Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Why the Altgens woman is not holding the Altgens boy
156 views
Skip to first unread message
Ralph Cinque
Jun 19, 2013, 12:06:19 PM6/19/13
to
Here are some comparison pictures regarding the Woman and Boy from the
Altgens photo. In the first, there is a big strong man holding a little
girl with one arm. She is sitting on his arm, and in order to be facing
straight, she's got her spine twisted- a lot.
http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/8130/h8b5.jpg
Note that you can see the man's arm underneath the girl. You can't see the
woman's arm underneath the boy. And note that since the girl is
essentially sitting, you can see her legs projecting in front of her
torso. But you can't see the legs of the boy, and that's because they are
underneath him; he's standing.
Then, there is this image of a girl being held by a woman who is not a big
strong man, so she has to use a different technique. She essentially has
the girl sitting on and straddling her pelvic bone. That relieves her arms
of the work of holding her up. So, it transfers the weight to the woman's
legs, which are relatively much stronger. There is much less disparity in
leg strength between men and women than for arm strength. But, in order to
get it to work, she has a V going. The V refers to her leaning the girl
out slightly away from her and leaning herself the other way.
http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/7643/yl6m.jpg
The V is very effective because it gets a counterbalance going.
Counterbalance is, of course, what enables two children to both remain
suspended in the air on a seesaw without expending any energy. In this
case, the leaning takes the woman's muscles to the point of tensile
stretch- where they are operating more like straps than muscles. This
conserves energy.
But, on the Woman and Boy from Altgens both are vertical; there is no
leaning going on. She is getting none of the energy savings. If she is
supporting him with her arm, she's doing it through active contraction and
nothing else. Superwoman!
Then, here is another very common way of holding a child: leaning
backwards. What that does is exploit the tensile strength of the extensor
muscles and ligaments of the back, and also the tensile strength of the Y
ligament of Bigelow, also known as the iliofemoral ligament, which is the
strongest ligament in the humn body. Tensile strength refers to resistance
to being stretched, not active contraction. So, it doesn't cost any
energy; you're just leaning on the ligament. It is NOT the correct way to
carry anything, but people often do it. It's really a form of laziness as
far as I'm concerned. But notice that this is a man doing it, not a woman.
Also notice that the child he is holding is smaller and lighter than the
boy in the Altgens photo.
http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/5976/1g3d.jpg
Just compare the two. Does anybody still think that she is holding up that
boy? She most certainly is not.
Altgens photo. In the first, there is a big strong man holding a little
girl with one arm. She is sitting on his arm, and in order to be facing
straight, she's got her spine twisted- a lot.
http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/8130/h8b5.jpg
Note that you can see the man's arm underneath the girl. You can't see the
woman's arm underneath the boy. And note that since the girl is
essentially sitting, you can see her legs projecting in front of her
torso. But you can't see the legs of the boy, and that's because they are
underneath him; he's standing.
Then, there is this image of a girl being held by a woman who is not a big
strong man, so she has to use a different technique. She essentially has
the girl sitting on and straddling her pelvic bone. That relieves her arms
of the work of holding her up. So, it transfers the weight to the woman's
legs, which are relatively much stronger. There is much less disparity in
leg strength between men and women than for arm strength. But, in order to
get it to work, she has a V going. The V refers to her leaning the girl
out slightly away from her and leaning herself the other way.
http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/7643/yl6m.jpg
The V is very effective because it gets a counterbalance going.
Counterbalance is, of course, what enables two children to both remain
suspended in the air on a seesaw without expending any energy. In this
case, the leaning takes the woman's muscles to the point of tensile
stretch- where they are operating more like straps than muscles. This
conserves energy.
But, on the Woman and Boy from Altgens both are vertical; there is no
leaning going on. She is getting none of the energy savings. If she is
supporting him with her arm, she's doing it through active contraction and
nothing else. Superwoman!
Then, here is another very common way of holding a child: leaning
backwards. What that does is exploit the tensile strength of the extensor
muscles and ligaments of the back, and also the tensile strength of the Y
ligament of Bigelow, also known as the iliofemoral ligament, which is the
strongest ligament in the humn body. Tensile strength refers to resistance
to being stretched, not active contraction. So, it doesn't cost any
energy; you're just leaning on the ligament. It is NOT the correct way to
carry anything, but people often do it. It's really a form of laziness as
far as I'm concerned. But notice that this is a man doing it, not a woman.
Also notice that the child he is holding is smaller and lighter than the
boy in the Altgens photo.
http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/5976/1g3d.jpg
Just compare the two. Does anybody still think that she is holding up that
boy? She most certainly is not.
David Von Pein
Jun 19, 2013, 10:33:12 PM6/19/13
to
It just never ends with Ralph Cinque, does it? Never. The more he looks,
the more photo fakery he finds.
Shouldn't there be some limitation on the amount of crackpottery that even
tolerant moderators like John McAdams and Peter Fokes are forced to endure
during their tenure here on Earth?
I don't think I've ever felt such sympathy for anyone like I feel now for
.John and Peter, as they have to go through the unenviable task-- day in
and day out--of reading all of Cinque's mindbogglingly stupid claims of
photo and film fakery.
I think I'd rather be struck by lightning twice in the same day that have
to moderate Ralph Cinque's never-ending series of "Everything's Fake"
tripe that is submitted to this aaj newsgroup.
John & Peter -- I salute you. To be able to stomach the constant stream of
Cinque's nauseating garbage that crosses each of your desks each day
certainly must not be an easy task. But, perhaps you can merely look upon
it as "comic relief". After all, the best place for Dr. Cinque is, indeed,
the comic strips.
the more photo fakery he finds.
Shouldn't there be some limitation on the amount of crackpottery that even
tolerant moderators like John McAdams and Peter Fokes are forced to endure
during their tenure here on Earth?
I don't think I've ever felt such sympathy for anyone like I feel now for
.John and Peter, as they have to go through the unenviable task-- day in
and day out--of reading all of Cinque's mindbogglingly stupid claims of
photo and film fakery.
I think I'd rather be struck by lightning twice in the same day that have
to moderate Ralph Cinque's never-ending series of "Everything's Fake"
tripe that is submitted to this aaj newsgroup.
John & Peter -- I salute you. To be able to stomach the constant stream of
Cinque's nauseating garbage that crosses each of your desks each day
certainly must not be an easy task. But, perhaps you can merely look upon
it as "comic relief". After all, the best place for Dr. Cinque is, indeed,
the comic strips.
Ralph Cinque
Jun 19, 2013, 11:38:32 PM6/19/13
to
The Altgens boy obviously does not have his right arm around his mother,
but does he have his left arm around her? No, he does not. Everything is
connected, and if his arm were doing that, it would affect the alignment
of his shoulders, his back, his neck- everything. I have drawn a pink line
showing the plane of his shoulders, and they are balanced, neutral, and
equal.
http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/1814/1q76.jpg
Here is a boy with an arm around his pal, who is shorter than he is. Still
it takes his shoulder up on that side, and you can see how diagonal his
shoulders are.
http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/4075/qfin.jpg
We would be seeing that from behind if the Altgens boy were doing that to
his mother. But, he's not.
So, he is not embracing her at all, and if she is holding him, it is with
one hand: her right hand. All that weight in one hand and without leaning
to reduce the strain on her muscles. As I said, she's SuperWoman.
But, is she really holding him with her right hand? If so, how? Is he
sitting on her arm like the he-man carried the child? This boy is
definitely not sitting. Again, he's too straight-up. People don't sit that
straight. Not even children sit that straight- especially when they don't
have a chair-back, and he does not.
Is she just squeezing him and pressing him to her? No, we'd be seeing her
arm going around him if that were true. And what is this?
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/2104/g7c.jpg
It is not her arm. It looks like a bone, but it's definitely not her arm.
So, what is it?
And why is he wearing a wool cap, and why does he have it pulled down
around his ears? It was sunny and in the high 60s. It may have hit 70
degrees. I wear wool caps too- if it's 50 degrees or lower. And I won't
fold it down over my ears until it gets down to 40 or less.
Kids have very good peripheral circulation, plus they have high
metabolism. No kid is going to want to wear a wool cap pulled down over
his ears on a 70 degree day. Where did they get this image? What were they
really doing? Fishing in Michigan? Watching a football game in Wisconsin?
but does he have his left arm around her? No, he does not. Everything is
connected, and if his arm were doing that, it would affect the alignment
of his shoulders, his back, his neck- everything. I have drawn a pink line
showing the plane of his shoulders, and they are balanced, neutral, and
equal.
http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/1814/1q76.jpg
Here is a boy with an arm around his pal, who is shorter than he is. Still
it takes his shoulder up on that side, and you can see how diagonal his
shoulders are.
http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/4075/qfin.jpg
We would be seeing that from behind if the Altgens boy were doing that to
his mother. But, he's not.
So, he is not embracing her at all, and if she is holding him, it is with
one hand: her right hand. All that weight in one hand and without leaning
to reduce the strain on her muscles. As I said, she's SuperWoman.
But, is she really holding him with her right hand? If so, how? Is he
sitting on her arm like the he-man carried the child? This boy is
definitely not sitting. Again, he's too straight-up. People don't sit that
straight. Not even children sit that straight- especially when they don't
have a chair-back, and he does not.
Is she just squeezing him and pressing him to her? No, we'd be seeing her
arm going around him if that were true. And what is this?
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/2104/g7c.jpg
It is not her arm. It looks like a bone, but it's definitely not her arm.
So, what is it?
And why is he wearing a wool cap, and why does he have it pulled down
around his ears? It was sunny and in the high 60s. It may have hit 70
degrees. I wear wool caps too- if it's 50 degrees or lower. And I won't
fold it down over my ears until it gets down to 40 or less.
Kids have very good peripheral circulation, plus they have high
metabolism. No kid is going to want to wear a wool cap pulled down over
his ears on a 70 degree day. Where did they get this image? What were they
really doing? Fishing in Michigan? Watching a football game in Wisconsin?
slats
Jun 19, 2013, 11:50:33 PM6/19/13
to
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote in
news:1c679a1b-899a-48d8...@v2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
+1
He's unhealthily obsessed with the Altgens photo and his inane, fact-free
posts are tantamount to trolling.
news:1c679a1b-899a-48d8...@v2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
He's unhealthily obsessed with the Altgens photo and his inane, fact-free
posts are tantamount to trolling.
Robin Unger
Jun 20, 2013, 10:55:40 AM6/20/13
to
It's so hard for a woman to hold a child on her hip, for an extended
period of time. ROFLMAO
These two woman seen in Murray would not agree.
http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Murrayscan16.jpg
period of time. ROFLMAO
These two woman seen in Murray would not agree.
http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Murrayscan16.jpg
Robin Unger
Jun 20, 2013, 11:03:17 AM6/20/13
to
Cinque is wrong as usual.
One of the woman seen in the Murray photo was holding her child for hours
on the afternoon of the assassination.
We see her in Murray, Darnell, Couch and each time she has the child
resting on her right hip.
The other Murray woman was also holding her baby for hours on the
afternoon of the assassination, and can be seen in Both Murray, and Couch
http://1078567.sites.myregisteredsite.com/dc/user_files/13625.jpg
http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/13697.jpg
One of the woman seen in the Murray photo was holding her child for hours
on the afternoon of the assassination.
We see her in Murray, Darnell, Couch and each time she has the child
resting on her right hip.
The other Murray woman was also holding her baby for hours on the
afternoon of the assassination, and can be seen in Both Murray, and Couch
http://1078567.sites.myregisteredsite.com/dc/user_files/13625.jpg
http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/13697.jpg
bpete1969
Jun 20, 2013, 11:06:58 AM6/20/13
to
Yo...Earth to Ralph...
You have yet to answer any question I have asked you on the other post.
That aside, David and Slats bring up very good points and to them I will
add the rantings you left on my blog over night...
http://bpete1969.blogspot.com/2013/06/ralph-cinque-and-oic-obvious.html?showComment=1371698454231#c6745915083116992146
Ralph Cinque:"You want to go mano-a-mano with me tough guy? Well bring it
on."
"I'll destroy you in McAdam's dumb forum like I consistenly do with
Backass."
"I've beaten him on every poing he brings up in his hate-blog. Bring it
on. People want to know more about the truth I bring and not your lies.
Your whole website here is full of guano like Backass"
Dumb forum Ralph? Is it dumb because they let you spam the place with
reposts from your Facebook page? Or is it dumb because the people that
read these posts, that don't know any better, are fooled into thinking
this must be something of substance because it's on McAdams forum so maybe
they should give it more consideration than if they stumbled across your
Facebook page?
I got news for you Einstein, you are incapable of destroying anyone. You
are incapable of lucid, coherent discussion on any topic let alone
photographic analysis.
I ask you again...what training in photogrammetry, photographic analysis
or photography do you have?
You have yet to answer any question I have asked you on the other post.
That aside, David and Slats bring up very good points and to them I will
add the rantings you left on my blog over night...
http://bpete1969.blogspot.com/2013/06/ralph-cinque-and-oic-obvious.html?showComment=1371698454231#c6745915083116992146
Ralph Cinque:"You want to go mano-a-mano with me tough guy? Well bring it
on."
"I'll destroy you in McAdam's dumb forum like I consistenly do with
Backass."
"I've beaten him on every poing he brings up in his hate-blog. Bring it
on. People want to know more about the truth I bring and not your lies.
Your whole website here is full of guano like Backass"
Dumb forum Ralph? Is it dumb because they let you spam the place with
reposts from your Facebook page? Or is it dumb because the people that
read these posts, that don't know any better, are fooled into thinking
this must be something of substance because it's on McAdams forum so maybe
they should give it more consideration than if they stumbled across your
Facebook page?
I got news for you Einstein, you are incapable of destroying anyone. You
are incapable of lucid, coherent discussion on any topic let alone
photographic analysis.
I ask you again...what training in photogrammetry, photographic analysis
or photography do you have?
Ralph Cinque
Jun 20, 2013, 11:08:14 AM6/20/13
to
Of course, DVP didn't refute or even address a thing that I said- and this
from a guy who usually writes volumes answering what others say. What's
the matter? Cat got your tongue? And when all else fails, play the
censorship card.
The Woman and Boy in the Altgens photo are not legit. And do you know how
many illegits it takes to establish fraud? All it takes is one. We have
much more than one, but one is enough. The Altgens photo may be the most
altered photo ever.
from a guy who usually writes volumes answering what others say. What's
the matter? Cat got your tongue? And when all else fails, play the
censorship card.
The Woman and Boy in the Altgens photo are not legit. And do you know how
many illegits it takes to establish fraud? All it takes is one. We have
much more than one, but one is enough. The Altgens photo may be the most
altered photo ever.
Anthony Marsh
Jun 20, 2013, 11:59:26 AM6/20/13
to
Anthony Marsh
Jun 20, 2013, 4:34:44 PM6/20/13
to
Anthony Marsh
Jun 20, 2013, 4:36:07 PM6/20/13
to
evidence as genuine.
Ralph Cinque
Jun 20, 2013, 4:38:56 PM6/20/13
to
bpete, are you implying that only those who have degrees in photography
are entitled to have opinions about the content of photographs? Then why
are you spouting opinions? The fact is that less than .01% of people have
degrees in photography, so I guess what you're really saying is that we
should all stop discussing it.
But, the fact is that lots of people are inclined to render opinions. I
don't believe that Richard Sprague was a photo expert, was he? Yet, he
glibly and authoritatively stated that the arm we see coming down in the
Altgens photo was not Doorman's, but rather not that of the black man.
Rather, it was the arm of another black man standing on the sidewalk and
waving at the motorcade. This is what he said:
http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/651/uua3.jpg
He didn't even have the decency to post anything or provide any
references. I back up everything I say with a visual so that others,
professional photogs or not, can see with their own eyes what I am talking
about.
It is a very bogus argument to suggest that only professional
photogrammetrists are entitled to have opinions about this. It is akin to
saying "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain..." and what you're
really doing is trying to discourage the whole inquiry.
I consulted with a professional commercial photographer, Doug Davis. He
has a degree from one of the leading colleges of photography in the
country. And Doug agreed that the Altgens photo was altered. Here is
Doug's website:
http://www.d2studios.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=76&Itemid=479
are entitled to have opinions about the content of photographs? Then why
are you spouting opinions? The fact is that less than .01% of people have
degrees in photography, so I guess what you're really saying is that we
should all stop discussing it.
But, the fact is that lots of people are inclined to render opinions. I
don't believe that Richard Sprague was a photo expert, was he? Yet, he
glibly and authoritatively stated that the arm we see coming down in the
Altgens photo was not Doorman's, but rather not that of the black man.
Rather, it was the arm of another black man standing on the sidewalk and
waving at the motorcade. This is what he said:
http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/651/uua3.jpg
He didn't even have the decency to post anything or provide any
references. I back up everything I say with a visual so that others,
professional photogs or not, can see with their own eyes what I am talking
about.
It is a very bogus argument to suggest that only professional
photogrammetrists are entitled to have opinions about this. It is akin to
saying "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain..." and what you're
really doing is trying to discourage the whole inquiry.
I consulted with a professional commercial photographer, Doug Davis. He
has a degree from one of the leading colleges of photography in the
country. And Doug agreed that the Altgens photo was altered. Here is
Doug's website:
http://www.d2studios.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=76&Itemid=479
Sandy McCroskey
Jun 20, 2013, 7:54:17 PM6/20/13
to
Ralph Cinque wrote:
> bpete, are you implying that only those who have degrees in photography
> are entitled to have opinions about the content of photographs? Then why
> are you spouting opinions? The fact is that less than .01% of people have
> degrees in photography, so I guess what you're really saying is that we
> should all stop discussing it.
>
The question comes up only when someone such as yourself claims to find
> bpete, are you implying that only those who have degrees in photography
> are entitled to have opinions about the content of photographs? Then why
> are you spouting opinions? The fact is that less than .01% of people have
> degrees in photography, so I guess what you're really saying is that we
> should all stop discussing it.
>
things in photographs that contradict what 99 percent of the population
can plainly see there with their naked eyes.
Of course, nobody thinks for a second that you have any expertise at all.
You graduated from the Jack White School of Amateur Photo Analysis, and we
know what that's worth.
/sm
Jason Burke
Jun 20, 2013, 7:55:02 PM6/20/13
to
Davis, Raplh.
Say, I can help you here! I own some property in the 4700 block of Live
Oak. How about I go and chat with him next time I'm in the 'hood? Just
to see just what a Real Pro has to say about alteration. Might be fun!
Can you set it up for me, Raplh? Actually, my wife's down there now. How
about she stops in if she has a chance before her trip tomorrow? Or do
you think her flight attendant uniform would scare him off?
bpete1969
Jun 20, 2013, 8:19:35 PM6/20/13
to
Ralph,
You're the one that trashed the HSCA photographic evidence panel for the
specific reason that they were anthropologists and not photo analysts...
You have the memory span of a gnat.
You're the one that trashed the HSCA photographic evidence panel for the
specific reason that they were anthropologists and not photo analysts...
You have the memory span of a gnat.
Anthony Marsh
Jun 20, 2013, 9:32:46 PM6/20/13
to
Robin Unger
Jun 20, 2013, 10:54:44 PM6/20/13
to
Regarding woman holding child in Altgen's 6
She is NOT wearing a white dress ?
She is wearing a dark colored dress, and has a light colored scarf tied
Around her neck, as can be seen seen in Towner.
She is NOT wearing a white dress ?
She is wearing a dark colored dress, and has a light colored scarf tied
Around her neck, as can be seen seen in Towner.
Anthony Marsh
Jun 20, 2013, 11:09:52 PM6/20/13
to
Robin Unger
Jun 21, 2013, 1:01:48 PM6/21/13
to
Cinque Quote:
Ralph Cinque:
That is nonsense, Unger. Altgens woman is not wearing a dark dress. And a scarf around her neck? It was sunny and 70 degrees! There is no scarf!
My reply:
It was sunny and 70 degrees! There is no scarf!
Did you not notice that the woman seen in Murray,Darnell, and Couch holding the child on her hip all afternoon, was also wearing a scarf on her head. ?
Regardless of the fact that it was 70 degrees and sunny.
Did you not see Babushka wearing a scarf on her head. ?
Regardless of the fact that it was 70 degrees and sunny.
More garbage from Cinque.
Ralph Cinque:
That is nonsense, Unger. Altgens woman is not wearing a dark dress. And a scarf around her neck? It was sunny and 70 degrees! There is no scarf!
My reply:
It was sunny and 70 degrees! There is no scarf!
Did you not notice that the woman seen in Murray,Darnell, and Couch holding the child on her hip all afternoon, was also wearing a scarf on her head. ?
Regardless of the fact that it was 70 degrees and sunny.
Did you not see Babushka wearing a scarf on her head. ?
Regardless of the fact that it was 70 degrees and sunny.
More garbage from Cinque.
Robin Unger
Jun 21, 2013, 3:08:08 PM6/21/13
to
Cinque Quote:
What you said is a bold-faced lie, Unger. The Altgens woman is NOT wearing
a dark colored dress, and the Towner woman IS wearing a black dress and
there is skin tone above it and no scarf whatsoever, white or otherwise.
Unger Quote:
Really ?
Colorized Altgens 6 Crop
showing the woman holding the child.
http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj306/quaneeri2/6-3.jpg
What you said is a bold-faced lie, Unger. The Altgens woman is NOT wearing
a dark colored dress, and the Towner woman IS wearing a black dress and
there is skin tone above it and no scarf whatsoever, white or otherwise.
Unger Quote:
Really ?
Colorized Altgens 6 Crop
showing the woman holding the child.
http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj306/quaneeri2/6-3.jpg
bpete1969
Jun 21, 2013, 3:17:00 PM6/21/13
to
Ralph!
I used to think your little blurry pictures with lines and circles drawn
on them were foolish but I tried an experiment using your method with
amazing results...
http://bpete1969.blogspot.com/2013/06/ralph-cinque-may-be-on-something-i-mean.html
I used to think your little blurry pictures with lines and circles drawn
on them were foolish but I tried an experiment using your method with
amazing results...
http://bpete1969.blogspot.com/2013/06/ralph-cinque-may-be-on-something-i-mean.html
Jason Burke
Jun 21, 2013, 10:52:28 PM6/21/13
to
Ralph Cinque
Jun 21, 2013, 10:55:49 PM6/21/13
to
McAdams???? What is going on here? I keep posting responses to these guys
and you're not putting them up. You think you're going to win that way???
Unger, your coloring changes nothing, and it means nothing. You are adding
much more contrast than is really there.
http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/9292/3f2z.jpg
Yet, even with the phony contrast, it doesn't begin to close the gap to
the Towner woman.
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/2411/l1ax.jpg
You can't equate these two even with the coloring. It's a lost cause. Give
it up!
I'd say more, but McAdams seems bent on countering me by censoring me.
And bpete, you are not funny; you're not clever; and you're not the least
bit relevant.
and you're not putting them up. You think you're going to win that way???
Unger, your coloring changes nothing, and it means nothing. You are adding
much more contrast than is really there.
http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/9292/3f2z.jpg
Yet, even with the phony contrast, it doesn't begin to close the gap to
the Towner woman.
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/2411/l1ax.jpg
You can't equate these two even with the coloring. It's a lost cause. Give
it up!
I'd say more, but McAdams seems bent on countering me by censoring me.
And bpete, you are not funny; you're not clever; and you're not the least
bit relevant.
tims...@gmail.com
Jun 21, 2013, 11:45:16 PM6/21/13
to
revealed to be a bloke who fixed photo processing machines, NOT an expert
in questioned photographics?
The carnage was LEGENDARY, I hear.
Is that the same school of photography that you and Hooke graduated from
Ralph? I hear it was founded by Jack White.
Concerned 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!
Robin Unger
Jun 22, 2013, 1:34:39 PM6/22/13
to
Cinque says that backes is wrong, when he says that the woman in Towner
is holding the child, while at the same time waving at the limo.
As usual Cinque is wrong,the woman is most definately waving at the limo with her left arm.
http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/woman_and_child~0.jpg
Small 10-frame Towner GIF showing the woman waving
http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj306/quaneeri2/wavingwoman.gif
is holding the child, while at the same time waving at the limo.
As usual Cinque is wrong,the woman is most definately waving at the limo with her left arm.
http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/woman_and_child~0.jpg
Small 10-frame Towner GIF showing the woman waving
http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj306/quaneeri2/wavingwoman.gif
tims...@gmail.com
Jun 22, 2013, 1:38:07 PM6/22/13
to
The stuff you posit doesn't bear up to even a MODICUM of scrutiny, Ralph.
Where you ever to take it to the dreaded MSM it would last about as long as that bloke's story the other week who pretended to be an MIA in Vietnam.
Worked out yet that Lovelady CATEGORICALLY stated he was the LEFTMOST figure depicted in the TSBD doorway in the Altgens # 6 on a NUMBER of occasions, Ralph?
It would have been ASTOUNDING had he stated something different to Joseph Ball.
Which is why Ball doesn't make any amazed comment when examining Lovelady, Ralph. The arrow in the white and the arrow in the black simply point to the LEFTMOST figure in the Altgens # 6, Ralph.
It's game OVER for your silly *Oswald IS Doorman* nonsense.
Informative Regards,
bpete1969
Jun 22, 2013, 1:40:09 PM6/22/13
to
On Friday, June 21, 2013 10:55:49 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> And bpete, you are not funny; you're not clever; and you're not the least
>
> bit relevant.
Not the least bit relevant....
> And bpete, you are not funny; you're not clever; and you're not the least
>
> bit relevant.
Then that explains the 10 comments you made on my blog, the threatening email you sent, 2 posts on your facebook page discussing the Towner film and my comments on the Towner film, 1 post on your facebook page specifically discussing me and this forum, 1 post on your facebook page discussing Backes and my blog, 2 posts on your facebook page with direct links to two pages of my blog and 1 post on your facebook page discussing your discovery of a nonexistent arrow on CE 369 and my blog.
I'll bet you a dollar to a donut I have more emails from people telling me they thought my last blog was funny than you have confirmed attendees to your nov 11 me me me fest.
bpete1969
Jun 22, 2013, 9:01:03 PM6/22/13
to
On Friday, June 21, 2013 10:55:49 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
My post where I copied the threatening email you sent me wasn't allowed
either because of "threats of violence". Regardless of the fact that that
you threatened me for embarrassing you here.
I thought maybe everyone should see it.
Ralph Cinque
Jun 23, 2013, 4:30:28 PM6/23/13
to
"The arrow in the white and the arrow in the black simply point to the LEFTMOST figure in the Altgens # 6, Ralph."
What arrow in the black are you talking about? There is no such arrow, and every time you refer to it, YOU ARE LYING!
Robin, I'd seen that before. I know what it shows. I am questioning whether she really would do it: hold a baby in one arm and continuously wave with the other arm for 6+ seconds.
Would you hold a baby in just one hand? Wouldn't you automatically use two hands? Every time?
bpete, you are irrelevant.
Anthony Marsh
Jun 23, 2013, 4:32:39 PM6/23/13
to
He did not say, "Ralph Cinque may be ONTO something."
He actually said, "Ralph Cinque may be ON something."
bpete1969
Jun 24, 2013, 12:48:02 AM6/24/13
to
On Sunday, June 23, 2013 4:30:28 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> bpete, you are irrelevant.
So irrelevant that you cried "Uncle!"
http://bpete1969.blogspot.com/2013/06/a-reply-to-ralph-cinques-email.html
> bpete, you are irrelevant.
So irrelevant that you cried "Uncle!"
http://bpete1969.blogspot.com/2013/06/a-reply-to-ralph-cinques-email.html
bpete1969
Jun 24, 2013, 12:50:32 AM6/24/13
to
On Sunday, June 23, 2013 4:32:39 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> http://bpete1969.blogspot.com/2013/06/ralph-cinque-may-be-on-something-i-mean.html
> Do you have trouble understanding English?
>
> He did not say, "Ralph Cinque may be ONTO something."
>
> He actually said, "Ralph Cinque may be ON something."
Actually I said both..reread the full title
> >> http://bpete1969.blogspot.com/2013/06/ralph-cinque-may-be-on-something-i-mean.html
> Do you have trouble understanding English?
>
> He did not say, "Ralph Cinque may be ONTO something."
>
> He actually said, "Ralph Cinque may be ON something."
0 new messages