For Ralph Cinque (Re: The Altgens Photo Being Shown On TV)

[David Von Pein]

This, of course, is not important at all, but I thought I'd share the
following CBS-TV video clip, which aired on CBS at precisely 6:31 PM EST
(5:31 PM CST in Dallas) on 11/22/63, exactly five hours and one minute
after JFK was killed. The clip has Walter Cronkite showing the TV audience
the Altgens photograph (the "Doorway Man" picture):

http://YouTube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=yxhr2aV-CQE#t=285s

I knew I had seen the Altgens picture being shown by somebody on live TV
on the day of the assassination, but I couldn't remember where it was in
my video collection. But I stumbled across it again today.

So I guess Ralph Cinque must think that the Altgens picture being held up
to the camera in the above video was faked and altered within less than 5
hours of the assassination. I suppose Ralph can believe that if he chooses
to. But does anyone else want to join him? I kind of doubt it.

[bpete1969]

On Wednesday, June 26, 2013 12:43:33 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> I suppose Ralph can believe that if he chooses
>
> to. But does anyone else want to join him? I kind of doubt it.

You seem to forget that he has several people that join him in believing that.

That's the whole purpose of the OIC, Fetzer, Hooke et al.

[Ralph Cinque]

5 hours was plenty enough time to alter the Altgens photo. My goodness,
they altered Kennedy's body in less time than that. Undoubtedly, they had
a crack team ready and waiting.

You're making a big deal about 5 hours as though that exonerates them? All
along the claim has been that the Altgens photo got out at 1:00. Why
didn't Walter Cronkite hold it up at, say, 1:30?

And note the narrative, referring to the SS agents peering back at the
"source of the shots". That's exactly what the AP caption said in all the
papers. So, they were saying the same thing on CBS? They had the script
down, didn't they?

[Ralph Cinque]

I have fabulous news: David Von Pein played a card that he thought would
be an ace, and it was- for us. It shows Walter Cronkite showing and
discussing the Altgens photo at 6:31 PM Dallas time on national
television. So, it was 5 hours after the assassination, which was also the
time the photo was taken.

http://YouTube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=yxhr2aV-CQE#t=285s

Can you figure out why it is such good news for us?

Five hours is a long time to alter a photo. If they had a crack team, and
I'm sure they did, it would have been more than enough. For goodness sake,
they altered Kennedy's body in less time than that, and that was a lot
bigger than a photo.

But, we have to refer back to the long-held claim that the Altgens photo
was wired to the world at 1:00 PM. If it had been wired to the world at
1:00 PM, wouldn't Walter Cronkite have been showcasing it on television
long before 6:30? The fact that he wasn't doing it at, say, 2:30 argues
that it wasn't available until much later.

How much time do you think they needed to alter this photo? It wasn't
days. A few hours was plenty enough time. It wouldn't be enough time for
you and me, but we're not experts.

Notice in the video that they speak of the SS agents turning and looking
back at the source of the shots, coming from the right rear. That's just
what the AP caption went on to say in all the papers. But, this was CBS
News, not the AP. This was a top-down script.

What this establishes is that the Altgens photo didn't reach Walter
Cronkite, "the most trusted man in America" until 5 hours after the
assassination. Those 5 hours might as well have been 5 weeks. They could
do it in that much time. They did do it in that much time.

[David Von Pein]

Well, when I said "does anyone else want to join him?", I was obviously
talking about reasonable men and women here on Planet Earth. I wasn't
referring to irrational crackpots from the planet Neptune (like Fetzer and
Hooke). :-)

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/26/2013 12:43 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> This, of course, is not important at all, but I thought I'd share the
> following CBS-TV video clip, which aired on CBS at precisely 6:31 PM EST
> (5:31 PM CST in Dallas) on 11/22/63, exactly five hours and one minute
> after JFK was killed. The clip has Walter Cronkite showing the TV audience
> the Altgens photograph (the "Doorway Man" picture):
>
> http://YouTube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=yxhr2aV-CQE#t=285s
>
> I knew I had seen the Altgens picture being shown by somebody on live TV
> on the day of the assassination, but I couldn't remember where it was in
> my video collection. But I stumbled across it again today.
>

Yes, and very early on people were speculating that is was Oswald in the
doorway and being rebutted by newsmen.

> So I guess Ralph Cinque must think that the Altgens picture being held up
> to the camera in the above video was faked and altered within less than 5
> hours of the assassination. I suppose Ralph can believe that if he chooses
> to. But does anyone else want to join him? I kind of doubt it.
>

Please. You're not giving him enough credit. He'll claim a half hour in
an Ultra Top Secret CIA photographic mobile lab. Heck, maybe the laundry
truck was really the secret lab!

[Ralph Cinque]

Fortunately for us, David Von Pein isn't the sharpest tool in the shed. If
he was, he'd have known better than to brandish that Walter Cronkite
video. Doing so scored nothing for him as 5 hours was plenty of time to
alter the Altgens photo. And considering that assassination coverage was
continuous on CBS throughout the afternoon, why didn't they show it
sooner?

Obviously, they thought it had tremendous propaganda value, and all
because of those two Secret Service agents peering back at the TSBD. So,
why not plant the seed as early as possible? If the Altgens photo really
went out to the world at 1:00, why not show it earlier?

And look at the copy that they showed. It was horrible; about the worst I
have ever seen.

http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/6750/mum5.jpg

Here it is alongside a good version of the Altgens:

http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/9962/f8i0.jpg

You can't blame it on the overall quality of the telecast:

http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/4988/l483.jpg

You can't blame it on digitalization because everything I'm showing you is
digitalized.

I think they deliberately used a low resolution image. They wanted you to
see what they wanted you to see, and they certainly didn't want the
doorway area standing out. It's the equivalent of using lots of makeup to
cover up scars, and believe me, this photo had plenty of scars from their
botched and rushed alterations.

And think about Cronkite's narrative. After pointing out the Secret
Service agents peering back at the source of the shots (which was the main
propaganda value of the photo) he pointed to JFK's hands going up, saying
that he was clutching Mrs. Kennedy. But, that's not what he was doing with
his hands at all. He was clutching at his neck because he was shot there.
And then Cronkite said that Mrs. Kennedy placed her husband's bleeding
head in her lap as they sped off to the hospital. But, that's not what
happened either. What happened is that he was struck in the head with a
frangible, explosive bullet from the Grassy Knoll which violently drove
his head back and to the left. Then, Jackie freaked out and started
crawling over the back of the limo only to be met by Clint Hill, who was
able to jump off the car behind and catch up to the limo on foot, which
tells you that that limo must have come damn close to- if not to- a
complete stop during the shooting.

So, what Cronkite said was wrong. It was a script that he was ordered to
read. And, he seemed pretty halting and unsure of himself in the way that
he read it, especially the part about the Altgens photo. Watch it again
with that in mind. It starts at 4 minutes and 45 seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?

Anyway, this does nothing to harm our thesis. 5 hours was more than enough
time to doctor the Altgens photo.

[Jason Burke]

Nooo, it establishes that Cronkite didn't show the photo until five hours
after it was taken, Raplh.

The photo *still* went out on the wire within 33 minutes after it was
taken, Raplh.

Or, maybe, just maybe, Cronkite was in on it, Raplh! Being as he's passed
away and all, I'm sure you can go after him in your usual way, Raplh.

[Jason Burke]

Soooo, Raplh! Are you now backing off from your claim that all the
newspapers that had Altgens' photo splattered on the front page on 22nov
were fake?

[David Von Pein]

RALPH CINQUE SAID:

I have fabulous news: David Von Pein played a card that he thought would

be an ace, and it was--for us. It shows Walter Cronkite showing and
discussing the Altgens photo at 6:31 PM Dallas time [sic; Cinque's wrong
here; it was really 5:31 PM Dallas time] on national television.

[...]

http://www.YouTube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=yxhr2aV-CQE#t=285s

[...]

What this establishes is that the Altgens photo didn't reach Walter

Cronkite, "the most trusted man in America", until 5 hours after the

assassination. Those 5 hours might as well have been 5 weeks. They could
do it in that much time. They did do it in that much time.

DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:

Yeah, that's the exact response I expected from Cinque. He's got his
photo-altering fantasy down pat.

~yawn~

Now, here's some more bad news for Dr. Cinque----

The Altgens "Doorway Man" photo was published on the front page of "The
Sheboygan Press" in Sheboygan, Wisconsin, on the day of the assassination,
in the November 22, 1963, edition (see it at the link below).

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VR_iKpeXpd0/UcvynEENP0I/AAAAAAAAu7s/bMGLnEKATjM/s6000-h/Sheboygan-Press-Front-Page-11-22-63.jpg

So, Ralph, when do you think the editors of that Sheboygan newspaper
gained possession of the Altgens photograph? As late as 6:31 PM EST? I
doubt it.

That paper was likely on newsstands well prior to 6:30. The Sheboygan
paper and undoubtedly many other newspapers around the country were able
to get that photo into their evening editions (or in the many "Extras"
that were created during the day on November 22) because Altgens' picture
ran on the AP wireservice several hours prior to the newspaper deadlines.

Let's watch Ralph squirm now, as he attempts to explain how a U.S.
newspaper DATED NOVEMBER 22, 1963, was able to publish James Altgens'
"Doorway Man" picture on its front page.

Maybe Ralph will resurrect the hilarious "Mobile Photo-Altering Lab In
Dealey Plaza" theory. I really like the sound of that one. The "zany" and
"desperate" qualities that exist within that theory are ideal for Ralph
Cinque and his "OIC".

[Ralph Cinque]

Burke, You are still be presumptuous. Despite this, the concerns about the
few papers publishing the Altgens photo on 11/22 persist.

This was a live broadcast. Walter Cronkite was holding that crummy copy of
the Altgens photo in his hands. But, let's say that newspapers across the
country got it in their hands at about the same time as he did. That's
reasonable because if Cronkite had gotten it much earlier, presumably, he
would have shown it earlier. Why wait?

So, if an Eastern time-zone paper gets it at 6:30 PM Easter, can they get
it published that very evening? Evening papers typically come out about
5:00 PM. But, if a paper got it at 6:30, it would still have to be laid
out in the paper; the paper would still have to be printed, dried,
bundled, loaded, and distributed. So what time would that place it into
the readers' and subscribers' hands? 8:00 PM? That's not how it works.
Evening papers don't come out that late in the evening. They don't expect
people to stay up at night waiting for an evening edition to come out. The
economics of it depend on an earlier release time than that.

As I said, the problems with the 11/22 Altgens sightings persist for these
reasons:

1) There are so few of them. In the 1960s, there were over 1100 evening
papers in the US, as reported here.

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Evening+Newspapers

I realize that not all of them were affiliated with the AP, but a lot of
them were.

2) There were no big metropolitan newspapers with it from big urban
centers like New York, Washington, Chicago, Houston, or even Dallas. How
could the Dallas Times Herald, an AP paper, not have it on 11/22 when the
event took place in Dallas?

3) It's troubling that small papers from upstate Wisconsin and rural
Michigan should have it, considering their smaller staffs and meager
resources, and not the big behemoth papers.

4) It's especially troubling for one paper, the Benton Harbor
News-Palladium, for which there is a lavish 10 page Extra Edition that
includes not only the Altgens photo and many other photos, but many
comprehensive articles covering JFK, LBJ, Oswald- even Lady Bird. It
included an article all about JFK's life, all about his political career,
all about his accomplishments as President, all the details about his
foreign trips as President, etc. How could all that be produced in time
for the evening edition? It was 1:30 in the afternoon eastern time before
Kennedy got shot, so how could this small town paper have amassed it all
in just a few hours? And even if you want to say that the AP did most of
it, it doesn't make sense. When a famous person is about to die, is
expected to die, they do get prepared so that the minute the shoe drops,
they can issue a bunch of stuff. But, why would they have been so prepared
for JFK unless they knew he was going to be assassinated? At time, he was
young and looking vigorous. I know he had his health problems, but he
still had the lowest golf handicap of any President before or since. You
can't tell me they thought he could die of natural causes. So, there is no
way that the Benton Harbor News-Palladium could have done all that, and
it's unlikely the AP could either. But, if the AP did it, then why aren't
there comparable 10 page Extra Editions in all the AP papers? So far, I
have not been able to find any other paper in the country with a special
edition that rivals or even matches the lavish spread out of Benton
Harbor, Michigan, and that just doesn't make sense.

So, as far as I'm concerned, the possibility of fraud in this matter still
persists despite Walter Cronkite having the Altgens photo in his hands at
6:30.

[Robin Unger]

Altgens Photo sent to AP subscribers worldwide at 12:55


http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Altgens-Mack.jpg

[Robin Unger]

Sheboygon Press 22/11/63


http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/pres25.jpg

[Anthony Marsh]

FYI. we went after Cronkite while he was still alive. A CIA elite media
asset.
The time frame still remains a half hour for alteration.
I have suggested to Cinque that he change his theory to it being altered
in an Ultra Top Secret CIA mobile photo lab. Maybe something like a fake
laundry truck. We need to help this guy out.
He's going under water and needs a lifeline.

[Anthony Marsh]

Poisoning the Well.

[bpete1969]

Sorry Ralph...you're wrong again.

The Racine Journal Times published Altgens 6 in the afternoon.

Picture of it here...

http://bpete1969.blogspot.com/2013/06/ralph-cinque-and-oic-obvious.html

Click on the picture for a large version and you can clearly read...afternoon

[Ralph Cinque]

That wasn't Altgens6, Robin. Altgens6 got handled differently than the other Altgens photos, and British researcher Paul Rigby agrees:

British JFK researcher Paul Rigby maintains that the Altgens6 photo (there were 7 altogether) was handled differently than the other 6. There was a delay in the release of Altgens6 because it was first wired to AP headquarters in New York, where it was "cropped twice." Rigby maintains that there was roughly a two to three hour window of opportunity for them to alter it. His exact words were: "I don't wish to exaggerate the window of opportunity for alteration. It was, at most, I hazard a guess, two to three hours. But, a window of opportunity there does appear to have existed."

Paul Rigby is a well-respected JFK researcher, so we are going to let him expound:

"On the basis of the available evidence, we can, provisionally at least, conclude the following: 1) Altgens did not develop his own photos; 2) Altgens6 went by fax, not to the world at large, but to the AP New York HQ, at just after 1:00 PM CST; 3) the negatives were sent by commercial airline, ostensibly to the same destination but did not arrive until hours after the initial fax; 4) the dissemination of the image from NY did not occur until at least 2 hours after the fax arrived but before the arrival of the negatives; 5) Both the AP and Altgens appear to have sought to conceal this hiatus; 6) AP acted against its own commercial interest in delaying release of Altgens6; 7) the version which first appeared in the final editions of newspapers in Canada and the US on the evening of November 22 was heavily, and very obviously, retouched; 8) point 7 may not be the explanation, either full or partial, for the concealed delay; it is quite conceivable that obvious alterations were used to draw attention away from other more subtle stuff."

[Ralph Cinque]

I called the Sheboygan Press, and they were an evening newspaper in 1963, so that proves nothing. And, do tell why every evening paper in the US didn't publish the Altgens photo on 11/22? Well over half the papers in the country at the time were either evening papers or had evening editions.

Oh, and regarding the special "Extra" editions of which you say there were many, I only know of the Extra edition of the Benton Harbor News-Palladium, and I would very much like to see the other extra editions of which you speak. So, surely you won't refuse to proffer them. So, let's see those other Extra editions.

[Jason Burke]

On 6/27/2013 9:25 AM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> Burke, You are still be presumptuous. Despite this, the concerns about the
> few papers publishing the Altgens photo on 11/22 persist.
>

How do I 'be presumptuos', Raplh? You now know beyond a shadow of a
doubt that A6 was out there on 22nov. Unless, of course, the clip that
DVP put up was faked.

> This was a live broadcast. Walter Cronkite was holding that crummy copy of

And we know it was a 'crummy copy' because? Oh, I Cee. Because you
grabbed a still from a youtube video and it looked 'crummy'. Is that it,
Raplh?

> the Altgens photo in his hands. But, let's say that newspapers across the
> country got it in their hands at about the same time as he did. That's

No, Raplh, newspapers got it in their hands at 1303 Central.

> reasonable because if Cronkite had gotten it much earlier, presumably, he
> would have shown it earlier. Why wait?

Because he wanted to annoy the living crud out of you 50 years later, Raplh?

>
> So, if an Eastern time-zone paper gets it at 6:30 PM Easter, can they get

But the Eastern papers got it at 1403, Raplh.

> it published that very evening? Evening papers typically come out about

But this was a big news story, Raplh. What basis do you have for
claiming that nothing was printed after 1700, Raplh?

> 5:00 PM. But, if a paper got it at 6:30, it would still have to be laid
> out in the paper; the paper would still have to be printed, dried,
> bundled, loaded, and distributed. So what time would that place it into
> the readers' and subscribers' hands? 8:00 PM? That's not how it works.

So, you're allowing ninety minutes for printing and distributing, huh,
Raplh? Sooo, that means there could have been a paper with A6 out at
1533 EST, eh, Raplh?

> Evening papers don't come out that late in the evening. They don't expect

See above, Raplh. They didn't have to come out at 2000, Raplh.

> people to stay up at night waiting for an evening edition to come out. The
> economics of it depend on an earlier release time than that.
>

1533, Raplh, according to *your* calculations.

> As I said, the problems with the 11/22 Altgens sightings persist for these
> reasons:
>
> 1) There are so few of them. In the 1960s, there were over 1100 evening
> papers in the US, as reported here.

Gee, Raplh, maybe the editors saw A7 (1355) and decided to publish it
rather than A6 (1403.) Or are you now an expert in reading minds of
editors 50 years ago?

Oh, I Cee. A7 was probably faked also. It that it, Raplh?

>
> http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Evening+Newspapers
>
> I realize that not all of them were affiliated with the AP, but a lot of
> them were.
>
> 2) There were no big metropolitan newspapers with it from big urban
> centers like New York, Washington, Chicago, Houston, or even Dallas. How
> could the Dallas Times Herald, an AP paper, not have it on 11/22 when the
> event took place in Dallas?

Because they didn't, Raplh.

>
> 3) It's troubling that small papers from upstate Wisconsin and rural
> Michigan should have it, considering their smaller staffs and meager
> resources, and not the big behemoth papers.
>

Why is that troubling, Raplh? Perhaps they chose to use other pictures,
Raplh.

> 4) It's especially troubling for one paper, the Benton Harbor
> News-Palladium, for which there is a lavish 10 page Extra Edition that
> includes not only the Altgens photo and many other photos, but many
> comprehensive articles covering JFK, LBJ, Oswald- even Lady Bird. It
> included an article all about JFK's life, all about his political career,
> all about his accomplishments as President, all the details about his
> foreign trips as President, etc. How could all that be produced in time
> for the evening edition? It was 1:30 in the afternoon eastern time before

Oh, come on Raplh. Do you *honestly* think there's not a few files
around - on computers these days, of course - that don't have ten pages
ready to go on Obama, The Bushes, Britney Spears, etc., should they
happen to keel over this morning?

> Kennedy got shot, so how could this small town paper have amassed it all
> in just a few hours? And even if you want to say that the AP did most of
> it, it doesn't make sense. When a famous person is about to die, is
> expected to die, they do get prepared so that the minute the shoe drops,
> they can issue a bunch of stuff. But, why would they have been so prepared
> for JFK unless they knew he was going to be assassinated? At time, he was

Oh, geez. So *they* were in on it too.

> young and looking vigorous. I know he had his health problems, but he
> still had the lowest golf handicap of any President before or since. You

Did Benton Harbor have a picture of him golfing, Raplh?

> can't tell me they thought he could die of natural causes. So, there is no
> way that the Benton Harbor News-Palladium could have done all that, and
> it's unlikely the AP could either. But, if the AP did it, then why aren't
> there comparable 10 page Extra Editions in all the AP papers? So far, I

Because there aren't, Raplh.

[Sandy McCroskey]

T-shirt and *tie*... really classy!
/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

Nonsense.

[Anthony Marsh]

Yeah, what, like 9PM?

[David Von Pein]

RALPH CINQUE SAID:

Do tell why every evening paper in the US didn't publish the Altgens photo
on 11/22?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

How do you know they didn't publish it on November 22? Have you seen every
single page of every U.S. newspaper dated 11/22/63?

As we can see via Robin Unger's excellent resource of newspaper scans,
most of the papers decided to print the Altgens picture that shows Clint
Hill climbing on the back of the limo. From a newspaper editor's POV, I
would imagine that the "Hill Climbing On Limo" picture was a bit more
dramatic and revealing than Altgens 6. So they went with the Hill picture
on their front pages.

http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/thumbnails.php?album=126

But those are the front pages ONLY. For the most part, we have no idea
what was printed on the INSIDE of those newspapers (on pages 2, 3, 4,
etc.). Do you know, Ralph? And if you haven't looked through every single
U.S. paper to find out, then your comment above about "every evening paper
in the U.S." is nothing but hot air coming from a person who doesn't have
a clue as to what might have been contained inside those newspapers.

If I were to guess, I'd bet that a whole lot of U.S. papers published
Altgens 6 in their evening editions on Nov. 22nd....just not on the front
page.

I suppose Ralph Cinque's next illogical and irrational argument will be
this one:

Well, Dave, if it wasn't published on the front page, but was
published somewhere else in the various newspapers on 11/22, then it
doesn't count. It has to be on the front page or else I'm still going to
whine about the photo being fake. And that Sheboygan front page which does
show Altgens 6 doesn't count either....because Sheboygan, Wisconsin, isn't
a BIG enough newspaper.

IOW -- Ralph gets to choose (from one minute to the next) what stuff to
throw out and what stuff to keep. He could easily be renamed Ralph
"Perpetually Moving The Goal Posts" Cinque.

It's hilarious to watch Cinque change the rules from day to day. Yesterday
he said:

"Evening papers typically come out about 5:00 PM. But, if a paper

got it at 6:30, it would still have to be laid out in the paper; the paper
would still have to be printed, dried, bundled, loaded, and distributed.
So what time would that place it into the readers' and subscribers' hands?

8:00 PM? That's not how it works. Evening papers don't come out that late
in the evening. They don't expect people to stay up at night waiting for

an evening edition to come out. The economics of it depend on an earlier

release time than that." -- R. Cinque


But now, 24 hours later, after I reminded Ralph that the Sheboygan Press
(an evening paper) did publish Altgens 6 on its front page on 11/22, we
get this from Ralph C. (as he squirms and moves those goal posts some
more):

"I called the Sheboygan Press, and they were an evening newspaper in

1963, so that proves nothing." -- R. Cinque

Absolutely hilarious. Ralph evidently completely forgot about the lengthy
paragraph he wrote yesterday about how the evening papers wouldn't have
had time to get Altgens 6 into their evening editions if the picture only
became available at 6:30 PM EST. And yet the Sheboygan front page is
staring him in the face.

And the Sheboygan paper is a paper that Ralph DID know about yesterday
(even before I posted a picture of it), because he talks about how it is
"troubling" that small papers in Michigan and "upstate Wisconsin" were
able to publish the Altgens picture on 11/22.

Which means that even Ralph knows that the Altgens 6 photo was available
to newspaper editors prior to 6:30 PM EST on 11/22. But he'll just pretend
that the small little papers in Michigan and Wisconsin "prove nothing".
Ralph, you see, is a walking goal post.

And when somebody next week shows Ralph a picture of Altgens 6 on the
front page of a major U.S. paper dated 11/22/63 (and there undoubtedly
were a few who printed that dramatic photo on their front pages on 11/22),
Ralph will move those goal posts a little more, and he'll say:

Doesn't count! It has to be printed ABOVE the fold and in the
LEFT-hand corner of the front page in order to convince me! Sorry.

[David Von Pein]

And, as mentioned by someone else in this thread, we have the Racine,
Wisconsin, paper from 11/22/63:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-TChooX5aEeM/Ucz8ZUYZcwI/AAAAAAAAu8c/eGbBPGz8wqk/s975-h/Racine-Newspaper-Front-Page-11-22-63.png

So that makes two Wisconsin papers which published Altgens 6 on 11/22. But
since John McAdams is a University professor in the state of Wisconsin,
and since Ralph thinks John is a disinfo agent, I'm guessing that Ralph
will automatically ignore anything that comes from Wisconsin.

[David Von Pein]

RALPH CINQUE SAID:

And look at the copy [of the Altgens 6 picture] that they showed [on the
CBS Television Network at 6:31 PM Eastern Standard Time]. It was horrible;
about the worst I have ever seen. .... I think they deliberately used a

low resolution image. They wanted you to see what they wanted you to see,
and they certainly didn't want the doorway area standing out.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

More snake oil being peddled by Dr. Cinque. Ralph thinks that a copy of a
picture that was retrieved off of an Associated Press wireservice machine
is going to look as clear and sharp as the original picture. Hilarious.

Re: the fakery that Cinque thinks was done to the Altgens "Doorway Man"
picture:

I'm sure this has been asked before by several people who have made the
futile attempt to engage Ralph Cinque in intelligent conversation, but
I'll ask it again anyway:

Why didn't the photo fakers simply REMOVE Oswald from Jim Altgens'
photograph entirely (versus performing all of this incredibly complicated
copy-and-paste type of fakery that you say they did perform)?

And even WITH the fakery Ralph claims was done, we're still left with a
man in the doorway who looks somewhat like the person the plotters are
trying to frame for President Kennedy's murder--Lee Harvey Oswald. How
dumb is that?

It stands to reason that since Billy Lovelady did resemble Oswald, then
Lovelady would have been one of the LAST individuals on the planet the
photo fakers would have wanted to falsely insert into the Altgens picture.

Why not just leave a blank space where Doorway Man is really standing?
After all, the area behind Doorway Man is very dark in the first place, so
removing the Oswald/Lovelady person entirely would probably have been
quite easy to do (even in 1963). The fake blank/black space would have
merely blended in with the blackness behind Doorway Man in the TSBD's
entranceway.

Or, alternatively, why not insert the fake picture of a black woman? Or
someone who at least didn't look like the person you're trying to convince
people WASN'T in the doorway?

IOW -- Do you have any idea, Ralph, why your plotters and photo
manipulators were so incredibly stupid?

[Glenn V.]

On Thursday, June 27, 2013 8:04:31 PM UTC+2, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> That wasn't Altgens6, Robin. Altgens6 got handled differently than the other Altgens photos, and British researcher Paul Rigby agrees:
>
>
>
> British JFK researcher Paul Rigby maintains that the Altgens6 photo (there were 7 altogether) was handled differently than the other 6. There was a delay in the release of Altgens6 because it was first wired to AP headquarters in New York, where it was "cropped twice." Rigby maintains that there was roughly a two to three hour window of opportunity for them to alter it. His exact words were: "I don't wish to exaggerate the window of opportunity for alteration. It was, at most, I hazard a guess, two to three hours. But, a window of opportunity there does appear to have existed."
>
>
>
> Paul Rigby is a well-respected JFK researcher,

Yes, who is also supporting the idea that Bill Greer shot Kennedy.

[David Von Pein]

And here's another November 22 newspaper for Cinque to sidestep. This one from Boise, Idaho:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gGaqoxvbPBk/Uc1mMnKhKFI/AAAAAAAAu9E/d8RBB-RW7pI/s1000/Boise-Idaho-Newspaper-11-22-63.JPG

[bpete1969]

Ralph Cinque..."And look at the copy that they showed. It was horrible; about the worst I have ever seen....

I think they deliberately used a low resolution image. They wanted you to

see what they wanted you to see,..."

Only Ralph Cinque would criticize CBS for using the Ralph Cinque Photogrammetry Method...

You've lost Ralph...your own perfect V nailed the lid down...

http://bpete1969.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-oic-and-unanswered-questions-part-ii.html

http://bpete1969.blogspot.com/2013/06/ralphlets-take-your-likes-behind-curtain.html

http://bpete1969.blogspot.com/2013/06/wheres-thumb-formed-perfect-v-ralph.html

[David Von Pein]

The 11/22/63 newspapers featuring the Altgens 6 picture are starting to pile up now (just as I predicted they would). Here's another one--from South Bend, Indiana:

http://www.rarenewspapers.com/view/551423?imagelist=1#full-images

[Ralph Cinque]

You think a picture of Clint Hill's back as he's riding on the back of the
limo is more dramatic than JFK's hands going up reacting to being shot?
Whatever you do, stick to frying chickens, Von Pein, and don't try to
become a movie director.

Altgens6 was not only more dramatic, but it had much more propaganda value
because they could point to those SS agents, corkscrew-turned and peering
back at the TSBD, "the source of the shots." That's what the AP caption
said below every appearance of the picture.

But, I agree that the decision to go through with publishing the Altgens6
photo even after they saw Oswald was in it was incredibly stupid. It was
also very arrogant that they should expect to get away with it. They
didn't.

And you don't know how to think. You don't know how to prioritize
information. You don't understand that some things matter more than other.
And the fact that we can see Oswald in the Altgens photo trumps anything
and everything else. It is him: his outer shirt, his t-shirt, his open
sprawl, his slender build, his stance. And when we look closer and
compare, we see that it is his ear, his chin, and more. It can't not be
him. What right do you have to say that it was Lovelady when there isn't
one thing that matches to Lovelady? Not one. The shirt pattern doesn't
match because Doorman's shirt pattern isn't plaid. And the hairline
doesn't match because it doesn't match the one reliable image we have of
BNL which was taken by Mark Lane. So, there is nothing authentically
Lovelady about Doorman. Absolutely nothing. He is Oswald.

[bpete1969]

NO RALPH....YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND....

[David Von Pein]

RALPH CINQUE SAID:

What right do you have to say that it was Lovelady when there isn't one thing that matches to Lovelady? Not one.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And yet it's YOU who says it's Lovelady's head pasted on Oswald's body. And yet you still think "there isn't one thing that matches to Lovelady"?

You don't even know what your own theory is, do you Cinque?

RALPH CINQUE SAID:

The shirt pattern doesn't match because Doorman's shirt pattern isn't plaid.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And yet it's YOU who claims that people were faking various films (Martin & WFAA) in an effort to ADD IN the plaid "Lovelady" shirt....even though it's a shirt YOU say Doorway Man ISN'T EVEN WEARING.

Can it get any funnier than that?

RALPH CINQUE SAID:

And the hairline doesn't match because it doesn't match the one reliable image we have of BNL which was taken by Mark Lane.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And yet you think the photo fakers pasted LOVELADY'S head on OSWALD'S body. And yet NOTHING seems to match Lovelady, eh? Even though the plotters are pasting on a LOVELADY head? I guess they might as well have pasted on the head of Irene Ryan or Fibber McGee for all the good it did them, huh Ralph?

Stick to your day job, Ralph. It's fairly obvious that this JFK stuff isn't for you.

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

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/28/2013 11:02 AM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> You think a picture of Clint Hill's back as he's riding on the back of the
> limo is more dramatic than JFK's hands going up reacting to being shot?
> Whatever you do, stick to frying chickens, Von Pein, and don't try to
> become a movie director.
>
> Altgens6 was not only more dramatic, but it had much more propaganda value
> because they could point to those SS agents, corkscrew-turned and peering
> back at the TSBD, "the source of the shots." That's what the AP caption
> said below every appearance of the picture.
>

Please explain what you mean. Are you suggesting that the shot came from
somewhere else than the TSBD? And that they faked their reflex reaction
of looking at the TSBD to incriminate Oswald? If so, then start new thread.
You are losing your focus.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/28/2013 9:55 AM, Glenn V. wrote:
> On Thursday, June 27, 2013 8:04:31 PM UTC+2, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>> That wasn't Altgens6, Robin. Altgens6 got handled differently than the other Altgens photos, and British researcher Paul Rigby agrees:
>>
>>
>>
>> British JFK researcher Paul Rigby maintains that the Altgens6 photo (there were 7 altogether) was handled differently than the other 6. There was a delay in the release of Altgens6 because it was first wired to AP headquarters in New York, where it was "cropped twice." Rigby maintains that there was roughly a two to three hour window of opportunity for them to alter it. His exact words were: "I don't wish to exaggerate the window of opportunity for alteration. It was, at most, I hazard a guess, two to three hours. But, a window of opportunity there does appear to have existed."
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul Rigby is a well-respected JFK researcher,
>
> Yes, who is also supporting the idea that Bill Greer shot Kennedy.
>

In other words a well-known kook.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/28/2013 1:53 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> RALPH CINQUE SAID:
>
> Do tell why every evening paper in the US didn't publish the Altgens photo
> on 11/22?
>

Copyright. They would have to subscribe to the AP wire service.

[steve...@peoplepc.com]

As you have noticed, Ralph, no one believes what you say. No matter how
many times you say "It's Oswald" in the doorway, it doesn't change the
facts, and the people know what the facts are, and the facts are that it
is Billy Lovelady in the doorway. Period. Twist it all you want, post
all of the blurry, poor quality, primitive pictures and home movie frames
that you want( which you MUST do to make your "case") and it isn't going
to change a thing.

I think it's is very sad that people such as yourself, go to the extremes
that you and your ilk go to, to try to keep the "conspiracy" going. I have
studied this case basically since it happened, and the level that you
people will go to get attention exasperates me. You are one of the poorest
examples of a "researcher" I have ever seen, so poor that you didn't even
know the difference between the 1967 CBS out take photo of Lovelady
standing in the doorway, Eddie Barker with his back to the camera( whom
you said was Bob Jackson) and a black and white photograph of Lovelady
taken in 1971. Why? Because you lack detective and research skills.

You simply cannot be taken seriously with the exception of people like the
pathetic Jim Fetzer and his pathetic followers!

Very truly yours,

Steve Barber

[Anthony Marsh]

Why are you allowed to call John a disinfo agent?
Are you trying to outdo Snowdon?
Shouldn't YOU be prosecuted for treason too?

The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (Pub.L. 97–200, 50
U.S.C. §§ 421–426) is a United States federal law that makes it a
federal crime for those with access to classified information, or those
who systematically seek to identify and expose covert agents and have
reason to believe that it will harm the foreign intelligence activities
of the U.S.,[1] to intentionally reveal the identity of an agent whom
one knows to be in or recently in certain covert roles with a U.S.
intelligence agency, unless the United States has publicly acknowledged
or revealed the relationship.[2]

[Ralph Cinque]

I'll tell you what happened, Von Pein. They blew Doorman's image up. Do
you recall what Mrs. Lovelady said? She said that they showed up at their
house with an image of Doorman "as big as a desk". That resulted in a
splotchy look to the shirt, which was mostly distortion. Perhaps they
didn't think about that. But, they don't actually make splotchy shirts.
They saw some contrast, some light and dark, some variation, and so they
called it plaid and went with it. What else could they do when they don't
make splotchy shirts?

I never said they pasted Lovelady's head on Doorman's body. It wasn't
anything like that. They altered Doorman's hairline to match that of
Lovelady when he was a young man. They had that picture of him from the
1950s. They knew that Black Hole Man was Lovelady because they could see
him intact. But, he had his hands atop his head vizoring his eyes, so they
couldn't see how much hair he had. They just assumed he had the same
amount of hair as before. They didn't consider that he could have lost a
lot of hair since the earlier picture. But, he did. So, they gave Doorman
Young Lovelady's hairline and forehead, and that is really the only thing
about Doorman's face the stands out as being Lovelady.

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 6/29/13 12:34 AM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 6/28/2013 1:54 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>> And, as mentioned by someone else in this thread, we have the Racine,
>> Wisconsin, paper from 11/22/63:
>>
>> http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-TChooX5aEeM/Ucz8ZUYZcwI/AAAAAAAAu8c/eGbBPGz8wqk/s975-h/Racine-Newspaper-Front-Page-11-22-63.png
>>
>>
>> So that makes two Wisconsin papers which published Altgens 6 on 11/22.
>> But
>> since John McAdams is a University professor in the state of Wisconsin,
>> and since Ralph thinks John is a disinfo agent, I'm guessing that Ralph
>> will automatically ignore anything that comes from Wisconsin.
>>
>
>
> Why are you allowed to call John a disinfo agent?

He didn't.
/sandy

[Ralph Cinque]

This is the second time I am posting this. You have no legitimate reason
not to post this, John. And it's going up on my site whether you do or
don't, along with DVP's post, so you might as well make him aware of
it.

I'll tell you what happened, Von Pein. They blew Doorman's image up. Do
you recall what Mrs. Lovelady said? She said that they showed up at their
house with an image of Doorman "as big as a desk". That resulted in a
splotchy look to the shirt, which was mostly distortion. Perhaps they
didn't think about that. But, they don't actually make splotchy shirts.
They saw some contrast, some light and dark, some variation, and so they

called it plaid and went with that. What else could they do since they
don't make splotchy shirts? And again: the splotchyness is mostly just
haze, distortion, and light reflection. Doorman's shirt pattern was just
grainy- like Oswald's- and you can see it in the better quality
resolutions of the Altgens photo.

I never said they pasted Lovelady's head on Doorman's body. It wasn't
anything like that. They altered Doorman's hairline to match that of
Lovelady when he was a young man. They had that picture of him from the
1950s. They knew that Black Hole Man was Lovelady because they could see
him intact. But, he had his hands atop his head vizoring his eyes, so they
couldn't see how much hair he had. They just assumed he had the same
amount of hair as before. They didn't consider that he could have lost a

lot of hair since the earlier picture. But, he did. Remember, it all
happened very fast, and the people doing it didn't know Lovelady. They
just went by that earlier photo. So, they gave Doorman the hairline of
Young Lovelady. That is what they transferred. And that is really the
only thing about Doorman's face that stands out as a match to Lovelady.

I don't know when the image of Young Lovelady first went public, but it
may not have been until the HSCA because it was published in the HSCA
Final Report. Was it ever published before then? Probably not, and I doubt
it. But just think: when it finally got published by the HSCA, it was
flipped. Left-to-right flipped, a mirror image. And it stayed flipped. You
want to know who unflipped it? A guy named Ralph Cinque. The proper one is
on the right. The flipped on on the left was published by the HSCA.

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/4571/c2ef.jpg

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

On Wednesday, June 26, 2013 6:43:33 PM UTC+2, David Von Pein wrote:
> This, of course, is not important at all, but I thought I'd share the
>
> following CBS-TV video clip, which aired on CBS at precisely 6:31 PM EST
>
> (5:31 PM CST in Dallas) on 11/22/63, exactly five hours and one minute
>
> after JFK was killed. The clip has Walter Cronkite showing the TV audience
>
> the Altgens photograph (the "Doorway Man" picture):
>
>
>
> http://YouTube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=yxhr2aV-CQE#t=285s
>
>
>
> I knew I had seen the Altgens picture being shown by somebody on live TV
>
> on the day of the assassination, but I couldn't remember where it was in
>
> my video collection. But I stumbled across it again today.
>
>
>
> So I guess Ralph Cinque must think that the Altgens picture being held up
>
> to the camera in the above video was faked and altered within less than 5
>
> hours of the assassination. I suppose Ralph can believe that if he chooses
>
> to. But does anyone else want to join him? I kind of doubt it.

"A guy named Ralph Cinque" -- you've got the title of your autobiography
!

[Anthony Marsh]

Oh yes, he did. The reason he was allowed to call John a disinfo agent
was because everyone knows that as a die-hard WC defender he meant it as
a joke. So that means that I am allowed to make a joke and claim that
you work for the CIA.

[tims...@gmail.com]

You forgot Lovelady's *Widow's Peak* Ralph, which we can CLEARLY see in
the Altgens photo.

Relying on that PATHETIC image of Mark Lane's shows just how weak your
research is, Ralph.

Informative 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!

[Anthony Marsh]

What happened to Drumrolls? Did you quit playing drums? How do you make
money now?

[Sandy McCroskey]

No, it's plain and simple: David simply didn't say that at all.

Rather, David made fun of someone else (Cinque) who has claimed or
insinuated that. I don't remember that exact post by Cinque, but that is
what David is saying. It is implicit in what *David* wrote that the very
notion that John could be a disinfo agent is ludicrous. That's an
intrinsic part of his *point*. Which you clearly missed.


/sm

[Ralph Cinque]

It's not a widow's peak; it's a reverse widow's peak. And I know we can see it on Doorman. We can also see it on Young Lovelady and on FBI Lovelady. But there had to be 6 or 7 years between Young Lovelady and FBI Lovelady, and yet, his hair looks exactly the same, as you can see right and left in the collage below. I trust the Mark Lane image at the bottom. Lots of fakery going on above.

http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/8878/oev4.jpg

[bpete1969]

Ralph Cinque has been imbedded in the thread...he doesn't really exist...

It's the result of an "eclipse event"...

http://bpete1969.blogspot.com/2013/06/a-primer-for-media-ralph-cinque-and-his.html

[Anthony Marsh]

So you are saying that David misrepresented someone else's post to
create that accusation? Isn't that against the rules? I guess that's why
you like it.

[Sandy McCroskey]

I didn't say that. If I knew what specific post(s?) David was referring
to, I might have cited it, or them, in order to attempt to clarify this
so complicated matter for you, but I have skipped a lot of Cinque's posts.


/sm