Automotive Deals Best Books of the Month Shop Women's Clothing Learn more Discover it Crown the Empire Fire TV Stick Happy Belly Coffee Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer harmonquest_s1 harmonquest_s1 harmonquest_s1  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis STEM Water Sports
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 2501-2525 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 19, 2012 9:38:11 PM PST
spearman wrote: "SV, You've taught at Marquette U. for the last 27 yrs.,right? "

SVA: My private life is exactly that............private. Ask your intellectual equal, Ralph Cinque if I am John McAdams or not. He and his fellow "scholar" Jimmy Fetzer contacted John McAdams trying to determine my identity. Ask those two geniuses what their research revealed.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 20, 2012 4:15:53 AM PST
Debunker says:
It's great that Cinque and his cohorts can take a break from their "critical" efforts around the Oswald "innocence" project to research a private citizen.

Posted on Dec 20, 2012 8:01:15 AM PST
Pokernut says:
This morning, I was delighted to receive an email from OIC senior member Peter Janney announcing that his magnificent book:

Mary's Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer and Their Vision for World Peace

has WON the "General Non-Fiction" category in the Hollywood Book Festival for 2012.

If you haven't read Mary's Mosaic, you really need to. It is riveting. It ...is brilliant. And it is surely one of the most important books of the 21st century.

From a merit standpoint, I am not the least bit surprised that his book won. But still, I am impressed that they had the courage to acknowledge it. That's because we live in an age of political correctness, and this book is definitely not politically correct. I think that just everybody knows that the CIA killed Kennedy, but it is not politically correct to talk about it. It's the elephant in the room that everyone is supposed to ignore.

But, what's great about Peter's book is the way he takes apart, not only the murder of Mary Pinchot Meyer by the CIA, but also the elaborate, painstaking frame-up of the hapless Ray Crump, which included not just phony witnesses, but the setting up of real people to be unwitting witnesses against Crump. They even had the real killer testify against him in court! It was only the brilliant, pro-bono lawyering of the great Dovey Roundtree, an African-American woman, that saved Crump's life. The evil state threw all of their resources into it, but she stood in their way and defeated them. What a heroine! This should be made into a movie, and I swear to God it will.

But, what stood out to me the most were the parallels between the framing of Ray Crump and the framing of Lee Harvey Oswald. The stone-cold way in which the CIA will set out to destroy an innocent person- and by that I mean, of course, commit murder- is staggering. And remember: the CIA is an instiution of OUR government. They are supposed to be our public servants. They are supposed to be good guys. But, they are as bad as bad gets.

Is all of that implied in the honoring of Mary's Mosaic by the Hollywood Book Festival? I believe it is, and that is why I salute them for doing it, and it is why I salute Peter Janney for being a senior member of the Oswald Innocence Campaign.

Posted on Dec 20, 2012 8:07:30 AM PST
spearman says:
Back to the thread dealing with Shaw's guilt. Witness Manchester saw Oswald get out of a car in Jackson Miss. during a voter registration drive 2 mths. before the assassination. Manchester IDed Shaw as the driver & Ferrie a passenger in the black limo type vehicle LHO exited. Many witnesses saw the same event as Manchester did in Clinton that day. See Bill Davies book "LET JUSTICE BE DONE" p.103-10. These witnessess were documented in affidavits obtained by Garrison & later by the HSCA.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 20, 2012 8:10:16 AM PST
spearman says:
Thanks for the update Ralph. I can't understand why DeEugenio was so critical of the book and he can't understand why people have been so critical of him for panning it.

Posted on Dec 20, 2012 11:52:26 AM PST
Pokernut says:
Well, Spearman, let us not be overly influenced by Mr. DiEugenio. There are a lot sharper knives in the drawer than him.

Posted on Dec 20, 2012 1:52:13 PM PST
spearman says:
Probably true Ralph. The LNers must be at work doin makeup for yesterday's fooling around here.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 20, 2012 5:25:32 PM PST
spearman and ralph.

This past weekend I was in Natchitoches, Louisiana doing research on the campus of Northwestern State University about sharecropping in post-Civil War Louisiana and my wife and I had dinner one evening at a great place called "The Landing." Afterwards we were strolling the streets of Natchitoches (pronounced Nog-a-doe-chus...by the way) and we chance to overhear two homeless men discussing the recent presidential election. One was black and the other appeared to be possibly Middle-Eastern, but it was the content of their conversation that brought you two to mind for me. One of the two (I can't remember which one) said that Obama's election will bring about the "end of days" since he is a confirmed member of the "skull and crossbones" society and he is in contact with the International Bankers Union (I am unaware of any such organization.) The other fellow agreed wholeheartedly and added that Obama knows about the alien landings in Mexico (I assumed he meant NEW Mexico [Roswell--1947]) and that he is in contact with aliens from several planets, all of whom have infiltrated the media and the banking structure of many countries. Back and forth these two nuts went; swapping theories, accusations, ideas, fears, and suspicions. NEITHER one of them ever challenged the bizarre or irrational basis for any of the theories the other one postulated. They simply nodded in agreement and added more and more theories of their own. I mentioned to my wife that those kooks reminded me of two similar minds I encounter on the Internet. Of course out of a love and respect for my wife I NEVER share the theories of Ralph Cinque with her and she (like 99.999999% of the population) has no idea who on earth Ralph Cinque even is. But these two mental patients sitting on a bus bench in Natchitoches, Louisiana sounded EXACTLY like Ralph Cinque and spearman going back and forth with one "ingenious" comment after another.

By the way, if you are ever in Natchitoches stop by the house used in the filming of "Steel Magnolias" it is right there on Jefferson Street, you can't miss it.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 20, 2012 5:56:54 PM PST
SciGuy says:
The above post from a person that believes the government only tells the truth and never engages in deceit.

S. V. likely accepts:

The US destroyer was attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin by the North Vietnamese
There were WMD's in Iraq but Saddam quickly hid them
Lincoln was killed by John Wilkes Booth and no one else was involved
We invaded Iraq to establish democracy
The United States does not overthrow legitimately elected governments
Santa Claus is coming to town

S. V., ever heard of Noam Chomsky? I would suggest you get acquainted.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 20, 2012 8:11:28 PM PST
spearman says:
Thank you John. I would only add that SV is the stuff fascists are made of. Elite attitudes that look down at the uneducated as if it has anything to do with them as valued Human beings. The uneducated for SV become defined as mental patients and expendable.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 20, 2012 8:26:23 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 20, 2012 8:31:30 PM PST
The last time we heard from John Gerling was when he was confidently praising the HSCA's findings, until I poionted out to him how little he actualy knew of their findings. Silenced on that issue he switches topics (in typical conspiratorial fashion) to now composing a post that is utter nonsense. There is no one living that knows less about what I believe than John Gerling. But the fact that he has resorted to discussing the Gulf of Tonkin, WMD in Iraq, the Lincoln assassination, the Iraq War, and Santa Claus is proof positive that he is totally out of ammo in discussing tyhe actual topic addressed in this thread.

Of course if John had any evidence to support his cult-like belief in a Kennedy conspiracy he would bring it up and discuss it. Since his quiver is empty he instead decides to bring up nonsense.

Is it any wonder that conspiracy nuts are considered nuts?

Hey spearman...did you read about that dude I overheard in Natchitoches that sounded EXACTLY like you? Everytime I think about that ranting lunatic I smile and think about you.

Oh and John...you are predictably silent on the bullet information I researched for you. Why no further comments about the location of the bullet fragments. It appears that after I showed you that ALL bullet fragments were recovered in FRONT of Kennedy you seem a bit hesitant to talk about a front gunman. Readers can only interpret your silence as an admission of defeat on your part. Don't feel alone though. Conspiracy cultists nearly ALWAYS shange the subject once they are shown that the actual, forensic evidence in this murder doesn't agree with their unsupported theories. I was hoping you would respond to the balistics evidence I provided you, so we could discuss actuial evidence further but alas, you chose to remain silent after realizing that there was no evidence you could site to support your multiple suspicions.

Oh well....

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 20, 2012 8:32:06 PM PST
spearman says:
Like I said fascist thinking by you. What's it like to be such a snob?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 20, 2012 8:37:53 PM PST
spearman says:
SV says,"you chose to remain silent after realizing that there was no evidence you could SITE to support your multiple suspicions".

SV, shouldn't that be CITE not SITE?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 20, 2012 9:39:18 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 20, 2012 10:04:57 PM PST
You are correct...it is cite.

Now...do you have anything of substance to contribute to your belief that Oswald was innocent?

And, how is your work coming determining if I am John McAdams? After your innane accusation yesterday you've kind of given up on that avenue of investigation, eh? I guess anything to divert attention from your total lack of evidentiary support of your conspiracy superstitions, huh?

Between Ralph Cinque wasting all of his time trying to pin down Hank's identity and you wasting your time trying to prove I am John McAdams, you two geniusus hardly have any time left over to prove the conspiracy you've chosen to believe in.

Posted on Dec 21, 2012 3:59:40 AM PST
Pokernut says:
"Hawkeye" Richard Hooke has done it again. He noticed a small thing: that the button on Lovelady's plaid shirt from the 1971 posing session got shifted from right to left. And what it turns out to be is that they flipped the picture. They did a right-to-left flip.

http://i49.tinypic.com/m7tj7p.jpg

You'll notice that not only is the button reversed, but the diagonal of the shadow going over the top of his head is reversed, and the image of Bob Jackson also got switched to the other side. His ears are reversed- it's definitely a right-to-left flip.

And if anybody tries to tell me that it was just an accident, I'll have no choice but to respond the way Jay Leno often does on his show to something ridiculous: "Shut Up!" And that's because we have got too many flipped pictures regarding all this. Here are 5 of Oswald.

http://i46.tinypic.com/2vttx52.jpg

And here is the one of Young Lovelady, which they flipped to hide the perfect match between his hairline and that of the Altgens Doorman.

http://i48.tinypic.com/1zb8fsz.jpg

So, let's cut the crap, as the saying goes. Somebody was deliberately flipping pictures, and there is no doubt about it.

But, what were they going for with the top one? What did they like better about the flipped version of 71 Lovelady? What subliminal idea were they trying to sell with it? Anyone coming up with something?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 4:06:14 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 21, 2012 4:10:07 AM PST
Debunker says:
Gerling,

SV has repeatedly requested that the JFK conspiracy kooks post solid evidence to support their contention that someone other than Lee Harvey Oswald murdered JFK. They have been utterly unable to do that, therefore he rejects that premise. And because they have failed to make their case, you then assume that he believes that list of nonsense?

Do you have any idea how ridiculously pathetic that makes you look?

Actually it's the classic conspiracy kook tactic when they feel the frustration that they've been unable to dupe others into swallowing the same idiocy they so fervently believe. Doesn't make you look any less pathetic though.

Posted on Dec 21, 2012 4:10:05 AM PST
spearman says:
Back to the thread dealing with Shaw's guilt. Witness Manchester saw Oswald get out of a car in Jackson Miss. during a voter registration drive 2 mths. before the assassination. Manchester IDed Shaw as the driver & Ferrie a passenger in the black limo type vehicle LHO exited. Many witnesses saw the same event as Manchester did in Clinton that day. See Bill Davies book "LET JUSTICE BE DONE" p.103-10. These witnessess were documented in affidavits obtained by Garrison & later by the HSCA.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 7:02:58 AM PST
spearman says: "SV, shouldn't that be CITE not SITE?"

spearman is reduced to discussing typos instead of legit arguments and evidence.

As S.V. says, his quiver is out of arrows.

Hank

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 7:10:06 AM PST
Mark S. Cinque says: "And here is the one of Young Lovelady, which they flipped to hide the perfect match between his hairline and that of the Altgens Doorman."

So they wanted it to look LESS like Lovelady now?

Thank you for the admission that in the correct orientation, it is Lovelady's hairline. That alone establishes it's Lovelady. You just destroyed your own case.

You make these pronouncements as if they were fact. You don't know why or when the photo was flipped. You just assume it was flipped for some nefarious purpose, assume then you know the reason for the flip, and then make an idiotic statement like "they flipped [the Lovelady photo] to hide the perfect match between his hairline and that of the Altgens Doorman."

And spearman wonders why I frequently say...

Hilarious.

Hank

Posted on Dec 21, 2012 7:22:26 AM PST
Pokernut says:
Yeah, it's Lovelady's hairline alright- but from 6 years earlier when he had a lot more hair. That screams subterfugre. It was an impossible hairline for Doorman WHETHER YOU THINK HE WAS LOVELADY OR OSWALD.

And we have so many flipped images now that it's obvoius that with every image they started by asking, "would this look better from our perspective flipped?" Flipping images is a common practice in political propaganda.

How's biz at the software company, Sinezant? I'm still waiting for that corporate website for the company YOU work for. And the clock is ticking, pal. The hammer is gonna drop. It may not be a happy new year for you, Secret Agent Man.

Posted on Dec 21, 2012 7:32:24 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 21, 2012 7:38:51 AM PST
spearman says: "Back to the thread dealing with Shaw's guilt. Witness Manchester saw Oswald get out of a car in Jackson Miss. during a voter registration drive 2 mths. before the assassination. Manchester IDed Shaw as the driver & Ferrie a passenger in the black limo type vehicle LHO exited. Many witnesses saw the same event as Manchester did in Clinton that day. See Bill Davies book "LET JUSTICE BE DONE" p.103-10. These witnessess were documented in affidavits obtained by Garrison & later by the HSCA. "

Let's grant the above nonsense is true for the sake of argument. (It's not, but we can discuss that another time)

And this establishes Shaw's guilt in a conspiracy to assassinate JFK how?

Remember It's not a crime for Shaw to know people- including the one you allege is innocent (Lee Harvey Oswald). You think putting Shaw in the company of an innocent man (according to you) makes him guilty exactly how?

Please tell me you have more than this nonsense. You are accusing Shaw of the crime of conspiracy to assassinate the President of the United States based on what, exactly?

Thin air, it appears.

According to you, Shaw was seen associating with two men, one of whom you've assured us is not guilty, and the other of whom you haven't presented any evidence of his guilt, either.

This is why DiEugenio dismisses Davy's nonsense. There's no evidence there.

PS: If we're discussing spelling errors now, it's Bill Davy, Not Bill Davies. The possessive takes an apostrophe and and 's', the name is not converted to a plural form (ew.g. spearman's inane points, not spearmen inane points). Put the blame where it belongs, on Bill Davy, author of Let Justice Be Done: New Light on the Jim Garrison Investigation

So let's see, we've got a photo of Oswald and Ferrie together in 1956, and an eyewitness or three that puts Oswald, Ferrie and Shaw together in 1963 during a voter registration drive in 1963.

This is evidence that Shaw conspired with Ferrie AND Oswald to assassinate JFK in what universe?

Hank

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 7:55:13 AM PST
Debunker says:
Hey Cinque,

Instead of trying to deflect attention, how about addressing some of the questions Hank has raised about you and your crackpot theories? You can even chime in on some the idiocy Spearman's posted.

Would be nice to see you address questions about the "evidence" you've presented. For a change.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 8:04:04 AM PST
Debunker,

Cinque is so STARVED for attention and is hungry for fame that he simply uses the Amazon discussion boards as advertisements for his failing website. He doesn't know a great deal about the actual evidence in this case so he wastes his time researching where posters live, work, and relax. He repeats the same disproven claims, rehashes the same nonsense that was exsposed 49 years ago as fradulant, and annoys everyone with his self-promotions in hopes that someday he will be asked to sit at the adult table.

So far however...no luck.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 8:04:57 AM PST
Debunker says:
Has to suck to know you've devoted 49 years of your life trying to prove something that didn't happen.

Posted on Dec 21, 2012 8:47:30 AM PST
SciGuy says:
S. V. Anderson,

Back to the bullet.

OK, lets accept the magic bullet BS for now. According to this theory a single bullet caused multiple wounds in striking both Kennedy and Connally yet was found on his stretcher at Parkland hospital in pristine condition. So this ammo, being full metal jacket, wasn't prone to fragmentation yet you claim Kennedy's head had fragments in the front of the cranium......Somethings amiss here. Further, in Connally's own words, after the fatal headshot he saw blood and skull fragments all over the back of the limo. Officer Hargis was riding his motorcycle to the left rear of the limo and was splattered with blood and bone fragments. Somethings amiss here too, according to your "expert opinion."

Here's a link of Connally telling about his experience: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3-lZNR_yAc

This, S. V., blows (to make a pun) your theory of no frontal shot.

And don't worry, I have plenty more "arrows" in my quiver.
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