Altgens photo to be re-enacted in late November

[Ralph Cinque]

I am giving the forum members a heads-up that a professional, commercial
photographer has been hired to do a re-enactment of the Altgens photo.
This professional, commercial photographer will not be named at this time
because I don't want him to be harrassed. I have been harrassed with two
threatening phone calls warning me to get off the JFK forums "before it's
too late." I have reported to my local law enforcement and to the FBI.
However, once the pictures are taken, I will name the photographer.

Our only interest shall be the Altgens photo- nothing else. We're not
going to do anything with the area of the limo and the shooting. We are
only interested in the figures in the doorway.

Keep in mind: I've had it. It's Oswald in the doorway; there is no doubt
about it. And now we'll let the new pictures do the talking. We'll see
about the vee-shaped shadow that people have been claiming and relying on
to avoid admitting that Doorman is wearing Oswald's v-shaped t-shirt. Do
you think it was just a v-shaped shadow? Well, we are putting it to the
test, and when the results come in, we're all know the truth.

This photoshoot is going to be completely directed by the professoinal
photographer. He'll be using two cameeras: a modern digital camera, and an
old Kodak using Tri-ex film and 105 mm telephoto lens like Altgens. And I
don't even have to be there. The photographer has already been paid, and
I've set it all up so that even if I get killed, it will still take place,
and it will still get disseminated on the web. The first showing will be
on Dr. Fetzer's column, then the OIC site, then JFK assassination forum,
and other forums and newsgroups. And hopefully, John McAdams will allow
the pictures to be posted here. After all, why not? There's nothing to be
afraid of, right? We all just want the truth, don't we?

But, this is just a heads-up. I just wanted you all to know that it's
coming. No need to start arguing about ti now. You could issue a few
put-downs, but why bother? Why not wait for the pictures? And honestly,
don't you think it's a good idea that this is being done? Don't you think
it should have been done immediately after the assassination? After all,
they had Lovelady, and he had his shirt, and they had Altgens, and he had
his camera. They could have settled the issue of Doorway Man once and for
all way back then. So, this is 49 years later, but better late than never,
right?

Remember, we've got a date shortly after Thanksgiving.

[Research]

The only problem I see is that some people will get a hold of your
re-enactment photo and claim it was real assassination evidence. Besides,
the Altgen's photo is a fake. Why do you guys keep referring to it as if
it were real?


"Ralph Cinque" <buda...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9ac69927-4236-4124...@googlegroups.com...

[elpdr...@gmail.com]

You are flattering yourself. No one is going to "kill" you for what you
are doing. Ridicule, yes, But "kill" you, no. You definitely deserve to be
ridiculed for your ridiculous claim.

[Ralph Cinque]

The results of the Altgens re-enactment are going to be presented in the
form of an interview of the professional photographer by me. I am going to
let him do the talking because I know you have nothing but disdain for me.
But, this photographer is very educated and knowledgable about light and
shadow and all the elements that affect photographic results and
comparisons. And I hope that, after listening to him, you will have some
respect for him. I have respect for him, and that's why I hired him. This
man has a reputation as a commercial photographer, and he is not going to
play fast and loose with the facts just to coddle me. He is going to call
it as he sees it, and he knows his work and his words will be published.
Again, this is something that should have been done long ago, but better
later than never.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "This is something that should have been done long ago." <<<

Why?

The matter of Doorway Man was settled by Lovelady himself in April of
1964 when he told the world in his WC testimony that he himself was
Doorway Man. A "re-creation" of the Altgens picture isn't going to
change Lovelady's testimony.

And a re-creation of the photo won't change these very important words
spoken by Lee Oswald either, which are words that blow Ralph Cinque's
"Doorman Is Oswald" theory sky high:

REPORTER -- "Did you shoot the President?"
LEE HARVEY OSWALD -- "I work in that building."
REPORTER -- "Were you in the building at the time?"
LEE HARVEY OSWALD -- "Naturally, if I work in that building, yes,
sir."

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/01/doorway-man.html

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/22/2012 8:01 PM, Research wrote:
> The only problem I see is that some people will get a hold of your
> re-enactment photo and claim it was real assassination evidence. Besides,
> the Altgen's photo is a fake. Why do you guys keep referring to it as if
> it were real?
>

Worse than that, he claims that the real original Altgens photo actually
showed Oswald standing out front of the TSBD and the conspirators altered
it to show Lovelady instead since he looked so much like Oswald. And
somehow these experts were able to do it within a couple of hours to get
out onto the AP wires that afternoon.

So, who are these expert conspirators? The CIA or the AP? Or maybe the
Dallas Morning News.

[Anthony Marsh]

Plus how could Oswald have an alibi of talking to a secretary in her
office inside the TSBD at the moment of the shots if he is standing
outside the building.

[Mark Ulrik]

Good luck with the weather.

[Research]

"Ralph Cinque" <buda...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:c17ff598-dca1-4109...@googlegroups.com...

It is a good idea to re-examine ALL THE PHOTO evidence. There are many
concerns to all the film and photo evidence. Mary Moorman was supposed to
have complained when her photos were returned with composite images on them.
Now where are these composited photos? Why haven't these fake photos been
published?
But that goes for all of the film and photo evidence. Shouldn't we
re-examine it all? Zapruder film is widely accused of being faked. Where is
the evidence to prove it one way or another?
Who is to say the Nix or Muchmore or Bond or any thing else wasn't faked?

But why would a commercial photographer place his reputation on the line?
You know when a person even said the word Oswald or Kennedy Assassination,
the speaker get that look that they are insane. People think you are crazy.
Even if all you do is make a comment in one direction or the other. Maybe it
is because the listener is uninformed, but they think you are crazy for even
entertaining a thought on the subject.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/23/2012 12:53 PM, Research wrote:
> "Ralph Cinque" <buda...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c17ff598-dca1-4109...@googlegroups.com...
> The results of the Altgens re-enactment are going to be presented in the
> form of an interview of the professional photographer by me. I am going to
> let him do the talking because I know you have nothing but disdain for me.
> But, this photographer is very educated and knowledgable about light and
> shadow and all the elements that affect photographic results and
> comparisons. And I hope that, after listening to him, you will have some
> respect for him. I have respect for him, and that's why I hired him. This
> man has a reputation as a commercial photographer, and he is not going to
> play fast and loose with the facts just to coddle me. He is going to call
> it as he sees it, and he knows his work and his words will be published.
> Again, this is something that should have been done long ago, but better
> later than never.
>
> It is a good idea to re-examine ALL THE PHOTO evidence. There are many
> concerns to all the film and photo evidence. Mary Moorman was supposed to
> have complained when her photos were returned with composite images on them.
> Now where are these composited photos? Why haven't these fake photos been
> published?

No, where did you get that? One newspaper altered a COPY of her photo,
but that would not affect the original Polaroid print.

> But that goes for all of the film and photo evidence. Shouldn't we
> re-examine it all? Zapruder film is widely accused of being faked. Where is
> the evidence to prove it one way or another?

The evidence is on my Web site. Read it and learn.

[Ralph Cinque]

To Research: I have no doubt that other photos and films were also altered
and falsified. But, we are just going to focus on the Altgens photo right
now. And surely all will agree that if it can be shown that that photo was
altered, even once, even slightly, that is proof of subterfuge. The only
possible reason to alter it was to change its content, to alter it's
information and to mislead the viewer.

David Von Pein, why do you pretend to be so naive as to rule out the
possibility that Lovelady lied? Lovelady was a convicted felon. He was
dishonorably discharged from the Air Force on June 14, 1961 for having
stolen weapons and for having sold them, to which he plead guilty. He was
later arrested in Dallas for having fled Maryland without paying his fine.
That fine was ultimately paid by the Vice President of the Texas School
Book Depository, O.V. Campbell. This is all documented on the OIC site.

And how much mileage do you think you can get out of parsing Oswald's
words to the reporter? What about what he told Det. Frtiz, that he was
"out with Bill Shelley in front"?

And to Marsh, talking to the secretary during the shooting was never
Oswald's alibi. It's something that others have made assumptions about,
but not him.

Look: none of this lip-flapping matters at all because we have a picture
of Oswald standing outside the building. He has Lovelady's face, and he
has Lovelady's hairline from when he was a much younger man, but he has
Oswald's ear, Oswald's chin, and he is wearing Oswald's outfit to a tee.
Doorman is an amalgam of Oswald and Lovelady in the proportion of about
80% Oswald and 20% Lovelady, by area. Now, there are only two
possibilities: either Oswald's supporters got hold of the photo and
imposed Oswald's frame and clothing on Lovelady, while they also, for some
reason, restored Lovelady's hairline to when he was a younger man, OR the
conspirators got hold of the Altgens photo and altered Oswald's face and
hairline to Lovelady's, not realizing that the picture they were working
from of Lovelady's was from when he was much younger and had a lot more
hair. Now, of those two choices, I find the latter one much more
plausible. One thing is for sure: you can't deny the reality of what we
see on Doorman- his Oswald features- just by parsing Oswald's words or
anybody's words. It doesn't make the likenesses go away. We are going to
get to the bottom of it in Dealey Plaza, and we are going to blast it all
over the web. I say: enough with the bull! It's reckoning time.

[John Reagor King]

In article <9ac69927-4236-4124...@googlegroups.com>,

Ralph Cinque <buda...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I am giving the forum members a heads-up that a professional, commercial
> photographer has been hired to do a re-enactment of the Altgens photo.
> This professional, commercial photographer will not be named at this time
> because I don't want him to be harrassed. I have been harrassed with two
> threatening phone calls warning me to get off the JFK forums "before it's
> too late." I have reported to my local law enforcement and to the FBI.
> However, once the pictures are taken, I will name the photographer.
>
> Our only interest shall be the Altgens photo- nothing else. We're not
> going to do anything with the area of the limo and the shooting. We are
> only interested in the figures in the doorway.
>
> Keep in mind: I've had it. It's Oswald in the doorway; there is no doubt
> about it.

There's plenty of doubt about it, actually, and no re-enactment would
prove otherwise. A re-enactment would only show persons who are neither
Lovelady or Oswald.

> And now we'll let the new pictures do the talking.

When no new pictures will have either Lovelady or Oswald in them?

> We'll see
> about the vee-shaped shadow that people have been claiming and relying on
> to avoid admitting that Doorman is wearing Oswald's v-shaped t-shirt.

Other men can wear a similar shirt. A shirt by itself never proves
anyone's identity, unless it is a unique shirt with a design that has
never appeared on any other shirt ever made.

> Do
> you think it was just a v-shaped shadow?

It's simply a shirt being worn by a man. That alone will never, ever,
ever tell you who the man is.

> Well, we are putting it to the
> test, and when the results come in, we're all know the truth.

This test will prove nothing about anyone's identity, except for people
who might be in the new photos, none of whom will be Lovelady or Oswald.

> This photoshoot is going to be completely directed by the professoinal
> photographer.

Irrelevant, unless he can engage in time travel and bring back the
twenty-four-year-old Oswald to photograph him now.

> He'll be using two cameeras: a modern digital camera, and an
> old Kodak using Tri-ex film and 105 mm telephoto lens like Altgens. And I
> don't even have to be there.

Neither do I. None of this will prove, or disprove, the identity of
anyone in the Altgens photo, since none of those people will be in these
new photos. Unless the photographer plans to round up the few survivors?
But even with that, they'll look quite different today than they did in
1963. And Oswald won't be among them.

> The photographer has already been paid,

A waste of money for this purpose.

> and
> I've set it all up so that even if I get killed, it will still take place,

Oh please, you're exaggerating. I very much doubt that anyone even
cares remotely enough about this to come after you in any violent way.
If you're killed it will be from some completely different cause, such
as a robbery.

> and it will still get disseminated on the web.

It can be on 1000 different websites and still it will prove nothing
either way about Oswald being, or not being, present in the Altgens
photo.

> The first showing will be
> on Dr. Fetzer's column, then the OIC site, then JFK assassination forum,
> and other forums and newsgroups.

And it will still prove nothing about who is, and who isn't, seen in the
Altgens photo, and that doesn't only include your doorway man, but
everyone else seen in it as well.

> And hopefully, John McAdams will allow
> the pictures to be posted here. After all, why not?

Sure, we need a good laugh.

> There's nothing to be
> afraid of, right?

Of course not. These will merely be new photos of people who weren't in
the Altgens photo anyway.

> We all just want the truth, don't we?

Indeed. Sadly (for you alone) these new photos will prove nothing.

> But, this is just a heads-up. I just wanted you all to know that it's
> coming. No need to start arguing about ti now. You could issue a few
> put-downs, but why bother?

There's a very good reason to bother: you seem not to realize that unless
you can go back in time and put a living Oswald in the new photos, no new
photo that will ever be taken will prove whether or not he appears in a
photo that was taken close to half a century ago. What anyone is or isn't
wearing in any new photo is irrelevant.

> Why not wait for the pictures?

I don't have to see the pictures to know perfectly well that not one of
them will prove anyone's identity in the Altgens photo. The only possible
way to change that is to photograph at least one of the *same* people
today, and Oswald is definitely not available for that.

> And honestly,
> don't you think it's a good idea that this is being done?

No.

> Don't you think
> it should have been done immediately after the assassination?

Yes. Why on earth do you think that more than 48 years later isn't far
too late for any new photograph to prove anyone's identity in the Altgens
photo unless you have some of the same people in the new photos who were
in the Altgens photo? You're going to a lot of trouble to prove nothing.

> After all,
> they had Lovelady, and he had his shirt, and they had Altgens, and he had
> his camera. They could have settled the issue of Doorway Man once and for
> all way back then. So, this is 49 years later, but better late than never,
> right?

Unless you're going to have Lovelady himself in the new photos, they'll
still prove nothing, no matter what anyone is wearing in the new photos.

[John Reagor King]

In article <c17ff598-dca1-4109...@googlegroups.com>,

Ralph Cinque <buda...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The results of the Altgens re-enactment are going to be presented in the
> form of an interview of the professional photographer by me.

What "results"? The best you're going to be able to do in any
photograph that is taken is have people who are *not* Oswald appearing
in it. And I very much doubt Mr. Lovelady has agreed to show up for
this, if he is still alive. Last I knew he is, but others here might
know better than me. And even if he is still alive and agrees to appear
in the new photos, he's not going to look the same as he did almost 49
years ago. It's irrelevant who will be wearing what in the new photos.
You can't identify a person by clothing alone.

> I am going to
> let him do the talking because I know you have nothing but disdain for me.

Could that be because you have earned that disdain by claiming something
can be proven which obviously can't?

> But, this photographer is very educated and knowledgable about light and
> shadow and all the elements that affect photographic results and
> comparisons.

How well educated the photographer is is irrelevant. No new photograph
will prove anyone's identity in the Altgens photo unless someone who was
shown in the Altgens photo is also photographed by this photographer.
You can't prove anyone's identity in any photo ever taken unless it
shows their *face* or some unique feature of their body *not* concealed
by clothing.

> And I hope that, after listening to him, you will have some
> respect for him.

That depends on whether or not he claims that anyone's identity in an
old photo can be proven or disproven by any new photo unless the same
person is photographed in both.

> I have respect for him, and that's why I hired him. This
> man has a reputation as a commercial photographer, and he is not going to
> play fast and loose with the facts just to coddle me. He is going to call
> it as he sees it, and he knows his work and his words will be published.
> Again, this is something that should have been done long ago, but better
> later than never.

It is way too late. It was too late only two days after the
assassination, as that was the last time Oswald was alive. The only
possible way to prove or disprove Oswald being in the Altgens photo is
to take another photo of the living Oswald, and that has obviously been
impossible for almost 49 years.

[John Reagor King]

In article <5085...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

"Research" <quest...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> The only problem I see is that some people will get a hold of your
> re-enactment photo and claim it was real assassination evidence. Besides,
> the Altgen's photo is a fake. Why do you guys keep referring to it as if
> it were real?

It's a fake? Says who?

[Anthony Marsh]

That's the latest alterationist fad from Cinque and company.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/23/2012 8:51 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <c17ff598-dca1-4109...@googlegroups.com>,
> Ralph Cinque <buda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The results of the Altgens re-enactment are going to be presented in the
>> form of an interview of the professional photographer by me.
>
> What "results"? The best you're going to be able to do in any
> photograph that is taken is have people who are *not* Oswald appearing
> in it. And I very much doubt Mr. Lovelady has agreed to show up for
> this, if he is still alive. Last I knew he is, but others here might
> know better than me. And even if he is still alive and agrees to appear
> in the new photos, he's not going to look the same as he did almost 49
> years ago. It's irrelevant who will be wearing what in the new photos.
> You can't identify a person by clothing alone.
>
>> I am going to
>> let him do the talking because I know you have nothing but disdain for me.
>
> Could that be because you have earned that disdain by claiming something
> can be proven which obviously can't?
>

It's a feeble attempt at Argument by Authority.

[Jason Burke]

Oh goodness! Your theory was proved to be nonsensical what, 40 years
ago? Talk about beating a dead horse!

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/23/2012 8:23 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> To Research: I have no doubt that other photos and films were also altered
> and falsified. But, we are just going to focus on the Altgens photo right
> now. And surely all will agree that if it can be shown that that photo was
> altered, even once, even slightly, that is proof of subterfuge. The only
> possible reason to alter it was to change its content, to alter it's
> information and to mislead the viewer.
>

Richard Trask in his book Pictures of the Pain proved that one copy of
the Altgens photo was altered. It was cropped. So what?

[Jason Burke]

On 10/23/2012 9:51 AM, Mark Ulrik wrote:
> On 22 Okt., 01:12, Ralph Cinque <budab...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I am giving the forum members a heads-up that a professional, commercial
>> photographer has been hired to do a re-enactment of the Altgens photo.
>> This professional, commercial photographer will not be named at this time
>> because I don't want him to be harrassed. I have been harrassed with two
>> threatening phone calls warning me to get off the JFK forums "before it's

Oh come on. No one cares enough about your recycled nonsense to harass you.

They're all too busy laughing.

>> too late." I have reported to my local law enforcement and to the FBI.
>> However, once the pictures are taken, I will name the photographer.
>>
>> Our only interest shall be the Altgens photo- nothing else. We're not
>> going to do anything with the area of the limo and the shooting. We are
>> only interested in the figures in the doorway.
>>
>> Keep in mind: I've had it. It's Oswald in the doorway; there is no doubt
>> about it. And now we'll let the new pictures do the talking. We'll see
>> about the vee-shaped shadow that people have been claiming and relying on
>> to avoid admitting that Doorman is wearing Oswald's v-shaped t-shirt. Do
>> you think it was just a v-shaped shadow? Well, we are putting it to the
>> test, and when the results come in, we're all know the truth.
>>
>> This photoshoot is going to be completely directed by the professoinal
>> photographer. He'll be using two cameeras: a modern digital camera, and an
>> old Kodak using Tri-ex film and 105 mm telephoto lens like Altgens. And I
>> don't even have to be there. The photographer has already been paid, and
>> I've set it all up so that even if I get killed, it will still take place,

Oh, geez. Delusions of grandeur?? I think so.

>> and it will still get disseminated on the web. The first showing will be
>> on Dr. Fetzer's column, then the OIC site, then JFK assassination forum,
>> and other forums and newsgroups. And hopefully, John McAdams will allow
>> the pictures to be posted here. After all, why not? There's nothing to be
>> afraid of, right? We all just want the truth, don't we?
>>

Yes, we do. And we got it decades ago.

>> But, this is just a heads-up. I just wanted you all to know that it's
>> coming. No need to start arguing about ti now. You could issue a few
>> put-downs, but why bother? Why not wait for the pictures? And honestly,
>> don't you think it's a good idea that this is being done? Don't you think
>> it should have been done immediately after the assassination?

Why? It was Lovelady.

After all,
>> they had Lovelady, and he had his shirt, and they had Altgens, and he had
>> his camera. They could have settled the issue of Doorway Man once and for
>> all way back then. So, this is 49 years later, but better late than never,
>> right?

Major laughter again.

>>
>> Remember, we've got a date shortly after Thanksgiving.

Looking forward to the hilarity.

[Ralph Cinque]

King, the gross inadequacy of your thinking process is truly staggering. I
will try to walk you through it, but first, I protest because it shouldn't
be necessary.

1. Doorman appears to be wearing a v-shaped t-shirt- like Oswald.

2. Oswald was the only one wearing such a t-shirt. It was homemade. He
deformed it into a vee by tugging on it. Vee-shaped t-shirts did not exist
otherwise. And Lovelady's t-shirt was definitely round.

3. Therefore, if Doorman's t-shirt was a vee, he had to be Oswald.

4. But, our opponents have claimed that Doorman's t-shirt wasn't really
vee, that it only looked vee because of neck shadow.

5. So, we are going to go Dealey Plaza, to the entrance, on a sunny day in
late November, at 12:30 PM, and we are going to have someone of Lovelady's
height (5'8")stand in every possible place, and there aren't that many,
that Doorman could have been standing. And we are going to see if a vee
shadow occurs that makes a round t-shirt looks vee.

6. If it doesn't occur, that will tell us that it didn't occur on 11/22/63
because the sun's position relative to that spot on the Earth would have
been the same. And that will tell us that Doorman's vee wasn't just an
apparent vee, an optical illusion, but that it was the actual shape of his
t-shirt, that it was what it appeared to be.

7. And in that event, it will prove that since Doorman was indeed wearing
a v-shaped t-shirt that he was indeed Lee Harvey Oswald.

This is only one specific variable that we are going to be testing for,
but it is actually self-sufficient to decide the case.

And that's why it doesn't matter that we do not have Oswald and Lovelady
here in the flesh.

[Ralph Cinque]

Burke, you didn't actually say anything. You just issued scorn and
ridicule. And I have no objection to scorn and ridicule except when a
person issues nothing but scorn and ridicule. That tells me that they have
nothing to say, that they are out of bullets.

Now, it was Oswald in the doorway, and I believe that the professional
photoshoot is going to prove it. Here is what I expect to happen:

1) It will be shown that there was no vee-shaped shadow below Doorman's
neck, that the vee that is seen was the shape of his t-shirt against his
skin. That alone will prove that Doorman was wearing Oswald's unique
t-shirt. And if he was wearing Oswald's unique t-shirt, it means he had to
be Oswald.

2) It will show that the juxtaposition of Doorman to Black Tie Man in the
Altgens photo is a physical and photographic impossibility. The
photographer understands that his assignment is to reproduce that image,
that apparent fusing, merging, and integrating of Doorman and the man who
was standing behind him and east of him whom we call Black Tie Man. I
predict that despite the photographer's best effort, no such duplication
will occur, and it's because what we see was the result of photographic
alteration.

3) The whole appearance of Obfuscated Man will not be duplicated. The
amorophouse white blob that we see in the Altgens photo will not be
recreated. Nothing like it will appear, despite the photographer's best
effort- and he will have a camera and film like Altgens as well as a
modern digital camera. And that's because that white blob was a
photographic alteration, an attempt to remove Obfuscated Man from the
picture.

4) The look of Black Hole Man with his arms over his head and well
illuminated but his head completely blackened will not be duplicated. And
that's because it was done to him in a photographic alteration. Again, the
photographer will try- painstakingly- to reproduce it. But, I don't
believe he will succeed because they, the conspirators, took out his
face.

5) I don't believe the relationship of Doorman to the Black Man in front
of him in Altgens will be duplicated, where the Black Man appears so low
and where Doorman's arm seems to be passing in front of his neck. I
believe that will prove to be another impossibility. After all, how could
a man way back on the landing have his arm in front of a man who was much
more forward, l as the Black Man was.

Now, you, Burke, may be unfamiliar with all these things. Perhaps you
haven't reckoned with all these incongruities. But, you can't make them go
away by ignoring them. You can't dismiss them by acting insolent. We are
going to put a spotlight on all these things and more, and it is going to
expose what really happened. So get ready, Burke, because reality is
coming a-knocking, and it's going to bust your phony world apart.

[Jason Burke]

Why bother? I think we ALL know what you'll claim the results show.
I trust we're accounting for leap years? 'Cause, you know, 4 doesn't
gozinta 49 evenly.

This reminds me of that Harris cartoon of a mathematical proof. You
know, where Step 2 says 'then a miracle occurs.'

[Ralph Cinque]

Leap year? That's of no importance. You know, it doesn't have to be the
exact day. The difference in the sun's position between November 21 and
November 22 is irrelevant. Light and shadow conditions will be the
same.

And I am not going to claim anything. I've got an award-winning commercial
photographer who works for Fortune 500 companies who is going to do the
explaining. I'll just be asking him questions and interviewing him, but
he'll be doing the explaining. It's going to be all him, not me. And what
he says will be in quotes.

But yes, I do already that it was Oswald in the doorway, and there is no
doubt about it. The guy is wearing Oswald's clothes- the whole
ensemble.

I went out today and bought a Lovelady shirt. It's checkered in red and
black, and it has pin stripes just like his. The only difference is that
the pinstripes are yellow instead of white. But, what the hay, right?
That's no dealbreaker. But, I went to several stores looking for a match
to Oswald's shirt, but I couldn't find a thing. I'll keep looking, and
hopefully I'll come up with something by November. But, it's just so
striking how unique that tweed shirt was. What an unlucky break for the
conspirators that Lee should have worn such a strange shirt on that, the
day of their brutal murder of President Kennedy. And, as much as they
messed with that Altgens photo, they couldn't get Lee's shirt off Lee's
back.

And then, woe onto them, it turned out that Lee had the habit of
stretching his t-shirts into a vee. How do you predict that kind of thing?
Here, you plan the murder with great precision; you think you've
anticipated every last detail, every possible fluke, and then, it turns
out the patsy had weird, deformed clothing. How do you anticiipate such a
thing? How do you defend against it? Here it is, almost 50 years later,
and we're putting Lee's unmistakble v-shaped t-shirt under bright lights
and magnification. And it's going to get so much worse. You ain't seen
nothing yet, Burke. Trouble is a-coming for you and yours.

[David Von Pein]

RALPH CINQUE SAID:

>>> "It doesn't have to be the exact day. The difference in the sun's

position between November 21 and November 22 is irrelevant. Light and
shadow conditions will be the same." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I think you're wrong about that, Ralph. According to professional
photographer and photo analyst Lawrence Schiller, in order to do a proper
re-creation of a photo involving light and shadows (etc.), you would need
to go to the location on the "same day of the year" and at the "same
time". Check out the video below (featuring Schiller's very good and
spot-on re-creation of one of the Neely Street Backyard Photos):

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/backyard-photos.html#Backyard-Photo-Recreation

[timstter]

Well for once Marsh has made a very good point!

Besides, even Robert Groden has abandoned the *Oswald in the doorway*
myth.

In 2012 it is stone dead unless you're some kind of a Fetzerite.

Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

[Research]

"Ralph Cinque" <buda...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:312821f0-5ed5-497a...@googlegroups.com...

To Research: I have no doubt that other photos and films were also altered
and falsified. But, we are just going to focus on the Altgens photo right
now. And surely all will agree that if it can be shown that that photo was
altered, even once, even slightly, that is proof of subterfuge. The only
possible reason to alter it was to change its content, to alter it's
information and to mislead the viewer.

One thing for sure these guys are going to make fun of anybody for anything
they can. I don't know if the Atlgens is a composite. But I do know it is
fake. That is my opinion. And I'm not willing to discuess why I think so.
Cause it will be returned in riticule.

David Von Pein, why do you pretend to be so naive as to rule out the
possibility that Lovelady lied? Lovelady was a convicted felon. He was
dishonorably discharged from the Air Force on June 14, 1961 for having
stolen weapons and for having sold them, to which he plead guilty. He was
later arrested in Dallas for having fled Maryland without paying his fine.
That fine was ultimately paid by the Vice President of the Texas School
Book Depository, O.V. Campbell. This is all documented on the OIC site.

Can you post a link?

[Ralph Cinque]

I have made a public offer to Craig Lamson on JFK Assassination Forum and
to Albert Doyle on JFK Lancer to meet me in Dallas in November for the
photoshoot. We each deposit the wager money with a trusted third party,
say several thousand dollars, and I suggested Duncan MacKrae in Scotland.
If Doorman can be shown to have a perfect vee shadow that looks just like,
or very close to, the dark area on Doorman, then each of them win. But, if
no such shadow occurs, then I win. And we'll agree that the loser also
pays the winner's travel expenses to and from Dallas.

That's my public offer to each of them. Anyone here want a piece of it?

[David Von Pein]

Here's a question for Ralph Cinque that I don't think has surfaced in
the past (has it?).....

Why couldn't Lovelady have been wearing a V-neck T-shirt on 11/22/63?

Was Lovelady ever asked what type of T-shirt he was wearing that day?
Isn't it possible that he could have owned some V-neck T-shirts as
well as some that had the "round" neck?

Granted, I suppose most men would buy and wear just one type of T-
shirt (whatever their preference might be), but isn't it possible that
Lovelady wore a "V" type once in a while? And can Ralph prove that
Lovelady never wore (or owned) such a "V"-neck T-shirt?

I'll admit, I have no answers to those T-shirt questions, but, then
too, I don't think it matters at all -- because Billy N. Lovelady is
Doorway Man. That fact was proven for all time by Lovelady HIMSELF in
1964.

[Ralph Cinque]

Von Pein, that propaganda tape with Walter Cronkite was pretty nauseating,
but let me point something out to you. There are 365 days in a year and
360 degrees in a circle, and a circle is what we are talking about since
the Earth revolves around the sun in a circle. (it' s an ellipse,
actually, but I think we can put that aside). So, it works out that each
day works out to just about exactly 1 degree. So, between November 21 and
November 22, there would be a 1 degree movement of the sun in its apparent
arc around a particular spot on Earth (even though it is really the Earth
that is rotating). A degree a day: it's as simple as that.

[Ralph Cinque]

Regarding Lovelady having been the one to wear a vee-neck t-shirt, I'm
going to guess that you posted that prior to the shellacing you took about
it on JFK Assassination Forum last night. Yes? But OK, we'll address it
here too. But excuse me for just a second....

Hey Lamson! Craig Lamson! C'mere! I've got news for you! David Von Pein
figured it out. It wasn't a vee shadow. All that stuff you were saying
about the indubitable laws of physics and geometry making it
unimpeachable, David says that's bull. He says the t-shirt was definitely
vee. It looked vee because it was vee. But, he thinks it was Lovelady
wearing it. Now, I can address the later issue with him, and I think I can
prove that Lovelady most certainly did not wear a v-neck t-shirt on
11/22/63, especially since there are several pictures, claimed to be him,
in which he's obviously wearing a tight, high, roundneck t-shirt. But, the
point I want to make to you is that he apparently agrees with me that that
the vee was not a shadow. The vee was just the result of the
high-contrast, highly polarized film, where brown skin that was not in the
direct light, got rendered very dark. And it wasn't just human skin. If
you look at the trunk of the tree in Altgens, it looks black. Coal black.
I'm sure it wasn't black.

But anyway, getting back to you, Von Pein, no, there is no chance - I mean
zero chance- that Lovelady wore a roundneck t-shirt. In every single
picture of what is claimed to be him on 11/22/63, and in every single
picture of him from afterwards, including the times that he deliberately
dressed and posed as Doorman, he wore a high tight round crewneck tshirt.
And that includes soon after the assassination, when on February 29, 1964,
he posed as Doorman for the FBI wearing the same clothes he wore on 11/22.
He even unbuttoned his shirt, supposedly to simulate the look of Doorman.
Why would he do that unless it was the same clothes? Of course, his shirt
did not sprawl open like Doorman's and that's because Oswald's shirt was
very unique. Most shirts don't sprawl open the way his did.

You know, I'm getting ready for my photoshoot in Dealey Plaza, and I have
already acquired a shirt like Lovelady's. It's red and black checkered,
and it has fine pinstripes. The pinstripes are yellow, instead of white
like Lovelady's, but I don't think that matters any more than 1 degree of
Earth rotation. But, I am having a heck of a time of finding a fine tweed
shirt like Oswald's. I've gone to three stores so far, with no luck. I'll
keep looking though, and I'll come up with something- no matter what.

And as I explained to you, v-neck t-shirts were very new. According to
industry reports, it wasn't until the late 60s that they started catching
on. And they have never been more popular than they are today, in which 1
out 6 t-shirts sold is vee. In 1963, it was miniscule.

Even Oswald's teeshirt wasn't vee, not really. He made it vee by tugging
on it. It was a homemade v-neck t-shirt. And nobody else but him had one.

So no, Lovelady did not wear a v-neck t-shirt. Oswald inadvertently did.
But you're right; it was not a vee shadow. Thanks for helping with that.

[Ralph Cinque]

This is a news-flash.

Jerry Dealey, of JFK Lancer, has volunteered to participate in the
upcoming photoshoot in Dealey Plaza which will be the first professional
effort to reenact the Altgens photo.

I am seriously considering it, and I can see advantages to it. You see, I
have nothing to hide. There are no tricks involved here. And if Jerry has
preferences about how the figures should be arranged, I'll be more than
willing to try them. Our goal is to recreate what is seen in the doorway
as closely as possible, so we can try anyone's and everyone's ideas. It's
just another click of the camera.

And he has agreed to publish the results, including the photos and the
photographer's analysis, on JFK Lancer.

So, we are on a mission here of historic proportions, and the truth shall
prevail.

[Zobicus]

This paragraph has more issues than I've ever seen, one can't begin to
enumerate the problems.

[Ralph Cinque]

McAdams, why do you allow posts like this?

"This paragraph has more issues than I've ever seen, one can't begin to
enumerate the problems."

Look, you're a professor. What if your students submitted a paper in which
he didn't say anything. He just said there were issues, problems, but he
could not enumerate them. You would flunk him, right?

So, why won't you apply the same standard here? Make a necessity that a
poster actually has to enumerate SOMETHING. Otherwise, they can get the
phuck out.

Because if you are just going to allow people to come on here and take
cheap shots at me, it makes me think there is nothing scholarly, nothing
academic about you at all.

Are you really a professor????? Then freaking act like one!!!

[Jason Burke]

In the Cinque world, facts don't matter. The "facts" are whatever he
chooses to make up on any given day.

[Anthony Marsh]

Seems you don't understand the job of a moderator. It is not to decide
which messages are good or make sense. It is only to reject SPAM, swear
words and insults which could be libelous.

If McAdams ruled on merit, then none of your messages would appear.

[Herbert Blenner]

> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/backyard-photos.html#Backyar...

Schiller is wrong. The solar year is not a whole number of days. So
the calendar would read within a day or two of when the celestial
declination angle of the Sun matches during different half years.

From a practical point of view, the mismatch between calendars is not
important since the day-to-day change in the celestial declination
angle of the Sun is a fraction of the solar disk.

Herbert

[Herbert Blenner]

Clocks compensation for the one degree change per day in right
ascension of the Sun.

The seasonal change in declination of the Sun is about one-quarter of
a degree per day or one half of the solar disk. This disturbance is
negligible.

Herbert

[Ralph Cinque]

You're overlooking a lot. The comparative analysis will be done by our
professional photographer. I don't want to say any more about it now- for
security reasons. The photos will be copyrighted and right-click-disabled
so that no one can download them. They won't be posted, and they won't be
posted on any forums.

Lee Harvey Oswald was the Man in the Doorway. There is no doubt about it.
Doorway Man is wearing Oswald's distinctive clothing. And, believe me, I
know because I have just spent days trying to find a shirt to match the
one he wore. It was rather easy to find a Lovelady shirt. The one I found
has red and black checks and pinstripes. The pinstripe lines are yellow
instead of white, but otherwise, it's quite a good match. Of course, that
wasn't the shirt that Lovelady wore that day. But, it's the shirt they
claim he wore. It's the shirt that they posed their Lovelady doubles in to
make their phony movies in order to sell the idea that he wore such a
shirt. So, that's the one we'll go with. You see, we don't have to argue.
We're going with what the official story claims.

But, that shirt of Oswald's, you can't find one like it at any price. It
was a fine, but heavy tweed shirt. It would be very expensive today- if it
were available. But, it is not available at all today, and it wasn't
widely available back then. Then, the v-neck t-shirt had just become
available and was not widely seen. And, Oswald's was homemade. He tugged
on it in nervous habit and stretched it into a vee. But, I bought
commecial v-necks for the photoshoot.

What a tough break for the conspirators that Oswald was dressed so
unusually. And, it shall be their downfall.

By the way, I did find a shirt. It's not like Oswald's. It's not the same
fabric. It doesn't have the same collars. And it doesn't, by nature,
sprawl open like Oswald's did. The sprawl is VERY important. It's another
thing that made the shirt so unique. But, the one I bought is the right
color; it has a very similar delicate pattern, and with help, I can get it
to sprawl open properly. I think we'll be in good shape. And the contrast
between the flashy, kalidiscopic Lovelady shirt and the plain, demure
Oswald shirt will be sufficiently different.

It's an insane world we live in that grown adults refuse to see what their
eyes tell them: that a guy wearing Lee Harvey Oswald's exact clothes is
standing in the doorway. They fiddled with his face. They fiddled with
hairline. They had to do some things to Loveladify him. But, the biggest
elements of his picture are his clothes, and his clothes are 100% Oswald.
Prepare for war, gents. This one is just heating up.

[Steve Barber]

Ralph, this isn't a classroom, nor is it a college. It is a newsgroup,
where people can pretty much say anything they wish, within reason.
Furthermore, this, at the moment, is a free country where we the people
have free speech. As the adage goes..."If you can't take the heat, then
get out of the kitchen!"

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/28/2012 11:25 AM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> You're overlooking a lot. The comparative analysis will be done by our
> professional photographer. I don't want to say any more about it now- for
> security reasons. The photos will be copyrighted and right-click-disabled
> so that no one can download them. They won't be posted, and they won't be
> posted on any forums.
>

Wow, you think you are so clever. Right-click-disabled, eh? That relies
on a Javascript code. Dale Myers tried the same code on his Web site. It
took me about 10 seconds to bypass that and download all his graphics.
And some browsers don't even use Javascript so they won't even see that
code. And if it displays on the screen is has been saved in the cache
file and there are ways to save things from the cache file.

> Lee Harvey Oswald was the Man in the Doorway. There is no doubt about it.
> Doorway Man is wearing Oswald's distinctive clothing. And, believe me, I
> know because I have just spent days trying to find a shirt to match the
> one he wore. It was rather easy to find a Lovelady shirt. The one I found
> has red and black checks and pinstripes. The pinstripe lines are yellow
> instead of white, but otherwise, it's quite a good match. Of course, that
> wasn't the shirt that Lovelady wore that day. But, it's the shirt they
> claim he wore. It's the shirt that they posed their Lovelady doubles in to
> make their phony movies in order to sell the idea that he wore such a
> shirt. So, that's the one we'll go with. You see, we don't have to argue.
> We're going with what the official story claims.
>

This makes absolutely no sense. If they are going to change the face,
why not also change the shirt?

> But, that shirt of Oswald's, you can't find one like it at any price. It
> was a fine, but heavy tweed shirt. It would be very expensive today- if it

Ever hear of the Goodwill or Salvation Army store? Also, old shirts like
that are recycled and sold cheaply to thirdworld countries. Right now
there is some teenager in Kenya who is wearing that plaid shirt. But you
are right that Lovelady's shirt was unique at the time. My plaid shirts
were not that ugly. So fashion police should have arrested Lovelady for
wearing the ugliest shirt in the world.

> were available. But, it is not available at all today, and it wasn't
> widely available back then. Then, the v-neck t-shirt had just become
> available and was not widely seen. And, Oswald's was homemade. He tugged
> on it in nervous habit and stretched it into a vee. But, I bought
> commecial v-necks for the photoshoot.
>

Homemade? By whom? Your tale gets more ludicrous every day. Even worse
than Judyth Baker.

> What a tough break for the conspirators that Oswald was dressed so
> unusually. And, it shall be their downfall.
>

Not very professional of them.

> By the way, I did find a shirt. It's not like Oswald's. It's not the same
> fabric. It doesn't have the same collars. And it doesn't, by nature,
> sprawl open like Oswald's did. The sprawl is VERY important. It's another
> thing that made the shirt so unique. But, the one I bought is the right
> color; it has a very similar delicate pattern, and with help, I can get it
> to sprawl open properly. I think we'll be in good shape. And the contrast
> between the flashy, kalidiscopic Lovelady shirt and the plain, demure
> Oswald shirt will be sufficiently different.
>
> It's an insane world we live in that grown adults refuse to see what their
> eyes tell them: that a guy wearing Lee Harvey Oswald's exact clothes is
> standing in the doorway. They fiddled with his face. They fiddled with
> hairline. They had to do some things to Loveladify him. But, the biggest
> elements of his picture are his clothes, and his clothes are 100% Oswald.
> Prepare for war, gents. This one is just heating up.
>

Now wait a minute. We have photos taken later of Lovelady wearing that
shirt. Are you claiming that he stole it from Oswald or the DPD or CIA
gave it to him from Oswald's seized possessions? IF your conspirators were
so clever that they could alter the Altgens photo in an hour to show
Lovelady's face instead of Oswald's, then why couldn't they alter it to
show Lovelady's shirt instead of Oswald's.

>
>

[David Von Pein]

"Lovelady or Oswald? -- It has been alleged that a photograph taken of the
President's limousine at the time of the first shot shows Oswald standing
in the doorway of the depository. Obviously, if Oswald was the man in the
doorway, he could not have been on the sixth floor shooting at the
President.

The Warren Commission determined that the man in the doorway was not
Oswald, it was Billy Lovelady, another depository employee. Critics have
challenged that conclusion, charging that Commission members did not
personally question Lovelady to determine if he was in fact the man in the
photograph. In addition, they argue that no photograph of Lovelady was
published in any of the volumes issued by the Warren Commission.

The committee asked its photographic evidence panel to determine whether
the man in the doorway was Oswald, Lovelady or someone else. Forensic
anthropologists working with the panel compared the photograph with
pictures of Oswald and Lovelady, and a photoanalyst studied the pattern of
the shirt worn by the man in the doorway and compared it to the shirts
worn by the two men that day.

Based on an assessment of the facial features, the anthropologists
determined that the man in the doorway bore a much stronger resemblance to
Lovelady than to Oswald. In addition, the photographic analysis of the
shirt in the photograph established that it corresponded more closely with
the shirt worn that day by Lovelady.

Based on these analyses, the committee concluded that it was highly
improbable that the man in the doorway was Oswald and highly probable that
he was Lovelady. The committee's belief that the man in the doorway was
Lovelady was also supported by an interview with Lovelady in which he
affirmed to committee investigators that he was the man in the
photograph."

-- House Select Committee on Assassinations Final Report; Page 58

---------------------------

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/10/doorway-man-part-2.html

[Bud]

On Oct 28, 11:25 am, Ralph Cinque <budab...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You're overlooking a lot. The comparative analysis will be done by our
> professional photographer. I don't want to say any more about it now- for
> security reasons.

Aren`t you subjecting a lot of innocent photographers to risk by not
naming the one you are using?

> The photos will be copyrighted and right-click-disabled
> so that no one can download them. They won't be posted, and they won't be
> posted on any forums.

You going to keep them in a shoebox under your bed while you regale
everyone about how the corroborated your beliefs?

> Lee Harvey Oswald was the Man in the Doorway.

You`d think that would have been something he might mention.

>There is no doubt about it.
> Doorway Man is wearing Oswald's distinctive clothing.  And, believe me, I
> know because I have just spent days trying to find a shirt to match the
> one he wore. It was rather easy to find a Lovelady shirt. The one I found
> has red and black checks and pinstripes. The pinstripe lines are yellow
> instead of white, but otherwise, it's quite a good match. Of course, that
> wasn't the shirt that Lovelady wore that day. But, it's the shirt they
> claim he wore. It's the shirt that they posed their Lovelady doubles in to
> make their phony movies in order to sell the idea that he wore such a
> shirt. So, that's the one we'll go with. You see, we don't have to argue.
> We're going with what the official story claims.

> But, that shirt of Oswald's, you can't find one like it at any price. It
> was a fine, but heavy tweed shirt. It would be very expensive today- if it
> were available. But, it is not available at all today, and it wasn't
> widely available back then. Then, the v-neck t-shirt had just become
> available and was not widely seen. And, Oswald's was homemade. He tugged
> on it in nervous habit and stretched it into a vee. But, I bought
> commecial v-necks for the photoshoot.

Photoshop.

> What a tough break for the conspirators that Oswald was dressed so
> unusually. And, it shall be their downfall.

You have those figments of your imagination right where you want
them.

> By the way, I did find a shirt. It's not like Oswald's. It's not the same
> fabric. It doesn't have the same collars. And it doesn't, by nature,
> sprawl open like Oswald's did. The sprawl is VERY important. It's another
> thing that made the shirt so unique. But, the one I bought is the right
> color; it has a very similar delicate pattern, and with help, I can get it
> to sprawl open properly. I think we'll be in good shape. And the contrast
> between the flashy, kalidiscopic Lovelady shirt and the plain, demure
> Oswald shirt will be sufficiently different.
>
> It's an insane world we live in that grown adults refuse to see what their
> eyes tell them: that a guy wearing Lee Harvey Oswald's exact clothes is
> standing in the doorway. They fiddled with his face. They fiddled with
> hairline. They had to do some things to Loveladify him. But, the biggest
> elements of his picture are his clothes, and his clothes are 100% Oswald.
> Prepare for war, gents. This one is just heating up.

*yawn*

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/28/2012 7:41 PM, Bud wrote:
> On Oct 28, 11:25 am, Ralph Cinque <budab...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You're overlooking a lot. The comparative analysis will be done by our
>> professional photographer. I don't want to say any more about it now- for
>> security reasons.
>
> Aren`t you subjecting a lot of innocent photographers to risk by not
> naming the one you are using?
>
>> The photos will be copyrighted and right-click-disabled
>> so that no one can download them. They won't be posted, and they won't be
>> posted on any forums.
>
> You going to keep them in a shoebox under your bed while you regale
> everyone about how the corroborated your beliefs?
>

He thinks he is protecting the rights of the photographer. He's just a
silly.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "...there are ways to save things from the cache file." <<<

Or: Just press the "Print Screen" button. That saves anything on the
screen. A great resource.

[Ralph Cinque]

Marsh, you are not a smart man, and that's the sad truth. You say things
that are really stupid and easy to destroy. Now, as far as someone getting
photos from our site, I suppose they could try various things, but the
pictures will be copyrighted, and it will say so, and it will say that
their use is strictly forbidden without explicit permission from me.
Therefore, taking them will be a criminal act. You want to try anyway,
Marsh. Go ahead, but I will press charges.

Regarding the shirts, Lovelady's was ordinary then, and it's ordinary now.
I found one like it at the first store I went to. But, Oswald's shirt was
unique then and virtually non-existent today.

The shirt on Doorman is not the shirt on Lovelady afterwards. And even if
your vision is only 20/200, you should be able to see it.

[IMG]http://i50.tinypic.com/10yhumt.jpg[/IMG]

And by the way, that Lovelady wasn't even Lovelady. He's an imposter.

And your last question shows what a mental midget you are, Marsh. In your
infantile mind, you live in a fantasy world where any kind of photographic
manipulation is possible. They couldn't change Doorman's shirt because
it's too big an element in the picture. If they tried to replace the
shirt, as you suggest, it would look PHONY. It would be OBVIOUS. They
couldn't SELL IT. They were stuck with it, you dumb pluck!

Marsh, you're going down, and you're too freaking stupid to live. If other
people weren't working to keep you alive, you'd be dead.

[Ralph Cinque]

Pienhead, I just did google search on that tripe that you posted, and
guess what? It pulls up Fetzer and Cinque all over the place. I kid you
not.

You are going down, you freaking pienhead. The lying HSCA was just as bad
as the lying WC. Just think, the HSCA concluded that Oswald did it, but he
had an accomplice on the Grassy Knoll who shot and missed. That is the
most idiotic contention I have ever heard. If it was just some old Marine
buddy of Oswald or one of his New Orleans buddies, how long would it have
taken the police to find that guy? And after the HSCA Report came out, how
hard did they look for him? They didn't look at all. Nobody did. That
wasn't for believing, and no one with sense did. That was just
crap-flinging.

It was Oswald in the doorway because he was wearing Oswald's clothes, and
he had Oswald's build, and even some of Oswald's face. Geographically
speaking, he was at least 80% Oswald, and that's as good as being 100%
Oswald.

We're going to Dallas, Pienhead. And your world will never be the same
when we get back.

[Ralph Cinque]

Aren't I subjecting a lot of innocent photographers to risk?

What do you mean "innocent" ones? You mean, he isn't innocent? You figure,
he's guilty of something? And you apparently have a worse perspective on
the Kennedy-killers than I do since you think they're going to start
killing photographers randomly just to stop what I'm doing.

By the way, did I mention that I'm going to have an armed bodyguard the
day I'm in Dallas? Two, in fact. You'd be surprised how cheap it, bad
economy and all.

No, the images will be prominently displayed online, first on Dr. Fetzer's
site, then on the OIC site, and then on other sites that support us and
have the capacity to prevent theft of the photos. Again, the photos will
be personal property, and the taking of them will be a federal crime.

And yes, Oswald did mention it. He told Detective Fritz that he was "out
with Billy Shelley in front." Perhaps you missed that.

We have come very far very fast. Just the other day, I was approached by a
longtime seasoned researcher, Roy Schaffer, and he is now the 12th Senior
Member of the Oswald Innocence Campaign. We have excellent placement for
many search terms. And it's just a matter of time before we start drawing
some even bigger names. I wouldn't want to jinx it by telling you the ones
we think are in sight. And this is all in a matter of months. And we've
really just begun.

Hey Bud, Schmuck you, Mo-Fo!

[Winnie Winters]

what are the credentials like of your bodyguards? What if they are in a plot to get you hit in Dealey Plaza?

[Bud]

On Oct 28, 10:46 pm, Ralph Cinque <budab...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Aren't I subjecting a lot of innocent photographers to risk?
>
> What do you mean "innocent" ones? You mean, he isn't innocent? You figure,
> he's guilty of something? And you apparently have a worse perspective on
> the Kennedy-killers than I do since you think they're going to start
> killing photographers randomly just to stop what I'm doing.

I doubt it will be randomly. Probably alphabetically.

> By the way, did I mention that I'm going to have an armed bodyguard the
> day I'm in Dallas? Two, in fact. You'd be surprised how cheap it, bad
> economy and all.

You realize that the biggest threat to you that day will be from
your two armed bodyguards, right? Bad economy and all.

> No, the images will be prominently displayed online, first on Dr. Fetzer's
> site, then on the OIC site, and then on other sites that support us and
> have the capacity to prevent theft of the photos. Again, the photos will
> be personal property, and the taking of them will be a federal crime.

If they can just take a President`s body you think they can`t snatch
photographs?

> And yes, Oswald did mention it. He told Detective Fritz that he was "out
> with Billy Shelley in front." Perhaps you missed that.

And he said he was with WB Frazier in the morning, but the
significant time was when Kennedy was being shot.

> We have come very far very fast. Just the other day, I was approached by a
> longtime seasoned researcher, Roy Schaffer, and he is now the 12th Senior
> Member of the Oswald Innocence Campaign.

Twelfth Senior Member? Very impressive. Plenty of room for
advancement, as the conspiracy knocks off one through 11.

>We have excellent placement for
> many search terms. And it's just a matter of time before we start drawing
> some even bigger names. I wouldn't want to jinx it by telling you the ones
> we think are in sight. And this is all in a matter of months. And we've
> really just begun.

No, this nonsense started long before you jumped on the bandwagon.
It has never gone anywhere and never will.

[John McAdams]

On 28 Oct 2012 22:43:49 -0400, Ralph Cinque <buda...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Oh, geese. I should have killed this. Cinque has been submitting
posts without line breaks, and I think I've been distracted fixing the
line breaks and not taking enough time to read the posts.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Jason Burke]

On 10/28/2012 7:43 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> Marsh, you are not a smart man, and that's the sad truth. You say things
> that are really stupid and easy to destroy. Now, as far as someone getting
> photos from our site, I suppose they could try various things, but the
> pictures will be copyrighted, and it will say so, and it will say that
> their use is strictly forbidden without explicit permission from me.
> Therefore, taking them will be a criminal act. You want to try anyway,
> Marsh. Go ahead, but I will press charges.
>
> Regarding the shirts, Lovelady's was ordinary then, and it's ordinary now.
> I found one like it at the first store I went to. But, Oswald's shirt was
> unique then and virtually non-existent today.
>
> The shirt on Doorman is not the shirt on Lovelady afterwards. And even if
> your vision is only 20/200, you should be able to see it.
>
> [IMG]http://i50.tinypic.com/10yhumt.jpg[/IMG]
>
> And by the way, that Lovelady wasn't even Lovelady. He's an imposter.

Wow. You ARE desperate.

Say, are you at that Chiro nonsensical meeting tonight at the Embassy
Suites Love Field? Love to come laugh at you if so.

>
> And your last question shows what a mental midget you are, Marsh. In your
> infantile mind, you live in a fantasy world

Yet YOU are just full of truth and light. Hilarious.

where any kind of photographic
> manipulation is possible. They couldn't change Doorman's shirt because
> it's too big an element in the picture. If they tried to replace the
> shirt, as you suggest, it would look PHONY. It would be OBVIOUS. They
> couldn't SELL IT. They were stuck with it, you dumb pluck!
>
> Marsh, you're going down, and you're too freaking stupid to live. If other

This boy has REALLY gone off the deep end.

> people weren't working to keep you alive, you'd be dead.
>

I don't agree much (if at all,) with Mr. Marsh, but that sounds like an
unacceptable threat.

[winniew...@gmail.com]

On Monday, October 29, 2012 1:16:00 PM UTC+10:30, Ralph Cinque wrote:

Ralph, you are one of the most vulgar and rude men in the JFK scene i have
come across. It's no wonder why you are constantly banned from forums .
Nobody is swallowing your tripe and i'm sure the only reason people will
be interested in those photos is to laugh at your expense.

To make up a story that your life is being threatened is very akin to Mary
Judyth Baker who is known to fabricate many stories

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/28/2012 10:43 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> Marsh, you are not a smart man, and that's the sad truth. You say things
> that are really stupid and easy to destroy. Now, as far as someone getting
> photos from our site, I suppose they could try various things, but the
> pictures will be copyrighted, and it will say so, and it will say that
> their use is strictly forbidden without explicit permission from me.

Yeah, so what? Downloading them does not violate any law.

> Therefore, taking them will be a criminal act. You want to try anyway,
> Marsh. Go ahead, but I will press charges.
>

Bring it on. Take me to court. I dare you.
You don't even know what fair use means. The only reason I would post
them is to point out your errors.

> Regarding the shirts, Lovelady's was ordinary then, and it's ordinary now.
> I found one like it at the first store I went to. But, Oswald's shirt was
> unique then and virtually non-existent today.
>

Silly. I thought you said it was handmade. You need to keep your theory
consistent.

> The shirt on Doorman is not the shirt on Lovelady afterwards. And even if
> your vision is only 20/200, you should be able to see it.
>
> [IMG]http://i50.tinypic.com/10yhumt.jpg[/IMG]
>
> And by the way, that Lovelady wasn't even Lovelady. He's an imposter.
>

So, Whenever you get boxed into a corner, just claim that all the
evidence is fake. Maybe it wasn't even really Dealey Plaza.

> And your last question shows what a mental midget you are, Marsh. In your
> infantile mind, you live in a fantasy world where any kind of photographic
> manipulation is possible. They couldn't change Doorman's shirt because

Wrong. I am not the one claiming that photos were altered.

> it's too big an element in the picture. If they tried to replace the
> shirt, as you suggest, it would look PHONY. It would be OBVIOUS. They
> couldn't SELL IT. They were stuck with it, you dumb pluck!
>

But you just said the alterations were obvious. You can't even stay
consistent in your own arguments.

[Anthony Marsh]

Where is the Print Screen button the Windows 8 Surface tablet?
Some other idiot also assumed that Javascript code would prevent people
from downloading his copyright graphics. And he didn't sue me when I
posted them to criticize his work.
In fact he finally corrected one after I hounded him for three years.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/28/2012 10:43 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:

> Marsh, you are not a smart man, and that's the sad truth. You say things
> that are really stupid and easy to destroy. Now, as far as someone getting
> photos from our site, I suppose they could try various things, but the
> pictures will be copyrighted, and it will say so, and it will say that
> their use is strictly forbidden without explicit permission from me.
> Therefore, taking them will be a criminal act. You want to try anyway,
> Marsh. Go ahead, but I will press charges.
>

So, you claim to know Fetzer? Well, Fetzer also threatened to sue me.
Ask him how that went.
Press charges right now. Today.
I told you how I downloaded the copyright pictures from the Dale Myers
website. Did he sue me? No, he is not that stupid.

[Anthony Marsh]

Does the word Newbie ring a bell. The guy doesn't know any better.
It would hurt to post some tips about how to post messages on Usenet.
We even have some old=timers who compose tomes in Word and then upload
them with embedded high ASCII. How rude.
Remember the guy who never used CAPS and the guy who put everything in
CAPS because it was so important?

> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[Anthony Marsh]

I tend to have that effect on some people. Like Fetzer.

>> people weren't working to keep you alive, you'd be dead.
>>
>
> I don't agree much (if at all,) with Mr. Marsh, but that sounds like an
> unacceptable threat.
>
>

I certainly hope so. As I said to him: bring it on. Ask Fetzer how well
his threats against me worked.

[Bud]

On Oct 29, 10:57 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On 28 Oct 2012 22:43:49 -0400, Ralph Cinque <budab...@gmail.com>

I thought you were getting a little lax letting him call DVP
"Pienhead".

> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm