news:312821f0-5ed5-497a-8f2b-cc8f730f9fc6@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?

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.

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?  

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.

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.

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.

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.

On Oct 26, 2:45 pm, Ralph Cinque <budab...@gmail.com> wrote:

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

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!!!

On 10/26/2012 4:02 PM, Zobicus wrote:

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

On 10/27/2012 2:57 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:

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.

On Oct 25, 2:52 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

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

On Oct 26, 3:45 pm, Ralph Cinque <budab...@gmail.com> wrote:

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

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.

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!"

On 10/28/2012 11:25 AM, Ralph Cinque wrote:

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.

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

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.

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

Not very professional of them.

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.

"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

On Oct 28, 11:25 am, Ralph Cinque <budab...@gmail.com> wrote:

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

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

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

  Photoshop.

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

   *yawn*

On 10/28/2012 7:41 PM, Bud wrote:

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

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

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.

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.

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!

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

On Oct 28, 10:46 pm, Ralph Cinque <budab...@gmail.com> wrote:

  I doubt it will be randomly. Probably alphabetically.

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

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

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

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

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

On 28 Oct 2012 22:43:49 -0400, Ralph Cinque <budab...@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