Bubble Witch Saga 3 Industrial Deals Beauty Best Books of the Month STEM nav_sap_hiltonhonors_launch Learn more about Amazon Music Unlimited GNO for iPhone 8 Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Tote Bags Home Gift Guide Off to College Home Gift Guide Book a house cleaner for 2 or more hours on Amazon BradsStatus BradsStatus BradsStatus  Introducing Echo Show Introducing All-New Fire HD 10 with Alexa hands-free $149.99 Kindle Oasis, unlike any Kindle you've ever held Tailgating STEMClubToys17_gno
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 101-125 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012, 2:36:12 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 28, 2012, 3:04:27 PM PDT
Linda K. Hadley says: "The plaid pattern definitely was falsified. And they didn't do a very good job of it. They forgot to add pattern to the upper right side of the Doorman's shirt. Maybe it was too small an area to cover in the context of the original Altgens6 photo. But take a look at these three samples. Which two match? Which one is the odd man out? http://tinypic.com/r/16jguw/6
And by the way, Sirhan Sirhan did not shoot Bobby Kennedy, but we are not changing the subject."

You brought up Palestine, not me. I merely pointed out that Palestinians aren't generally considered among America's staunchest allies, so asked why you would think spreading Anti-American inflammatory propaganda there was something to celebrate. You never did answer my point. And Sirhan was captured with the smoking gun still in his hand. So your complaints about the wrong guy in that case are certainly well off the mark.

Back to your JFK argument - you again ignore all my points in rebuttal, and merely assert something else with nothing in evidence except your opinion. The portion of the shirt you reference is a mere sliver, and you claim the absence of any observable pattern is evidence they overlooked this area of alteration. I think on the contrary, that it is evidence that the area was too small to show much of a pattern, although there is one dark line running bearly vertically through the shirt on that side, enough to convince me, if not you, that the shirt is indeed plaid in all observable characteristics.

But you never even touched the central core of my rebuttal. You continuie to ignore it. Why is that, except you have no rebuttal?

1. Oswald admitted he was inside the building, so it cannot be him in the photo.
2. It's Lovelady's face as you admit.
3. It's Lovelady's plaid shirt, as you admit.
4. They could have destroyed the photo instead of altering it. Why'd they allow it to see the light of day?
5. They could have just darkened Oswald's supposed image out of the picture entirely. Why they put Lovelady's face over it, which then entailed put plaid in the shirt, adding a fake guy to the right, darkening the face of the real Lovelady?
6. The original image went out within 35 minutes of the assassination on the AP wire, which is insufficient time to do the alterations you suggest, let alone identify anything in the photo that needed alteration. In rebuttal, you quote a supposed witness who you say first said he saw two different versions of the Altgens photo on 11/22/63, then quote the same or a different witness who contradicts that, and says the first photo moved on the AP wire on the morning of the 23rd. You have offered up two different, mutually exclusive stories, and you quote both, without explanation, as if true. That alone is sufficient to render your credibility suspect. Which is it? Or don't you know? Or care?

Hank

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012, 2:49:00 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 28, 2012, 3:09:24 PM PDT
Paperback Writer says: "...Are conspiracy theorists claiming that every murder of a power figure was the result of a conspiracy? Or only this one?"

No, as you can see by Linda Hadley's post above, they think Robert Kennedy's assassination was the result of a conspiracy, too. Despite the fact that numerous people had to pin Sirhan down and pry the still warm gun from his hand, they think Sirhan was framed. I remember back in the dark ages (1970 or so), I was listening to a radio debate about the JFK assassination, and one of the Warren Commission defenders on the radio panel said something along the lines of "If they didn't grab Sirhan with the gun, you guys would be arguing he was framed too!" Well, fast forward four decades, and that's exactly what they're doing - despite the fact that Sirhan had written in his own notebook in his own handwriting, "RFK must die! RFK must die! RFK must die by June 6, 1969" (June 6 was the anniversay of the Israeli victory in the Six Day war). So I surmise it really doesn't matter to them if Oswald was grabbed in the Depository with his rifle in his hand or not. Or if he pleaded guilty. One way or another, they would claim all the evidence was fabricated regardless, and the real evidence (which only their brilliant minds can uncover after being overlooked for 49 years), reveals the frame-up.

Of course, they then can't answer the simplest questions about why any conspirator would do what they suggest actually happened, instead of something far easier (like black out the doorway man, instead of altering his image), and will call you a disinformationist if you persist in pointing out their lack of any valid points or cohesive argument, and persist in offering simple explanations for what they perceive as substantial evidence of conspiracy.

Hank

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012, 2:53:39 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 28, 2012, 2:54:25 PM PDT
keith stone says: "It was Bigfoot disguised as Oswald. Oswald was around back, waiting with Elvis in the get away car."

That's absurd. Everyone knows Bigfoot was on the knoll as a spotter. Since Bigfoot is only a fictitional creature, that also explains why he was able to escape sight unseen. He was aided by the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy, which is where Jim Garrison got the idea it was a homosexual thrill killing. An easy to understand mistake.

Hank

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012, 3:07:29 PM PDT
It's an interesting question as to why they didn't destroy Altgens6. Obviously, they should have since here it is 49 years later, and it's still haunting them. In fact, the haunt is growing, spreading, and gaining momentum. Let's just say they blew it; they made a crucial mistake; and now they're paying the price.

And your hapless attempt to reject the reality of the three shirts is pathetic. The fact is that that extensive pattern and design reaching all the way up to collar of Lovelady's shirt is nowhere to be found on Doorman's. The upper right side of Doorman's shirt, including the collar, is completely devoid of pattern. It looks as plain and uniformly grainy as Oswald's shirt BECAUSE IT WAS OSWALD'S!

And as far as getting rid of Doorman completely from the Altgens, who knows how it would have looked? He was a relatively big figure in the picture. You can't just have blackness or whiteness there. How would that have looked? You are being foolishly presumptuous.

There were a lot of assassination images, including some of Altgens that did get published within hours of the assassination, but Altgens6 wasn't one of them.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012, 3:58:33 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 28, 2012, 4:08:07 PM PDT
Linda K. Hadley says: "It's an interesting question as to why they didn't destroy Altgens6. Obviously, they should have since here it is 49 years later, and it's still haunting them. In fact, the haunt is growing, spreading, and gaining momentum. Let's just say they blew it; they made a crucial mistake; and now they're paying the price...."

That's a laughable construct. You're simply assuming they did the convenient thing for you, but offer no explanation for it. Destroying the photo without alteration would be quick, effective, and leave no evidence to debate. But you believe they choose instead to alter the photo, which isn't quick, wasn't effective, and left evidence behind to reveal the coverup! And you think you (and Ralph Cinque) discovered this evidence.

"And your hapless attempt to reject the reality of the three shirts is pathetic. The fact is that that extensive pattern and design reaching all the way up to collar of Lovelady's shirt is nowhere to be found on Doorman's. The upper right side of Doorman's shirt, including the collar, is completely devoid of pattern. It looks as plain and uniformly grainy as Oswald's shirt BECAUSE IT WAS OSWALD'S!"

I'm certain if you could bold-face it and put it in bigger type, you would no doubt do that. However, I remind you that the biggest type isn't necessarily the truest type. You've offered nothing to rebut my points, including but not limited to the point that Oswald put himself in the building at the time of the shooting, a simple admission in custody that disproves entirely your case in defense of Oswald. That's why defense lawyers typically tell their clients to shut up, and make no statements to the police. Because even an innocent sounding admission can destroy the defense's argument. Too bad for you nobody told Oswald to shut his mouth, because he was convicting himself.

"And as far as getting rid of Doorman completely from the Altgens, who knows how it would have looked? He was a relatively big figure in the picture. You can't just have blackness or whiteness there. How would that have looked? You are being foolishly presumptuous."

A relatively big figure? No, that's not true. It's a falsehood. He was a tiny piece of the background, and his entire visible body took up fewer pixels than ONE of the headlights on the Presidential limousine. Why not blackness? It's your argument they blacked out Lovelady's entire head, is it not? Wouldn't it have led to far less questions about who was in the doorway and looked more realistic like this:

http://simfootball.net/JFK/altered-Altgens.JPG
(Above is a faked image, produced with personal computer software not available in 1963).

"There were a lot of assassination images, including some of Altgens that did get published within hours of the assassination, but Altgens6 wasn't one of them."

That's not what you said originally. You even produced a witness (or, rather, claimed to have a witness), who said that two different versions of the Altgens photo in question appeared on the AP Wire on 11/22/63. You have yet to produce anything verifiable from this supposed witness to date, however. Not even a name. Again, you fail to even attempt to rebut my points. Why not believe Oswald when he claimed to be in the building at the time of the shooting?

Hank

Posted on May 28, 2012, 6:51:24 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 28, 2012, 6:52:58 PM PDT
Oswald told Detective Fritz that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front" during the shooting, and Fritz wrote it down. So, either you are lying or you are ignorant, or perhaps a combination of the two. And no, the shirts do not match between Lovelady and Doorman. Besides, Lovelady told the FBI that he wore a short-sleeved red and white striped shirt that day, which could not possibly match Doorman's. They even took a picture of him in it, and here it is:

http://tinypic.com/r/28brvb6/6

And again you're wrong: I didn't say my witness witnesses two copies of the Altgens. He only witnesses the altered one that came in Saturday morning. And he knew it was altered from technical descriptions which he has provided to us which I will not share with you because it might be useful to the Op world to know what we know about this.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012, 12:52:35 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 29, 2012, 7:01:05 AM PDT
On May 16th you wrote:
Linda K. Hadley says: "This is funny, and you have no idea how fast things are moving. 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.' "

Note you put the above in quotes -- as if it was his words directly being quoted.

You clarified in a later post that you meant 11/22/63 in the above:
Linda K. Hadley says: "Obviously, I meant 11/22/63. It was my typo, not his."

Now you deny he saw it twice. And claim it happened on Saturday, 11/23/63, not 11/22/63:
Linda K. Hadley says: "And again you're wrong: I didn't say my witness witnesses two copies of the Altgens. He only witnesses the altered one that came in Saturday morning. And he knew it was altered from technical descriptions which he has provided to us which I will not share with you because it might be useful to the Op world to know what we know about this."

So it is pretty obvious to all of us reading this at this point that you have no evidence that isn't malleable and said evidence will change to fit your needs. Sorry, evidence doesn't work that way. So you are changing your story (or your witness's story) two different ways. Sorry, not good for you.

Hank

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012, 7:11:01 AM PDT
He was working there both on 11/22/63 and 11/23/63. But the Altgens photo arrived by wire at 7 AM on 11/23/63. Got it?

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012, 12:19:24 PM PDT
Linda K. Hadley says: "Oswald told Detective Fritz that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front" during the shooting, and Fritz wrote it down. So, either you are lying or you are ignorant, or perhaps a combination of the two. And no, the shirts do not match between Lovelady and Doorman. Besides, Lovelady told the FBI that he wore a short-sleeved red and white striped shirt that day, which could not possibly match Doorman's. They even took a picture of him in it..."

This was addressed about two weeks ago, and you never rebutted the points I made, other than to question Shelley's credibility (rather than Oswald's).

As I pointed out at the time, Oswald was the one with the issue of credibility, not Shelley, as his rifle was left behind on the sixth floor. And shells at the sniper's nest window, as well as a nearly whole bullet found at Parkland, as well as two large fragments found in the limo after the shooting, all were ballistically matched to Oswald's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

I also pointed out that people who are guilty of crimes often will lie about an alibi, but innocent people seldom have a need to. Oswald may have said he was out front with Bill Shelley, but in context, he put that AFTER the shooting, not before or during. Read Will Fritz's notes again. It appears to be in chronological order, which if you're questioning a suspect, makes perfect sense. "Then what did you do? uh-huh. And after that?"

The "Out Front with Bill Shelley" notation comes AFTER the lunchroom encounter with Officer Baker and Roy Truly. And after Oswald said he ate his lunch. So it appears this notation is NOT an alibi for Oswald, and does not conflict with his prior admission that he was inside the building during the shooting.

And regardless of when Oswald said this happened, Bill Shelley denied seeing Oswald at anytime that day. And numerous co-workers of Oswald and Lovelady said that they saw Billy Lovelady on the steps. No one said they saw Oswald there. And Billy Lovelady identified the man in the Altgens photo as himself. And Oswald said he was inside the building.

And, as you know, and continue to ignore (as you ignored all the above the first few times I posted it), Lovelady said the FBI misunderstood, and the shirt he was wearing for the interview was not the shirt he was wearing on the day of the assassination. As he commented later to CBS News, and quoted by Josiah Thompson (know who he is?) author of the conspiracy book _Six Seconds in Dallas_ in 1967, "Well, when the FBI took [a photo of] me in the shirt, I told them it wasn't the same shirt [worn on the day of the assassination]."

Quite simply, the evidence is overwhelming that it's Lovelady on the steps and in the photo. You simply claim everyone is lying and all the evidence is faked to get to the point where you then claim your interpretation of the photo takes precedence over everything else. It doesn't. Your interpretation is flawed, precisely because it ignores all the evidence and substitutes your interpretation for the evidence.

Real crime solving doesn't work that way.

Hank

Posted on May 29, 2012, 12:25:24 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 29, 2012, 12:25:48 PM PDT
Here is Ralph's latest post on the Education Forum, and I'll include the link to the image at the bottom:

I would like to share with the members a new comparison between Oswald and Doorman. In this one, we see on Oswald the very prominent fold-over of his outer shirt on his left side, and it certainly makes it thick and wide. We can see the same on Doorman except only at the bottom. The top of the shirt on his left is blocked by the presence of Black Tie Man. As you may recall, I believe that Black Tie Man was placed there precisely to cover up the distinctive form of Oswald's shirt on that side. And even if you dispute that, you do have to admit that Oswald's shirt is most unusual on that side, with the collar, the lapel, and the button loop coming off the lapel. Can you at least admit that if we saw the same formation on Doorman's shirt that the debate would be over? Or perhaps I should say that it never would have gotten started.

The contours of the line of the face look well matched. They look well matched across the eyes. Where they do not look well-matched is the hairline. That is definitely Lovelady's hairline and balding pattern, which I believe they moved there, replacing Oswald's.

But here's the piece-de-resistance: the ears. Look how well those ears match. And you know how ears have been compared to fingerprints.The size, the shape, the angle, the location, the amount of flare all match perfectly. Lovelady's right ear hung lower, as you can see below. That really was Oswald in the doorway.

http://tinypic.com/r/2naii5s/6

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012, 12:29:54 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 29, 2012, 12:46:23 PM PDT
Linda K. Hadley says: "He was working there both on 11/22/63 and 11/23/63. But the Altgens photo arrived by wire at 7 AM on 11/23/63. Got it? "

Nobody is questioning when he worked there. That's a straw argument on your part.

The issue is you've said your witness has said two mutually exclusive things. You quoted him as saying he saw two versions on 11/22/63, now you're saying he saw only one version, the altered one, on the morning of 11/23/63.

Let me refresh your memory again!

Linda K. Hadley says (on May 16th): "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.' " Later you wrote, correcting the date above, "Obviously, I meant 11/22/63. It was my typo, not his."

So on 11/22, according to you, this witness saw two different versions of the Altgens photo.

And more recently you wrote, denying your witness's earliest version of events entirely: "I didn't say my witness witnesses two copies of the Altgens. He only witnesses the altered one that came in Saturday morning."

So in this latest version, the witness has changed his story, or you have. Gone is any mention of seeing the Altgens photo on 11/22. Gone is any mention of seeing two versions of the photo. Now he saw only the altered one, and only on the morning of 11/23 (Saturday).

Your problem is you keep changing your supposed witness's account as the account gets challenged.

Your two versions of this supposed witness's account are mutually exclusive. At this point I am beginning to doubt whether you can provide an adequate summation of his statements, and won't put any credence into anything you say about him until I see the supposed evidence for myself. I am resisting claiming you are making this witness up out of whole cloth, but to date, given you've provided nothing of substance, and given you've provided two different versions of his supposed account, you might as well be making it up. It's totally unverifiable, and therefore totally meaningless.

Hank

Posted on May 29, 2012, 12:39:55 PM PDT
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. The other copy, the original, he never saw, but he heard that it had come in earlier but was not used under orders not to use it. And he also told us of two locations where he has reason to believe the original was stored and may still be stored. And I would tell you where they are but that might be useful information to the Op world, so I shall stay mum.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012, 12:52:45 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 29, 2012, 1:21:54 PM PDT
Linda K. Hadley says: " 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. The other copy, the original, he never saw, but he heard that it had come in earlier but was not used under orders not to use it. And he also told us of two locations where he has reason to believe the original was stored and may still be stored. And I would tell you where they are but that might be useful information to the Op world, so I shall stay mum."

I remind you that's not what you said originally. Here's your original version, where it certainly appears you're quoting him directly.

On May 16th you wrote: Linda K. Hadley says: "This is funny, and you have no idea how fast things are moving. 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.' "

Note you put the above in quotes -- as if it was his words directly being quoted. That quote is also in first person - "I was working for the Dayton Daily News..." More evidence that this is purportedly what your witness originally said.

You clarified in a later post that you meant 11/22/63 in the above: Linda K. Hadley says: "Obviously, I meant 11/22/63. It was my typo, not his."

I remind you that you keep posting different accounts of what he supposedly saw as I raise objections. You may think that is better for you, but it's not. It calls into question whether you're simply modifying the account to cover the objections.

So, given you've given us now THREE different versions of events accounting to this witness:

(1) he saw two versions of the Altgens photo on 11/22,
(2) he only saw one version of the Altgens photo on the morning of 11/23,
(3) he saw one on 11/23 and heard of another,

Why should anyone put any credence in any of these versions?

It cerainly appears from here you (or he, or both) are just making it up as you go. Let me point out some of the problems with your account: This witness is unnamed. His statements are unsourced. You've given 3 differing accounts of his supposed statements. You've refused to disclose how you know this witness is telling the truth (other than he's supposedly telling you something you want to believe). You haven't disclosed any info that would allow an independent party to verify the veracity of the witness. Why should anyone believe a word of it?

Because you say so?

Sorry, I'm not buying into this malarkey.

And note this nonsense: "The other copy, the original, he never saw, but he heard that it had come in earlier but was not used under orders not to use it."

So it may not have even existed? He only heard of it? Why didn't you say so originally?

And why would anyone - conspirator or not - send out a unaltered version they didn't want anyone to use? Or did the "orders" not to use it follow the unaltered version? Do you have any documentation from the AP wire that day (copies still exist, you know, so this should be easy to verify), that there was any such "order" that went over the AP wire?

What happened in the interim, and how could the conspirators guarantee EVERYONE receiving the AP wirephoto would follow those orders not to use it? They couldn't, could they? So what's the point of sending it out and then "ordering" (as if that could be enforced) everyone not to use it?

Your story keeps getting sillier and sillier. You better come up with a fourth version of events to explain away these discrepancies.

Hank

Posted on May 29, 2012, 1:27:08 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 29, 2012, 1:28:19 PM PDT
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.

Here is Ralph's latest collage comparing the ears of Lovelady as photoed by the FBI in March 64 with the supposed Lovelady from outside the TSBD on the Nov 22, 1963. They are grossly different ears, hence they were different men. That's right, just as there was an Oswald double, there was a Lovelady double. Take a look at this. Let's see you deny that they're different.

http://tinypic.com/r/fdrp7s/6

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012, 1:35:57 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 29, 2012, 1:42:53 PM PDT
Linda K. Hadley says: " Here is Ralph's latest post on the Education Forum, and I'll include the link to the image at the bottom:
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2naii5s&s=6 "

LOL. The image of the doorway man posted is obviously very grainy, and the ear, besides being indistinct and grainy, is half in shadow!

And Ralph is claiming he's certain this is Oswald's ear? How? His background is as a chiropractor, not as a photo analyst. How did he determine that was Oswald's ear, rather than Lovelady's? It appears he just eyeballed it and made a call. Yes?

That means it's simply his opinion. Sorry, I don't share his confidence in his opinion. And given he's given no good reasons to believe his judgment, I would venture to say that nobody should share his confidence in his opinion.

"That is definitely Lovelady's hairline and balding pattern, which I believe they moved there, replacing Oswald's."

Yeah, or alternately, that is Lovelady in the picture and nobody moved anything anywhere. Ralph fails to point out how he eliminated that as a possibility. It can't be his previous arguments about the shirt, because those have already been rendered moot. So Ralph is starting from square one with this argument. Good luck looking at the indistinct, grainy, half-in-shadow ear in the Altgens photo and proving it's Oswald's.

And I remind you that the HSCA photographic panel studied the Altgens photo in detail and determined it was Lovelady in the photo. Were all these experts wrong and Ralph Cinque right? Sorry, I need more than his affirmation that he's right to call it in his favor.

His opinion of his opinion doesn't count.

Hank

Posted on May 29, 2012, 1:45:57 PM PDT
JFK never died. He faked his death and bummed around the South Pacific where he learned to play the harmonica and 12 string guitar. He did this for almost 9 years. He returned to the United States and had plastic surgery done to make him look like Jerry Garcia of the Grateful Dead. He then contacted his friends in the mafia and they came and took the real Jerry Garcia out and fitted him with concrete shoes and then fed him to the fish.

JFK then took Jerrys spot in the band and due to his great musical ability was able to fool the band and the whole world for many years. When he grew bored with that, he faked his death again and joined forces with Pope John Paul II to take down the heroin cartel in Bogota, Marseille and Bangkok.

Today JFK and the Pope live on a huge ranch in Texas that is owned by Chuck Norris. They along with Chuck, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster and Betty White belong to the most super secret agency in the world.

The truth can now be told.

Posted on May 29, 2012, 1:54:03 PM PDT
Are you dense? Those ears are a perfect match between Doorman and Oswald: the angle, the position, the amount of flare, etc. And Lovelady's ear is obviously hung lower. Here are all three ears side by side. Which one is the odd man out? You're shovelling sand to stop the tide. You can't win.

[IMG]http://i46.tinypic.com/2naii5s.jpg[/IMG]

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012, 2:03:40 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 29, 2012, 2:06:08 PM PDT
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

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012, 2:11:18 PM PDT
Linda K. Hadley says: " Are you dense? Those ears are a perfect match between Doorman and Oswald: the angle, the position, the amount of flare, etc. And Lovelady's ear is obviously hung lower. Here are all three ears side by side. Which one is the odd man out? "

http://i46.tinypic.com/2naii5s.jpg

Sorry, I am not able to discern anything from the ear on the doorway man's head. It's grainy, it's partially in shadow, and it's totally indistinct. Your asserting this is definitely Oswald's ear is worse than meaningless, it's actually information that counts negatively against you (rather than being positive or neutral info). You're asserting something you cannot possibly assert, based on the available evidence. Your credibility goes down when you assert this is evidence of Oswald in the doorway.

Hank

Posted on May 29, 2012, 2:11:43 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 29, 2012, 2:59:34 PM PDT
We have his description of the technical signs of alteration that he observed, and I am not even going to give you the technical terms he used. That could be useful to the Op world. But, we have looked them up and verified them.

Hey, we call shots around here, not you.

Now, let's get back to the comparison of the two Loveladys. Here are just their ears, and they do not match. That Lovelady they paraded around wearing the plaid shirt was a fake. And they just did it because the real Lovelady had said that he wore another shirt, a short-sleeved red and white striped shirt which was not compatible with Doorman. So, this was damage control. But, they should have gotten the real Lovelady to wear it.

http://tinypic.com/r/fdrp7s/6

Posted on May 29, 2012, 3:01:54 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 29, 2012, 3:02:25 PM PDT
And here are the three: Doorman, Oswald, and Lovelady. Which ears match? Which one is the odd man out because it's hanging low like low-hanging fruit? It's very easy to see, and there's no denying it. Ears are like fingerprints. And we just fingered Doorman as Oswald. Or you could say we earmarked him.

http://tinypic.com/r/2naii5s/6

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012, 5:06:45 PM PDT
Linda K. Hadley says: "We have his description of the technical signs of alteration that he observed, and I am not even going to give you the technical terms he used. That could be useful to the Op world. But, we have looked them up and verified them."

Translation: Linda cannot document any of her claims. She did assert previously that a "do not use" order went out over the AP wire after the original Altgens photo went out. She can't document that. She did assert a second Altgens photo went out - an altered one that is now the one in the historical record - and she claimed certain technical aspects of the photo reveal it's an alteration -- BUT SHE REFUSES TO SAY WHAT THEY ARE. This is laughable argumentation. You only have what you can prove. To date, you've refused to name your supposed witness, you've given four different accounts of what the witness said, you've claimed to be able to prove this stuff, but when challenged to actually put forward some evidence, you go strangely silent.

We're not fooled. If you had anything you thought was viable evidence, you'd be trumpeting it here like you're doing for the ear in the Altgens photo. But you're not. Because you cannot back up what you're claiming.

Linda wrote: "Now, let's get back to the comparison of the two Loveladys. Here are just their ears, and they do not match. That Lovelady they paraded around wearing the plaid shirt was a fake. And they just did it because the real Lovelady had said that he wore another shirt, a short-sleeved red and white striped shirt which was not compatible with Doorman. So, this was damage control. But, they should have gotten the real Lovelady to wear it."

Bizarre. You think because the aspect ratio was changed on the film you have a copy of off the internet (originally reformatted for television broadcast), that means one Lovelady is stockier than the other, and has a different shaped ear. And you think this is meaningful. Again, only in a negative sense - it damages your credibility because you're using images captured off the internet instead of going back and getting images directly from the original film.

You do understand when you can't vouch for what's been done to the film you can have all kinds of apparent anomalies introduced that don't mean a thing, right? Apparently not. Well, here's a heads up then. Use the originals, not multi-generational images that you cannot vouch for. I mean, I fully expect someone to cite this image as the original Altgens photo at some point, but we both know it's not:

http://simfootball.net/JFK/altered-Altgens.JPG
(Above is a faked image, produced by me with personal computer software not available in 1963).

Hank

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012, 5:21:22 PM PDT
Linda K. Hadley says: "And here are the three: Doorman, Oswald, and Lovelady. Which ears match? Which one is the odd man out because it's hanging low like low-hanging fruit? It's very easy to see, and there's no denying it. Ears are like fingerprints. And we just fingered Doorman as Oswald. Or you could say we earmarked him."

http://tinypic.com/r/2naii5s/6

Wow. You simply ignored all my rebuttal remarks from earlier today and just posted your argument again. Sorry, that's another debit against your credibility account. People interested in the truth, rather than pushing an agenda, do try to engage in a discussion of the evidence. What you're doing is simply repeating your already questioned argument without adressing any of the issues raised previously about your argument.

Here's more-or-less what I wroite previously, and you ignored:

The image of the doorway man posted is obviously very grainy, and the ear, besides being indistinct and grainy, is half in shadow!

And Ralph is claiming he's certain this is Oswald's ear? How? His background is as a chiropractor, not as a photo analyst. How did he determine that was Oswald's ear, rather than Lovelady's? It appears he just eyeballed it and made a call. Yes?

Ralph's previous arguments about the shirt have already been rendered moot. So Ralph is starting from square one with this argument. Good luck looking at the indistinct, grainy, half-in-shadow ear in the Altgens photo and proving it's Oswald's. Stating it's Oswald's is just an opinion. Prove it.

And I remind you that the HSCA photographic panel studied the Altgens photo in detail and determined it was Lovelady in the photo. Were all these experts wrong and Ralph Cinque right? Sorry, I need more than his affirmation that he's right to call it in his favor.

His opinion of his opinion doesn't count.

Again, your manner of argument (ignore all points made in opposition, and simply repost your original argument), discredits your argument entirely. If you had any actual evidence that would withstand scrutiny, you would post it, and engage in a true discussion of the evidence.

Hank

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012, 5:38:33 PM PDT
Jeff Marzano says:
Ralph Cinque says:

[But, you should read JFK and the Unspeakable by Jim Douglass to get all the details.]

I made a note of this book. I should take the time and read a few good books about this assassination. All the info I know about it came from TV.

My dream now is to make a movie about this assassination. I could make a four hour movie about it with someone getting killed every 5 minutes and still not fit all of the violence in.

I'll need some JFK assassination experts as my technical / historical advisers.

I guess Oliver Stone covered a lot in his epic movie. But he must have missed some things and I assume more details have surfaced since that movie came out.

The 'Final Chapter' episodes of The Men Who Killed Kennedy first aired in 2003 for the 40th anniversary of the assassination. So Stone didn't have those details.

What would be very interesting to know is what orders did they give Oswald to make him do everything possible to get himself killed in the movie theater.

In 'The Love Affair' episode Oswald's mistress says they told Oswald that there was a team of assassins who were going to try to kill JFK and Oswald was one of the good guys.

But I need ideas for my movie about what they told Oswald. This is very important.

I feel I have enough info from The Men Who Killed Kennedy to start this movie project. I can find some JFK assassination experts to fill in the details.

The question is what to include in the movie to make it interesting.

The answer is probably action, killing, etc.. That's what the public wants.

The world is ready for another JFK assassination movie so we can answer all the remaining questions and put this mystery to rest once and for all.

Jeff Marzano

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012, 5:41:01 PM PDT
Jeff Marzano says:
Ralph Cinque says:

[The gist of my argument is that conspiracy advocates were too quick to concede the Doorway Man.]

I haven't been following this doorman theory too much but what is the main point ?

And why is this one thing so significant ?

Jeff Marzano
Discussion locked

Recent discussions in the History forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum
459 Mar 11, 2017
Looking for a really good book on turn of the century America 26 8 hours ago
New Vietnam War Series On PBS 0 2 days ago
Book (Serial Killers: Ho Chi Minh) shows what a mass-murderer the North VietNamese leader was 78 3 days ago
Book (The Longest Romance) shows how mass-murderous Castro's Cuba really is! 24 3 days ago
July 14, 1881 billy the Kid Murdered 6 3 days ago
Franklin expedition 0 4 days ago
Book Recommendations on Ancient Rome/Julius Ceasar 39 8 days ago
General George Custer reincarnated as General George Patton 90 8 days ago
British History Buffs........ 1144 8 days ago
Hitler's luxury resort 2 12 days ago
Pres. Yeltsin admitted (in 1994) that communist North Korea started the whole Korean War! 40 17 days ago
 

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 10 customers