Automotive Deals HPCC Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Happy Belly Coffee Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer CafeSociety CafeSociety CafeSociety  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Segway miniPro
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 2101-2125 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 1, 2012 6:56:02 PM PDT
You ignored the primary point entirely. Here it is again:

Are you saying the left doesn't care about evidence and withholding judgment until the facts are in?

The hearings were open upon request. Only own witness requested that. It was granted. The transcripts of the hearings were published in 1964. I own a set. They are the first 15-16 volumes of the 26 volumes of evidence. Note you are changing the point -- first it was the investigation was top-secret, now it is the hearings. What will you be claiming tomorrow?

The further point is Oswald is an self-admitted Marxist-Leninist (who disavowed being a communist), and the left cannot accept that one of their own killed JFK, so they put the evidence through the wringer attempting to find something to deflect from Oswald killing Kennedy. But there is nothing to deflect from that, because Oswald killed JFK and all the evidence points to it.

Posted on Nov 18, 2012 3:04:52 PM PST
Oswald's spy colleague girlfriend: "Lee was innocent...and stop trying to kill me!"

In a recent radio interview, JFK assassination whistleblower Judyth Vary Baker describes how she has been dodging assassination attempts since 1999, when she came forward with evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald was not only innocent - he was an ONI-CIA-FBI spy who was actually working to stop the assassination plot against the president!

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/11/17/oswalds-spy-colleague-girlfriend-lee-was-innocent-and-stop-trying-to-kill-me/

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 18, 2012 4:51:39 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 18, 2012 4:52:51 PM PST
Wait a minute Lawrence...are you being serious or is this a comical, sarcastic post? Are you REALLY trying to pass off to readers this ridiculous claim by Judyth Baker that the same conspiracy that murdered Kennedy in broad daylight in front of hundreds of witnesses many of whom were holding cameras and while surrounded by Secert Service agents has been unable to track down a lone woman now in her seventies/eighties and murder her without anyone around, no witnesses, and no cameras? The single most powerful man on the planet they murdered with very little difficulty (and got away with it according to you) but the accused man's girlfriend who doesn't even have a hired bodyguard and whom 99.999999% of all people wouldn't recognize if they saw her has managed to elude this same murderous conspiracy for nearly fifty years?

Lawrence, if you DO believe this claim of hers I wouldn't go around voicing your acceptance too loudly--it doesn't bode well for YOUR gullibility and intellectual innocence.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 18, 2012 5:19:24 PM PST
Debunker says:
SV,

Don't underestimate the extent of the nonsense that lawrence believes.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 19, 2012 9:17:07 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 19, 2012 11:07:29 AM PST
Lawrence A. Dickerson says: "Oswald's spy colleague girlfriend: "Lee was innocent...and stop trying to kill me!"

In a recent radio interview, JFK assassination whistleblower Judyth Vary Baker describes how she has been dodging assassination attempts since 1999, when she came forward with evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald was not only innocent - he was an ONI-CIA-FBI spy who was actually working to stop the assassination plot against the president!

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/11/17/oswalds-spy-colleague-girlfriend-lee-was-innocent-and-stop-trying-to-kill-me/ "

Thank you for the laugh of the day. Hilarious. S.V.Anderson summed up the rebuttal very well, but one thing SVA didn't point out is that neither you nor Judyth have any evidence of any of these supposed assassination attempts.

He is right, you are exceedingly gullible. Or naive. Judyth Vary is a flim-flam artist, and she is just adding more unsupported claims to the pile. It appears you will believe any silly thing anyone says, as long as it points to conspiracy.

Has she reported any of these supposed assassination attempts to the police? It appears not.
Has she provided any documentation to support these claims? It appears not.
Has she done anything other than claim she - to use your words - has been dodging assassination attempts since 1999? It appears not.

PS: She cancelled her tour date in Dallas because she doesn't feel safe in America, but she is going to be touring up and down the west coast of the U.S.? And she posts when and where she'll be appearing? How's that work again? C'mon, use your head. If she was truly afraid of an attempt on her life, would she be posting ON THE INTERNET where she'll be and when?

Contrast Judyth's reaction to Salman Rushdie's. He not only went into hiding, he changed his name.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/salman-rushdie-speaks-about-his-time-in-hiding-and-his-new-book-a-857034.html

But Judyth? Not Judyth: She's so afraid of assassination she posts her latest tour dates!

Hilarious.

Judyth writes: "I'd planned originally to go to Dallas. This was just a couple of months ago. I'd rented a hotel room, I was going to speak in Dallas, I felt I'd be safe there. ... And don't you know that I got a phone call: "If you go to Dallas, you'll pay!" ... So I canceled the hotel in Dallas. But it's not like they won. ... So we decided we're going to go to the cities of America, up and down the West Coast, and we're going to tell this story. (Tour information here.) And then I'll be returning to undisclosed places back in Europe."

Question: Why does she feel the need to return to 'undisclosed places in Europe' while she's posting where she'll be (and when) in America? Do you ever think any of your posts through? Judyth is apparently counting on you just swallowing the bilge without a thought.

PPS: Maybe it was just the hotel telling her she wasn't getting the room comp'ed ("If you go to Dallas, you'll pay!").

Hilarious.

Hank

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 19, 2012 5:15:03 PM PST
I thought it was rather ludicrous myself but I wanted to see the peanut galleries response.I saw it as an attempt to promote her lectures but VT allows the widest variety of publications without censorship,more than 99.99 % of the MSM.When you guys bite it sure isn't a snag by the tail that lands you on the dinner table.Thanks for the anticipated response.You didn't let me down.1st off,you have no basis to state that I believe anything I post.I present the message you you folks slay the messenger.That the same premise that ancients lords and kings did to emissaries did to peaceful entourages presenting offers of truce and peace.You folks are too tied up in your need to be right at any costs to actually analyze anything.Carry on and continue to provide me much wanted amusement.

Posted on Nov 19, 2012 5:34:39 PM PST
The Connally Bullet
One of the most contentious issues of the JFK debate has always been the question of the validity of CE-399, the bullet which the government claimed, passed through President Kennedy and Governor Connally. Critics have argued that it was not possible for the bullet to have passed through both victims and emerged in near pristine condition. Perhaps more significantly, CE-399 contained no traces of blood or tissue when examined under a microscope.

Government defenders countered with the argument that tests have proven that it was not impossible for a bullet to remain in good condition under such circumstances and that it was also possible that there would be no evidence of blood or tissue. As such, the debate has remained in stalemate for nearly half a century. But in more recent times, a far stronger case against the legitimacy of CE399 has emerged. As we shall see, it also happens to be a conclusive indictment of the integrity of J. Edgar Hoover's FBI.

Our study begins at Parkland hospital with the discovery of a bullet by orderly, Darrell Tomlinson. Tomlinson told the Warren Commission that he returned Governor Connally's stretcher from the second floor back to the ground floor, and then parked it behind another stretcher that was in front of the door to a rest room. During his testimony, he illustrated the positions of the two stretchers, producing the following diagram:

Tomlinson labelled the two stretchers, "A" and "B", in response to Specter's request:

Mr. SPECTER. Will you mark with a "B" the stretcher which was present at the time you pushed stretcher "A" off of the elevator?

Specter also asked him to label the rest room in the diagram as "C" and explain how he acquired the bullet,

Mr. SPECTER. Where is the men's room located on this diagram?
Mr. TOMLINSON. It would be right there (indicating) beside the "B" stretcher.
Mr. SPECTER. Would you draw in ink there the outline of that room in a general way?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Well, I really don't know.
Mr. SPECTER. And would you mark that with the letter "C"?
Mr. SPECTER. That's fine. What happened when that gentleman came to use the men's room?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Well, he pushed the stretcher out from the wall to get in, and then when he came out he just walked off and didn't push the stretcher back up against the wall, so I pushed it out of the way where we would have clear area in front of the elevator.
Mr. SPECTER. And where did you push it to?
Mr. TOMLINSON. I pushed it back up against the wall.
Mr. SPECTER. What, if anything, happened then?
Mr. TOMLINSON. I bumped the wall and a spent cartridge or bullet rolled out that apparently had been lodged under the edge of the mat.
Mr. SPECTER. And that was from which stretcher?
Mr. TOMLINSON. I believe that it was "B".

Clearly, Tomlinson was stating that the bullet was on a different stretcher than the one he brought down on the elevator. Nonetheless, Specter repeatedly badgered him to change his story, but could only manage to get his inconvenient witness to say that he wasn't sure. But Tomlinson further confirmed what happened, in this NOVA documentary, narrated by Walter Cronkite. (move the timeline to 30:10)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE

Tomlinson passed the bullet to his supervisor, Mr. O.P. Wright who also examined it and in an interview with Josiah Thompson, was adamant that it was shaped much differently than CE-399. This is from Josiah Thompson's classic book, Six Seconds in Dallas,

Before any photos were shown or he was asked for any description of #399 (Wright) said:

'That bullet had a pointed tip.' I said, 'Pointed tip?' He said, 'Yeah, I'll show you.
It was like this one here,' he said, reaching into his desk and pulling out the .30 caliber
bullet pictured in Six Seconds. After Thompson showed Wright the various bullet photos
and finally #399, Wright asked, "Is that the bullet I was supposed to have had?".

Wright's and Tomlinson's unanimous rejection of CE-399 was further confirmed by this top secret FBI airtel, which was never shown to the Warren Commission.

WFO (FBI Washington Field Office), neither DARRELL C. TOMLINSON,
who found bullet at Parkland Hospital, Dallas, nor O. P. WRIGHT, Personnel
Officer, Parkland Hospital, who obtained bullet from TOMLINSON and gave
to Special Service, at Dallas 11/22/63, can identify bullet.

read the rest to include official FBI reports at:

http://www.ctka.net/2011/Harris_Bell_Article.html

Posted on Nov 19, 2012 5:43:09 PM PST
Deathbed confession to E Howard Hun't's son

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96FDflK_Iug

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 19, 2012 7:07:20 PM PST
So, Lawrence, before I waste a lot of electrons rebutting your post, tell me, do you believe any of what you posted concerning the found bullet? Or are you an agnostic on the subject of conspiracy here?

Thanks,
Hank

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 19, 2012 7:16:33 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 19, 2012 7:47:53 PM PST
Lawrence A. Dickerson says: "I thought it was rather ludicrous myself but I wanted to see the peanut galleries response.I saw it as an attempt to promote her lectures but VT allows the widest variety of publications without censorship,more than 99.99 % of the MSM.When you guys bite it sure isn't a snag by the tail that lands you on the dinner table.Thanks for the anticipated response.You didn't let me down.1st off,you have no basis to state that I believe anything I post.I present the message you you folks slay the messenger.That the same premise that ancients lords and kings did to emissaries did to peaceful entourages presenting offers of truce and peace.You folks are too tied up in your need to be right at any costs to actually analyze anything.Carry on and continue to provide me much wanted amusement."

Curiously, if you thought it was 'rather ludricrous', you failed to note that in your initial post, leaving us to think you believed it. And even more curious, when we agreed with your supposed position on this and point out exactly how ludicrous it was, you claim that is a source of amusement for you!

Go ahead, try to explain your way out of that one.

Hilarious, Lawrence.

And you also claim we're too tied up with being right to actually analyze anything, but you offered no analysis of Judyth's claims. The only analysis came from SVA and myself. And now you tell us you pretty much agree with our analysis that her claims are ludicrous, so what's the problem, exactly?

And you compare yourself to an emissary presenting an offer of truce and peace. Yet all you did was post a conspiracy soundbite. Sorry, I fail to understand how you think that correlates to killing the messenger when said soundbite gets soundly refuted, so badly, you can't even muster the courage to try to defend it in a follow-up post.

Meanwhile, you attempt to diminish our contributions by calling us 'the peanut gallery'. I don't know who you think you're fooling -- maybe yourself.

Hank

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 19, 2012 9:27:24 PM PST
Lawrence A. Dickerson wrote:

"you have no basis to state that I believe anything I post"

Thanks for the heads up. No need to respond to any of your posts then.

That was easy.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 19, 2012 9:29:04 PM PST
After Lawrence's admission that there is no reason to assume he believes anything he posts I certainly don't plan to waste any time or effort responding to any of his posts. Why WOULD anyone?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 20, 2012 7:39:41 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 20, 2012 7:40:19 AM PST
Lawrence, please elucidate:

1. A believable scenario where the conspirators thought it wise to shoot JFK from the front and/or the right-front AND found it necessary to frame Oswald as a lone nutter shooting from behind.

2. A theory where the bullet found in Parkland isn't a legitimate bullet. Are you suggesting it was planted?

Hank

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 20, 2012 10:22:49 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 20, 2012 10:53:59 AM PST
Lawrence A. Dickerson says:"...Tomlinson labelled the two stretchers, "A" and "B", in response to Specter's request:

Mr. SPECTER. Will you mark with a "B" the stretcher which was present at the time you pushed stretcher "A" off of the elevator?

Specter also asked him to label the rest room in the diagram as "C" and explain how he acquired the bullet,

Mr. SPECTER. Where is the men's room located on this diagram?
Mr. TOMLINSON. It would be right there (indicating) beside the "B" stretcher.
Mr. SPECTER. Would you draw in ink there the outline of that room in a general way?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Well, I really don't know.
Mr. SPECTER. And would you mark that with the letter "C"?
Mr. SPECTER. That's fine. What happened when that gentleman came to use the men's room?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Well, he pushed the stretcher out from the wall to get in, and then when he came out he just walked off and didn't push the stretcher back up against the wall, so I pushed it out of the way where we would have clear area in front of the elevator.
Mr. SPECTER. And where did you push it to?
Mr. TOMLINSON. I pushed it back up against the wall.
Mr. SPECTER. What, if anything, happened then?
Mr. TOMLINSON. I bumped the wall and a spent cartridge or bullet rolled out that apparently had been lodged under the edge of the mat.
Mr. SPECTER. And that was from which stretcher?
Mr. TOMLINSON. I believe that it was "B".

Clearly, Tomlinson was stating that the bullet was on a different stretcher than the one he brought down on the elevator. Nonetheless, Specter repeatedly badgered him to change his story, but could only manage to get his inconvenient witness to say that he wasn't sure. But Tomlinson further confirmed what happened, in this NOVA documentary, narrated by Walter Cronkite. (move the timeline to 30:10)"

But that's not what he told Raymond Marcus in 1966. Marcus was another original Warren Commission critic. He wrote a monograph in the mid-1960's entitled _The Bastard Bullet_. Tomlinson not only told Marcus said he identified the bullet as looking like the one he was shown by Shanklin and Wright, but that the bullet came off the elevator stretcher.

The full transcript is here.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/marcus-tomlinson-interview-7-25-66.html

The particular quote in question is this one:

T: Tomlinson
M: Marcus

******

M: Did anybody show you the bullet after the time you found it, and after the time you gave it to Mr. Wright?
T: I seen it one time after that. I believe Mr. Shanklin from the FBI had it out there at the hospital in personnel with Mr. Wright there when they called me in.
M: When Shanklin and Mr. Wright called you in at that time, did they show you the bullet?
T: Yes.
M: Did they ask you if it looked like the same one?
T: Yes, I believe they did.
M: And as far as you could tell--- of course, you weren't making a ballistics test of it--- but as far as you could tell, did it look like the same one to you?
T: Yes, it appeared to be the same one.

[....]

M: Now I know they questioned you over and over again in the volumes there, about which stretcher the bullet came off of, and you seemed to think it was not off the one that came off of the elevator?
T: No, it (pause) that *was* the one that it came off of.
M: You think it was off the one that came off the elevator?
T: I know it was.
M: OK, all right.

So you are being less than honest in quoting from an article that leaves out Tomlinson's confirmation that the stretcher came off the elevator, and that he confirmed the bullet he was shown was the same as the one he found.

Why is that, Lawrence?

Hank

Posted on Nov 21, 2012 10:17:38 AM PST
Typical Lawrence. Another two drive-by postings.

Never tries to engage in debate, because he knows he'll lose.

Not sure what he thinks he's proving, except he has no case.

Hank

Posted on Nov 21, 2012 4:03:31 PM PST
Debunker says:
Lawrence hates it when you don't accept his drivel as factual information. He wants folks to believe it without question. You know, kind of like he accuses those who have researched the assassination and support the conclusions reached by the Warren Commission as being "incapable of thinking for themselves".

Posted on Nov 22, 2012 2:55:56 PM PST
Sock Puppet says:
I am not come to praise the propagandists, but to bury them. Mr. Dickerson, your story on the bullet is on the money, all proved by available online FBI documents. Found and witnessed was a pointed projectile as opposed to a rounded point, as found with the Carcano. I love how Henry handles evidence that disputes the Lone Nut Theory. He just dismisses it. Like Madeleine Brown. Ha ha, she is hilarious, she is just a liar. When the Cubans in the MC Embassy, said that the LHO in the picture was not the man who delivered the petitions to visit Cuba, Henry says, " Who else would have attached the photos." Debunker is their hatchet man, he never says anything worthwhile, he just hurls insults. What are they trying to prove using such ridiculous arguments, who are they trying to sell their nonsense to?

Posted on Nov 22, 2012 4:54:37 PM PST
JFK: 49 Years in the Offing - The Altgens Reenactment

By Ralph Cinque

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/11/21/jfk-49-years-in-the-offing-the-altgens-reenactment/

Ralph addresses many of you naysayers arguements.What say you to him directly that refutes his work.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 22, 2012 4:56:45 PM PST
Again you kill the messenger and dismiss the message.That gives you an excuse that you have never seen any of the evidence mentioned.Rather a cheap shot don't you think?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 22, 2012 6:51:33 PM PST
Hey Larry here is what I say to Ralph Cinque directly to his face. You should find this rebuttal interesting:

Ralph Cinque is BACK. When will Amazon figure out that this lunatic keeps sneaking back into the building after he gets bounced time and time and time again. First he began posting as Ralph Cinque, and he got kicked out for repeatedly violating rules of conduct (which has happened to Ralph Cinque on MULTIPLE sites). Then he began using his cleaning lady's (Linda K. Hadley's) computer and her Amazon ID without her permission and got kicked out of Amazon's discussion boards AGAIN. Then his cleaning lady/lover/financier left him and posted a series of scathing posts about Cinque's lack of character and expertist, now he has opened a new account under yet another assumed name MARK Cinque. The most hilarious thing about this charlatan who posts under various pseudonyms is that he has repeatedly accused ME of doing what HE does. Pot, meet kettle. I have NEVER posted under any names other thatn SV Anderson. ALL of my posts are still under one name.

Now for this hilarious hubpages link. After reading Cinque virtually unreadable summary of his grade-school attempt to re-enact the Altgens photograph, I found it interesting that the webhost (Firsk--which is really Ralph Cinque--the site's creator and author) deletes ANY posts that point out the falacies and errors made in the reenactment and summary. He only allows comments from his friends that praise his work. He boasts in the above post that he will prove once and for all that "the Altgens photo was altered multiple times..." yet in his silly reenactment he doesn't even discuss the details as to how the photo was allegedly altered and HOW this was done in the eighteen minutes the conspirators had to accomplish this hilariously-impossible task (using 1963 photographic technology in the pre-computer years.)

Clearly those that praise Cinque's work don't know ANYTHING about the timeline being discussed nor do they have a clue about the photographic expertise required to pull off such an alteration. For those totally unaware of what took place let me outline the basics of Ralph Cinque's (aka...Linda K. Hadley, Mark Cinque, Firsk, and probably many other aliases) theory.

1. The James Altgens photograph captured the motorcade a moment after the second shot passed through Kennedy and Connally. (12:30)
2. Altgens stayed in Dealey Plaza about fifteen minutes after the motorcade sped past and snapped a few additional photographs. (12:40)
3. With his camera around his neck and his film tightly kept inside his camera the entire time Altgens then traveled on foot to the AP offices a couple of blocks from Dealey Plaza (12:45)
4. With the camera in his possession the entire time Altgens turned the film over to the AP development lab right there in the AP wire service building where it was IMMEDIATELY removed from the camera in the darkroom, placed in the necessary chemicals, the negative produced a print, which was dried and ready for distribution about fifteen minutes later. (1:00)
5. Newspapers around the world received the photograph at their respective AP wire photo machines beginning at 1:06 p.m. only thirty-six MINUTES after the assassination took place. The original Altgens' photograph contains a time stamp of 1:06 CST (the moment it passed through the wire service machine and was sent electronically across the globe.)

Therefore in order to believe Ralph Cinque's hilarious, wacky, unsupported, and outlandish claim one has to be willing to believe the following:

1. There was a team of dozens and dozens and dozens of conspirators stationed all over Dealey Plaza (none of whom were witnessed by anyone and none of whom show up in any of the hundreds of photographs taken that day) watching EVERY single person to take a photograph of the motorcade.
2. After the assassination, this team of watchmen had to ascertain IMMEDIATELY which photograph(s) needed to be stolen, keeping in mind that there were dozens and dozens of people with still as well as movie cameras including Jim and Tina (his daughter) Towner standing DIRECTLY across from the TSBD photographing AND filming the motorcade as it passed directly in front of them and most likely capturing Oswald standing in the doorway of the TSBD at the time of the assassination. Yet strangely these two photographers never had their film stolen and examined. Neither did ANY of the photographers standing on the south side of Elm Street, including Mary Moorman who snapped a Polaroid photograph of a motorcycle officer as he came down Elm Street with the TSBD in the background.
3. After locating EVERY single person to photograph the assassination (none of whom ever said they were approached by ANYONE suspicious asking about their camera), this team of claravoyant conspirators were somehow able to ascertain (even before seeing the developed film) WHICH of all the camera's contained film that had to be stolen, developed, and thenb altered. Not stolen and destroyed (which would make more sense and would have been the easier and more logical path to pursue) but stolen and then altered (leaving themselves open to future detection and arrest.) And which of all the Dealey Plaza photographers do they isolate? You guessed it, James Altgens. Of course exactly HOW they knew his was the only photograph to reveal Oswald in the doorway Ralph Cinque conveniently fails to explain.
4. Then as James Altgens traveled to the AP headquarters holding the single most important photograph of his long career someone from the conspiracy managed to steal his camera (or possibly just the film--in broad daylight mind you without damaging the film somehow) and whisk it away to an undisclosed film processing and alteratin location. Cinque's "intellectual" partner Jimmy Fetzer claims that there was a portable photographic lab located in a van right IN Dealey Plaza, parked there for the sole purpose to alter stolen photographs taken of the assassination. Of course why the Zapruder film wasn't stolen and altered right then is never clarified by either Fetzer of Cinque. Of course this theft of Altgens camera and film goes completely unnoticed by James Altgens. Never at any point in his life following the assassination did James Altgens EVER comment on a stranger coming up to him and stealing his camera, or asking about his film, or knocking him unconscious and THEN stealing his film. Nothing. How the camera and film were stolen is conveniently ignored by Cinque, being unimportant to the presentation of his pet theory.
5. Then, according to Cinque and Fetzer, the film was whisked to the portable photo lab where the film was developed, examined, and found to contain the image of Oswald in the doorway they feared. Therefore the photographic team, cramped inside the invisible van went to work, all the while being undiscovered by police swarming the area and questioning every person in the vicinity. Additionally, the photographic van managed to elude appearing in ANY photographs or films taken by hundreds of spectators immediately after the assassination. How this feat was accomplished Cinque never cares to explain.
6. With the film safely in the hands of the conspirators they begin the process of removing the face of Oswald and replacing it with the face of TSBD co-worker Billy Lovelady. One must keep in mind the sizes we are discussing here. In the Altgens photograph Oswald's face is less than one-fifth the size of pencil's eraser. It is only about three times the size of a pencil lead, yet this photographic team rather than simply obliterate it with a shadow or branch chose instead to attempt the virtually impossible task of removing Oswald's head and replacing it with the face of another worker (all with 1963 technology.) Which of course brings up a few relevant questions:
a. How did the photographic alterationist know ahead of time that Billy Lovelady would even be at work that day rather than calling in sick to watch the motorcade with his family?
b. How did the team know that Lovelady wouldn't have an airtight alibi as to his whereabouts during the time of the assassination which would place him across the street from the TSBD or looking out of window of an upper floor or standing along the street with several coworkers?
c. How did the photographic team manage to have a photograph of Billy Lovelady on hand ahead of time so that they could replace Oswald's photographed head with Billy Lovelady's head?
d. Not knowing ahead of time the distance, angle, focal length, or details of the Altgens photograph (remember, they just stole it moments before) how would the photographic team know HOW to photograph Billy Lovelady ahead of time so that his head would be facing the right direction, be the right size, and match the focal distance that James Altgens used when photographing the motorcade? And keep in mind, that since the conspirators wouldn't know WHICH photograph (if any) would reveal Oswald they would have to have dozens (if not hundreds) of photographs of Billy Lovelady taken from multiple angles, from various distances, of hundreds of sizes so that they could then pick the one that would match any photograph taken by a spectator revealikng Oswald. All of these relevant questions are never answered by Ralph Cinque or his partners. They simply hope no one will think of these logical flaws with their theory.
7. And perhaps the most damning point is that ALL of these steps, the locating of Altgens, the stealing of his film, the whisking it away to a hidden location, the development, the analysis, the alteration(s), the returning it to the AP wire service offices unnoticed, all allegedly took place in only eighteen minutes. For remember we know that Altgens had his film and camera with him until 12:45 when he left Dealey Plaza on foot and arrived at the AP headquarters. And it was sent around the world at 1:03--leaving the conspirators 18 minutes to complete all of their nefarious deeds.

AND it is interesting that the one person on the planet who WOULD have known his whereabouts at the time of the assassination--Lee Harvey Oswald--NEVER once, NEVER, EVER said he was standing in the doorway of the TSBD at the time of the assassination. The ONE person that should have known where he was and what he was doing at the time of a crime he was charged with NEVER said he was out front watching the motorcade, but said instead that he was (either) in the first floor breakroom eating his lunch or upstairs in the Texas School Book Depository (Oswald told both conflicing accounts) during the motorcade. Cinque never is able to explain in a satisfactory manner WHY Oswald forgot that it was he that appeared in the Altgens photograph.

Of course I don't need to tell the reader that this claim of Ralph Cinque is ridiculous. His research is shoddy at best, he is totally unaware of the timeline needed to carry out his silly plot. He doesn't understand the illogical nature of stealing a photograph and altering it as he claims. He ignores the fact that there is not one speck of evidence supporting ANY of his simple-minded claims, he ignores (and deletes) negative criticism of his theory thus preventing better-educated minds from pointing out the flaws in his theory (he does the same with his many You-tube videos--NO negative reviews are allowed to be posted and if one is entered [like mine were] they are deleted and your ISP identification number is blocked from future postings.) This fact alone should reveal Cinque's total lack of confidence in his own theory.

It is a shame that even ONE word has to be written to rebut such an innane theory, but sadly many readers of Cinque's tripe don't know much more about the assassination than he does and without a clear understanding of the facts evern Ralph Cinque's claims come across as sensible.

There is an old truism that goes: "You only know when you are being lied to if you already know the truth."

Hopefully this post will help to squelch the totally groundless claims of one of the most annoyingly persistant conspiracy gnats currently in front of a keyboard: Ralph Cinque (aka, Linda K. Hadley, Mark s. Cinque, Firsk and many other pseudonyms).

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 23, 2012 7:09:59 PM PST
E. Perkins says:
I've been reading a lot about the Altgens Lee Oswald-in-the-doorway photo recently from James Fetzer, his fellow researchers, and on Veterans Today. They make a compelling case that the photo has been doctored to put a different shirt on Oswald and to rub out the face of someone standing to his left. The make a strong case that it was Oswald in the door and not Billy Loveday.

On the other hand Mr. S.V. Anderson (below) makes a good case for Altgens photo having been handed over to his superiors and then published unchanged and exactly as we see it now. Mr. Anderson writes below, "Newspapers around the world received the photograph at their respective AP wire photo machines beginning at 1:06 p.m. only thirty-six MINUTES after the assassination took place. The original Altgens' photograph contains a time stamp of 1:06 CST (the moment it passed through the wire service machine and was sent electronically across the globe.)" This of course suggests that what Mr. Fetzer and associates say is a doctored photo was not tampered with at all.

Does anyone know the history of the photo? Was it sent "electronically across the globe" as Mr. Anderson says and unchanged as he suggests? If so, was it published unchanged and by what news source? Then, have comparisons been made with the original photo and the photo Fetzer uses? Is Fetzer's photo exactly the same one Altgens took? On the other hand, did the govenment get Altgens photo before copies were made and before it was published? If so, how did that happen? Still another question is whether Altgens, who apparently died in 1979, ever saw or commented on the photo Fetzer says was altered.

Anybody got any answers to these questions?

does

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 24, 2012 10:09:37 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 24, 2012 11:14:07 AM PST
E. Perkins says: "I've been reading a lot about the Altgens Lee Oswald-in-the-doorway photo recently from James Fetzer, his fellow researchers, and on Veterans Today. They make a compelling case that the photo has been doctored to put a different shirt on Oswald and to rub out the face of someone standing to his left. The make a strong case that it was Oswald in the door and not Billy Loveday."

Oswald himself admitted he was inside the building at the time of the shooting, not on the steps.

They don't tell you that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7WFL8tYQuY

Q: Did you shoot the President?
A: I work in that building.
Q: Were you in the building at that time?
A: Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir.

Oswald's own statement confirms it is not he on the steps.


"On the other hand Mr. S.V. Anderson (below) makes a good case for Altgens photo having been handed over to his superiors and then published unchanged and exactly as we see it now. Mr. Anderson writes below, "Newspapers around the world received the photograph at their respective AP wire photo machines beginning at 1:06 p.m. only thirty-six MINUTES after the assassination took place. The original Altgens' photograph contains a time stamp of 1:06 CST (the moment it passed through the wire service machine and was sent electronically across the globe.)" This of course suggests that what Mr. Fetzer and associates say is a doctored photo was not tampered with at all."

The Altgens photos (there were more than half a dozen taken in Dealey Plaza, the one in question was only one of them) were all developed at the Associated Press offices a few blocks from Dealey Plaza. Some of the front pages of various newspapers are shown on this site:

http://www.downhold.org/lowry/JFK-NUPFRONTS.html

This is dedicated to the United Press International, but many newspapers subscribed to and got news feeds and photos from both services. Altgens was an Associated Press photographer, so his photos went out over the A.P. wire services.

Some of the afternoon and evening papers on 11/22/63 published his photos. Remember 1:03 Dallas time is 2:03 Eastern time.

For example, the Sheyboygan Press, on the AFTERNOON of 11/22/63, published this front page:

http://www.downhold.org/lowry/pres25.jpg

The bottom two photos show two of Altgens photos from Dealey Plaza, one with the car approaching him (during the shooting, showing Lovelady in the background) and the other after the car has passed him, immediately after the shooting.

Note a couple of other things about the front page: It is dated 11/22/63. Note that there is NO mention of accused assassin Lee Oswald on that front page. It says the stock market closed early, at 2:10 Eastern (this would only be news if it was published before the normal closing time of the stock market, at 3pm Eastern). Note it has the UPI story by Merriman Smith on the right side of the page. The President was pronounced dead at 1pm Dallas time and it was announced to the world by 1:30pm Dallas time. By 2:38 Dallas time, Merriman Smith was aboard Air Force One witnessing the swearing in of the new President according to his own story here:

http://www.downhold.org/lowry/kennedy.html

And the newspaper account has none of that (indeed, Smith's story has LBJ still at Parkland hospital), so the story went out over the UPI wire between 1:30 and 2:38, probably closer to 1:30 Dallas time than 2:38 Dallas time. So the newspaper no doubt hit the presses sometime before 2:38 in the afternoon Dallas time (3:38 eastern time), as they would run with the latest info they had.

This other newspaper, also published 11/22/63, contains a later story filed by Smith (saying LBJ was sworn in) and shows an arrest photo of Oswald and another James Altgens photo on the front page. This helps to establish the Sheyboygan Press edition was no doubt an afternoon edition.

http://www.downhold.org/lowry/pres8.jpg


"Does anyone know the history of the photo? Was it sent "electronically across the globe" as Mr. Anderson says and unchanged as he suggests?"

Yes.


"If so, was it published unchanged and by what news source?"

Associated Press sent it unchanged. It was published in many newspapers. The image in the background was noticed by many on the first day and reported to the FBI on the weekend of the assassination. Many private citizens - myself included - wondered if that could be Oswald in the doorway.

The Warren Commission studied the issue in 1964 and put it to bed. They concluded, by interviewing Billy Lovelady and others, that it was Lovelady in the doorway, not Oswald (as noted above, Oswald put himself inside the building at the time).

Critics continued to raise the issue. The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) studied the issue in 1978, and had legitimate experts (Ralph Cinque and James Fetzer have no background in the science necessary) study the photo. They too concluded it was Lovelady, based on the features in the photo. Their study starts halfway down the page cited below.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0146b.htm

They studied both the face and the clothing, and determined from the photographic evidence "...assuming it is either Oswald or Lovelady, and not a third party, it appears highly improbable that the spectator is Oswald, and highly likely the spectator is Lovelady."


"Then, have comparisons been made with the original photo and the photo Fetzer uses?"

It's the same photo. But Fetzer and Ralph aren't photo experts, and they twist the truth in ways that make a pretzel look straight.


"Is Fetzer's photo exactly the same one Altgens took?"

Yes - no alterations.


"On the other hand, did the govenment get Altgens photo before copies were made and before it was published?"

No. The photo was sent on the A.P. wire 33 minutes after the assassination and appeared in numerous afternoon and evening papers the same day. Fetzer actually had to conjecture a mobile photo alteration laboratory in Dealey Plaza or somewhere else at one point to attempt to squeeze enough time to make the alterations. "The photo was obviously altered.... In order to alter it, they had to have had a mobile photo lab on the scene--or otherwise available for that purpose, perhaps aboard a plane."

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19083&st=1455

(Note that the above site is mostly populated by Warren Commission CRITICS - most of the posters believe in a conspiracy. Even they concede it is Lovelady in the doorway. Fetzer's / Cinque's theory is so unbelievable that most people from both sides of the fence are critics of that theory).


"If so, how did that happen?"

It didn't. Fetzer's argument on this point is circular -- "we know the photo was altered, therefore they had enugh time to alter it," is his argument on the alterations. He doesn't even try to establish it.


"Still another question is whether Altgens, who apparently died in 1979, ever saw or commented on the photo Fetzer says was altered."

Yes. It was his photo, and he vouched for it in his testimony before the Warren Commission.
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/marsh/jfk-conspiracy/altgens.html

-- quote --
Mr. Liebeler. I have a picture here which has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 203 and I ask you if that is not the first picture that you took after you left the intersection of Main and Houston and crossed Dealey Plaza and stood on the side of Elm Street across from the Texas School Book Depository Book Building?
Mr. Altgens. Yes, sir.
Mr. Liebeler. Do you recognize that as the picture which you took?
Mr. Altgens. Yes, sir.
Mr. Liebeler. Do you know any of the individuals depicted in that picture?
Mr. Altgens. No, sir; I do not.
. . .
Mr. Liebeler. Now, of course, you are aware of the fact that there is an individual portrayed in Exhibit No. 203, standing right in the door of the School Book Depository Building?
Mr. Altgens. Yes.
Mr. Liebeler. Just to the right of the No. A in the picture?
Mr. Altgens. Yes, sir.
Mr. Liebeler. You are aware that he has been thought to resemble Lee Harvey Oswald by certain people and it has been my understanding that a newspaper reporter by the name of Bonafede called you and discussed this picture with you?
Mr. Altgens. Yes, sir.
Mr. Liebeler. Do you have any information as to whether or not that man might be Lee Oswald or some other man?
Mr. Altgens. No, sir; I have never seen the man before in my life and have seen no one that looks like him since.
-- unquote --

Here's Commission Exhibit 203 (CE203):
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0304b.htm

It's Altgens photo. He vouched for it.


"Anybody got any answers to these questions?"

Yes. Plus questions Fetzer can't even try to consider, like:

How did "they" know this photo showed Oswald in it until was published, and once it was published, wasn't it too late to alter it?

Even assuming they somehow knew, why wouldn't they substitute a woman's face or a fat guy's face or a hispanic with a mustache over the face of Oswald if they were going to alter it and replace the face? Why did they substitute the face of the one guy that looked - from a distance - like Lee Harvey Oswald - guaranteeing the photo would be noticed and talked about? Does this make any sense?

Why didn't they just black out the image of the guy entirely, instead of altering it in ways that left an apparent image of Oswald in the photo? What sense does that make?

Why did Oswald affirm in custody he was inside the building at the time of the shooting?

Hank

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 24, 2012 7:01:00 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 24, 2012 7:06:41 PM PST
E. Perkins says:
Mr. Sienzant,

I disagree with you about what Mr. Oswald's statement on the video you linked to and whose transcript you provided proves. As a quick answer under the circumstances I think many of us might respond, as Oswald did, "in the building" if we'd been working in the Texas School Book Depository and hadn't left it that day.

Your explanation about the Oswald-in-the-doorway photo is more compelling. I looked at the November 22nd "Sheyboygan Press" photo. Though the details are hard to pick out on the sreen, even with a magnifying glass, the photo looks like the one James Fetzer and associates claims was altered. Until I have other believable information I accept what you say about the history of the photo on November 22nd.

I submitted two comments for posting on James Fetzer's website. The one I sent him yesterday is like my comment above that you responded to. This is the one I submitted today,
"Mr. Fetzer, As much as I'd like to believe what you write about the JFK assassination and 911, because I too question authority's explanation, I find myself put off by your insulting comments. Here's one from this post. "That does not mean everyone is therefore going to accept the fact that Altgens6 has been altered, but it creates the presumption that those who persist in their denial are either unfamiliar with the evidence or cognitively impaired."

My experience is that people who use ad hominem arguments in debate do so because they know or fear their case is weak. In my mind I wonder if this your situation re the Altgens Oswald-in-the-doorway photo.

The Altgens photo was published in at least one paper, the Sheyboygan Press, on November 22nd. I saw the frontpage online. One of your critics says the Altgens photo was turned over to the AP 30 minutes or so after it was taken and went out on the AP wire. So how could the photo have been identified, examined, and altered before it was sent out so quickly? I think that's a reasonable question that anyone asked to believe the photo was altered would ask and would expect a forgery proponent, like yourself, to be able to answer.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 24, 2012 7:37:50 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 24, 2012 7:42:21 PM PST
The whole "Oswald was in the doorway" claim leads nowhere. As I wrote extensively in previous posts, how were the "conspirators" able to have hundreds of photographs of Billy Lovelady on hand so they could cover Oswald's face in the Altgens photograph? Remember, the invisible team of conspirators that Fetzer and Cinque have chosen to believe did NOT know which photograph(s) would reveal Oswald. Therefore in order to believe Cinque innane claims one would have to be willing to believe that the conspiracy photograph alteration team would have to have literally HUNDREDS of photographs of Billy Lovelady of all sizes, from all angles, looking in various directions, so that they could pick the ONE photograph of Lovelady that would match the body proportions of Oswald in the doorway from the EXACT angle the incriminating photograph would reveal.

Of course no thinking person could force themselves to believe such nonsense. There is no reason for even debating such a galactically stupid claim.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 24, 2012 8:06:48 PM PST
E. Perkins says:
Mr. S.V. Anderson,

I'm new this Amazon JFK assassination discussion forum and will consider your comments. However your reliance on invective - "Cinque('s) innane claims" and "no thinking person could force themselves to believe such nonsense. There is no reason for even debating such a galactically stupid claim" - makes me wonder if you are lashing out because your position is weak. My experience is that those who try to advance their position by insulting their opponents often insult their opponents because they can't prevail in an argument on the merits.
Discussion locked

Recent discussions in the History forum

 

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