:29 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 10, 2012 8:42:47 AM PDT
Or you are taking their posts in the wrong vein.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 10, 2012 10:27:08 AM PDT
Andrew says:
One of us is!

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 11, 2012 2:13:34 PM PDT
Linda / Ralph Cinque has been awfully silent lately. Maybe they are re-examining their assumptions about the Altgens photo.

Hank

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 11, 2012 2:15:50 PM PDT
Ralph's latest article will be published on Veterans Today within a few days, and I'll provide provide the link when it's up.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 11, 2012 2:19:23 PM PDT
lol.

Will he be retracting all the nonsensical claims already proven false, or just adding new ones?

Hank

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 11, 2012 2:48:31 PM PDT
He retraces some of the ridiculous claims that were made on the Education Forum by CIA moles and government ops like yourself and proves them wrong. It's must reading, so stay tuned.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 11, 2012 4:38:40 PM PDT
Linda K. Hadley says: "He retraces some of the ridiculous claims that were made on the Education Forum by CIA moles and government ops like yourself and proves them wrong."

Here's the typical conspiracy theorist in a nutshell. Assumes their opposition is funded by, or actually employed by, the CIA. Never addresses the obvious point that there is probably nobody in the government at this time that was in a position of power in 1963 -- so what possible reason would the current government employees have to aid and abet a conspiracy to assassinate the President of the U.S., a crime that would be punishable by death? How'd "they" insure their conspiracy would stay secret for 49 years?

And of course, going from the macro view to the micro view, if the Altgens photograph showed Oswald in the background, and the conspirators realized that and intercepted it in time to alter it before it went out over the AP wire the same day, why didn't they just burn the photo instead of going to all the trouble of altering it?

Obvious questions. Questions Ralph won't touch. Because his theories make no sense.

Hank

Posted on Jun 11, 2012 4:49:54 PM PDT
You really don't get it? They don't care about protecting LBJ, J. Edgar Hoover, Albert Thomas with his "wink of the century" and all the others who were involved in Kennedy's murder. At least, they don't care about protecting them personally. It's about protecting the appearance and the integrity of the whole system, and that includes not just the government but also the corporate media which together have been invoved in 49 years of lying and cover-up. That's what they care about. So, it's not about protecting the individual culprits who were involved at the time, not any more. Today, it is about defending the legitamacy of the whole system, the whole ball of wax. They can't admit they were wrong about JFK without admitting to major corruption, including of late. So, there is a lot at stake. If the truth about JFK comes out, the US federal government loses all legitamacy. I'll say it one more time: If the truth about JFK comes out, the US federal government loses all legitamacy.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 11, 2012 5:05:56 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 11, 2012 5:11:59 PM PDT
Say it again. You know what they say, the third time's the charm! (I do think you need to close your eyes real tight and click your Ruby shoes together at the same time for it to come true). ;D

Do you honestly believe any of the above?

Yes? Explain this, then:

The people in power today won't reveal the coverup because they think it would remove the legitimacy of the federal government? Why not? How do we get all the people who know this secret to keep it a secret, how do we know that's the reason they are keeping it a secret (was there a poll I didn't know about), and how did *you* determine that's the reason they're keeping it a secret?

And given a choice between revealing the conspiracy and being praised for breaking it wide open, or continuing to conceal it and risk death by execution by aiding and abet the conspiracy, *everyone* in the know chooses to be part of the conspiracy? How do they guarantee that?

Your suppositions are again simply masquerading as fact. They are not facts. Just like the 'fact' that there was a conspiracy, the 'fact' that this is the reason for the supposed secrecy to continue is just bluster and wind, coming out of the south.

Hank

Posted on Jun 12, 2012 1:37:17 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 12, 2012 9:02:51 PM PDT
JFK Special 4: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!

(This is a long and factual analyzation of the associated JFK assassination material and no matter what you believe this deserves a thorough reading to understand the forensic presentation of the Altgen photographs and how they were photoshopped(altered at the time)

By Jim Fetzer and Richard Hooke

Those who have been following the "JFK Special: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!" series are familiar with much of the evidence that has established that Lee Harvey Oswald, the alleged assassin of JFK, actually had a cast iron alibi, because he was captured in a famous photograph taken by AP photographer James "Ike" Altgens, which appeared in most papers the following day, but in some cases, such as The Sheboygan Press, which is now a morning paper but was then published in the afternoon-assuming that this is the actual issue that was published and not a substitute-appeared on Friday, 22 November 1963, the day of the assassination itself:

Altgens6 and Altgens7
Because Altgens shot a sequence of photographs that day, they are commonly referred to by their number in the sequence. Thus, the photograph we have been discussing and analyzing, which is seen on the left, is also known as "Altgens6″, while another photograph, which is also attributed to him, known as "Altgens7″, was published along side of it in The Sheboygan Press. Although it is not widely known, Altgens7, which shows Clint Hill on the running board at the back of the limousine, appears to be a fabricated photograph.
By Clint Hill's own testimony, written and spoken, for nearly 50 years now, he had stepped onto the back step, pushed Jackie down, and laid across both of their bodies, while peering into a fist-sized blow-out at the back of JFK's head, which in turn caused him to turn to his colleagues and give them a "thumbs down", all before the limousine had reached the Triple Underpass, whose shadow can been seen in Altgens7. That he was lying across their bodies was confirmed by Roy Kellerman in his testimony to the Warren Commission:

read the entire article at:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/06/11/jfk-special-4-oswald-was-in-the-doorway-after-all/

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/01/25/jfk-special-oswald-was-in-the-doorway-after-all/

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/04/13/jfk-special-2-oswald-was-in-the-doorway-after-all/

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/05/05/jfk-special-3-oswald-was-in-the-doorway-after-all/

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/11/21/jfk-what-we-know-now-that-we-didnt-know-then/

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/06/12/jfk-special-5-oswald-was-in-the-doorway-after-all/

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 12, 2012 2:15:09 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 12, 2012 4:26:02 PM PDT
Lawrence A. Dickerson says: (Quoting Fetzer and Cinque) -- "Those who have been following the "JFK Special: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!" series are familiar with much of the evidence that has established that Lee Harvey Oswald, the alleged assassin of JFK, actually had a cast iron alibi, because he was captured in a famous photograph taken by AP photographer James "Ike" Altgens, which appeared in most papers the following day, but in some cases, such as The Sheboygan Press, which is now a morning paper but was then published in the afternoon-assuming that this is the actual issue that was published and not a substitute-appeared on Friday, 22 November 1963, the day of the assassination itself:

Altgens6 and Altgens7
Because Altgens shot a sequence of photographs that day, they are commonly referred to by their number in the sequence. Thus, the photograph we have been discussing and analyzing, which is seen on the left, is also known as "Altgens6, while another photograph, which is also attributed to him, known as "Altgens7, was published along side of it in The Sheboygan Press. Although it is not widely known, Altgens7, which shows Clint Hill on the running board at the back of the limousine, appears to be a fabricated photograph."

In addition to the Sheboygan Press, it was also published plenty of other places! Since the two photos in question are in the Sheboygan press and elsewhere on the afternoon of 11/22/63; and are the same photographs in existence now, that establishes that the photos were either altered in the first 33 minutes after the assassination (when all of Altgens' photos went out over the AP newswire) or it wasn't altered at all. Since there was no time to make the extensive alterations alleged by Cinque and Fetzer in the first 33 minutes (Altgens spent about five or ten minutes after the assassination [which occurred at 12:30] photographing some of the aftermath of the assassination before running back to the AP offices in Dallas), that left barely enough time to develop his photos before they were sent out. There is simply no time to make the detailed alterations alleged of both Altgens 6 and 7.

How extensive were the alterations? Unbelievable extensive, according to Fetzer and Cinque: The Altgens photograph contains extensive revisions to the image, including "the clothing and the body ... which, we now know, reflect extensive efforts to revise the image, including creating Black-Tie-Man by moving features of Fedora Man-whom we believe to have been Jack Ruby-in an attempt to conceal the shirt that Doorman was wearing..."

Why didn't they just burn the photo?

So among these alterations -- Fedora Man was revised, doorway man was revised, a woman and child were inserted in the photo, Lovelady's nose, forehead and hairline were inserted into the image, while Oswald's eyes, ear, and lips were left behind (why? Doesn't it make sense to put Lovelady's entire face into the image if you're trying to establish it's Lovelady in the picture?) -- they did all this in about five minutes or less, all before 1:03pm Dallas time, without even knowing what was in the photo until Altgens brought it back to the AP office in Dallas!

Amazing that someone would even propose such nonsense. But that's precisely what Ralph Cinque and Jim Fetzer have proposed.

Quite simply, the allegations of alterations are merely that, allegations, without any substance. They consist entirely of imaginings of what the photos should show, or do show but shouldn't, by two men without any background in photographic analysis.

They both alleged that a photo of Oswald (with another man wearing a hat behind Oswald; with only the hat appearing above Oswald's head; to be an altered photo because it showed Oswald wearing a small hat. They appear not to understand perspective at all; relying on these two men to offer valid photographic interpretations of the Altgens photos appears to be less than wise -- a lot less than wise.

Moreover, alleging the evidence is a forgery or planted or altered is the same conspiracy nonsense that has been circulating for nearly 50 years in this case. It is simply a way to wave away all the evidence implicating Oswald and try to substitute suppositions for evidence. But they never explain any of the questions these supposed forgeries raise: like, why bother altering both Altgens photos whatsoever? If the conspirators didn't like what the photos showed, why didn't they simply burn them, and never let them appear anywhere in the world on 11/22/63 or at any other time? A simple excuse like "Ooops! I overexposed them when developing them, and they all came out unusable" or the like would work to eliminate any issues, without leading to problems with the alterations eventually being uncovered by the brilliant minds of Fetzer and Cinque. But nope! These conspirators liked to do things the hard way, I guess; and under great time constraints -- "We need both these photos altered, extensively, and in the next five minutes!"

Why'd they bother?

PS: They weren't photoshopped -- that software didn't exist and using that term is more than a little misleading to younger readers.

Hank

Posted on Jun 12, 2012 2:48:16 PM PDT
keith stone says:
hes a real doorway man
sitting in his doorway land
making all his doorway plans for nobody

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 12, 2012 4:00:58 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 12, 2012 4:06:55 PM PDT
*Standing* in his doorway land

The image of the man in the doorway is of a man standing in the doorway. But that calls to mind another laughable mistake by Cinque -- when discussing some film of Billy Lovelady in the Dallas Police Station after the assassination, Ralph Cinque claimed that the Lovelady image was apparently that of a extremely short person, or was altered - you see, he didn't realize that Lovelady was sitting down on a chair at the time (so much for Ralph's vaunted photo - interpretation skills!)

It would be laughable if he wasn't demeaning the assassination of a President by trying to absolve the murderer of all guilt.

Hank

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 12, 2012 5:00:10 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 12, 2012 5:08:28 PM PDT
It's a takeoff of a Beatles song Hank. It was called Nowhere Man and in the verse he is sitting.

Fetzer has always had a very unhealthy view toward JFK. Listen to some of his interviews and you come away with the belief that in Fetzers mind, Kennedy could do no wrong. Was in fact perfect. Had he lived, no doubt Fetzer would have tried to amend the Constitution and made JFK, Ruler for life. Disolve congress and Bobby and Teddy would follow and there would be a never ending dynasty of Kennedy. He is a weirdo to the extreme.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 12, 2012 5:10:09 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 12, 2012 5:16:32 PM PDT
Stinky Le Poot says: "It's a takeoff of a Beatles song Hank. It was called Nowhere Man and in the verse he is sitting."

Understood. I guess the question becomes, when modifying the lyrics to fit a new situation, how far do you want to go? Keep the lyrics the same as much as possible, or modify them somewhat to fit the new situation, as long as the original is still recognizable?

I guess you and I would draw the line different places.

PS: I am old enough to still have most of my Beatles collection on vinyl.

Hank

Posted on Jun 12, 2012 5:34:35 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 12, 2012 5:35:25 PM PDT
No line to draw. Its only a song. I think keith is pointing out the silliness of the those who will never accept that there wasn't a multi-level conspiracy. If Jesus Christ showed up and told them a different story, they'd call him a liar or say he was part of the conspiracy.

I have many on vinyl too!

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 12, 2012 7:15:44 PM PDT
Here is Ralph's and Jim's latest article on Veterans Today, where Ralph covers the various versions of the footage of Oswald SUPPOSEDLY passing Lovelady at the Dallas PD (he didn't really), and other issues from their debate on Education Forum:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/06/12/jfk-special-5-oswald-was-in-the-doorway-after-all/

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 12, 2012 8:32:54 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 12, 2012 8:37:02 PM PDT
I am reminded of comedian Lenny Bruce's line that if you are ever caught by your spouse having sex with someone else, deny it, deny it, deny it! Even if they have pictures! "Oh, him? He's just my gay hairdresser!"

Linda & Ralph have certainly taken Lenny's advice to a new extreme.

According to these two, the conspirators went to the trouble of altering films not even directly linked to the assassination, just to continue a charade that would have been made easier by just destroying the original Altgens photos.

Linda, does Ralph explain anywhere in the article why the conspirators allowed the Altgens photos to even see the light of day? Without that explanation, Ralph's article is missing a HUGE piece of the puzzle and is totally lacking in believability and wholly incomplete.

Hank

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 12, 2012 8:41:02 PM PDT
Hank, we wonder the same thing. Why didn't they just destroy the Altgens6 photo as soon as they saw Oswald standing there? After all, they had plenty of other photos. Who was going to complain if it didn't appear? For all we know, there were other photos that were destroyed. So, you indeed ask a pertinent question, and we don't have the answer. However, not having the answer does not in any way invalidate Jim's and Ralph's work.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 12, 2012 9:00:23 PM PDT
Stinky,

JFK was the most loved and respected personage of the century if not the time.In spite of all his faults,he is human after all,I respect him and his memory with the same adoration as many of my age and experience.

What were you doing the moment JFK was announced as being assassinated.I knew exactly the date,time,place and circumstances.That's how much an effect he had on me.I was in Ft Dix,NJ,ready to ship out to Germany,a country that officially mourned his death for 30 days.There was respect back then but somehow,something stunk up the place.Any ideas?

Posted on Jun 12, 2012 9:00:59 PM PDT
No, Linda, not having the answer does invalidate Cinque and Fetzer's work. For the simple reason that they are not just alleging alteration of this one photo with no time to alter it, they are alleging alteration of other films as well all to support a claim it wasn't necessary to make. Destroying the Altgens film would certainly have been easier and quicker -- but according to these two, the conspirators didn't take the easy way out and just destroy the evidence they didn't like, they altered it so nobody but Cinque and Fetzer could see the changes for 49 years. Then they altered other films to support the original alteration. The entire supposition is built up like a house of cards, and there's no evidence to support the claims these two make whatsoever. It's all based on what they perceive is wrong in the Altgens photo or the DPD film, but they don't have the background to make those judgments.

Hank

Posted on Jun 12, 2012 9:12:46 PM PDT
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/06/12/jfk-special-5-oswald-was-in-the-doorway-after-all/

I read part five and I ask for readers to actually read it and take to time to reference all the minute details.I used to study aerial photgraphs and I would dissect them pixel by pixel and and analyze the minutest shadowing as compared to the supposed date/time and location.All I am asking is to read that information contained in parts 1-5 and think about what is being presented.You don't have to believe it but as adults you owe it to yourselves and the authors to hear them out.You might learn something ,and then again???

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 12, 2012 9:16:21 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 12, 2012 9:18:05 PM PDT
Linda K. Hadley says: "Hank, we wonder the same thing. Why didn't they just destroy the Altgens6 photo as soon as they saw Oswald standing there? After all, they had plenty of other photos. Who was going to complain if it didn't appear? For all we know, there were other photos that were destroyed. So, you indeed ask a pertinent question, and we don't have the answer. However, not having the answer does not in any way invalidate Jim's and Ralph's work."

You are simply assuming what you need to prove. How do you know "They" had plenty of other photos? You are simply assuming the existence of this all-powerful "They".

For example, "They" knew the Altgens photos needed to be altered even though there's no evidence "They" even saw it before it went out on the AP wire, "They" made the alterations even though "They" had no time, "They" got all the witnesses to lie about what happened, "They" got Oswald to lie about where HE was at the time of the shooting; etc. etc.. ad nauseum.

You simply elevate Ralph Cinque's photo interpretations to a fact -- but it's no more scientific than looking at a cloud and seeing a dog, or a face of Santa Claus, or whatever. It's his interpretation of what he sees, and only his interpretation of what he sees.

Don't pretend it's any more meaningful than that, because it's not.

Hank
‹ Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 400 Next ›
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