I went to Dealey Plaza and proved the lie

[Ralph Cinque]

I went to Dealey Plaza and proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the
black-hole face of Black Hole Man was a photographic alteration. You can't
blacken out your whole face by visoring your eyes with your hands. It's
impossible.

They did that to him, and it's because he was Billy Lovelady, and they
were going to claim that Doorman was Lovelady, and obviously, you can't
have two Billy Loveladys in the same photo. And notice that they never
tried to identify him as someone else. Oh no, they weren't interested. A
guy is standing there as headless as the Headless Horseman, and they
didn't give a good God-damn; the bastards. They spit on all of us when
they did this.

It's over, People. The fraudulence of this is screaming out loud at you.
Spread the word. The official story of the JFK assassination is an
abomination. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, it's time to tear it down.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/03/i-went-to-dealey-plaza-and-proved.html

[Conan The Contrarian]

What time of day and year was your picture taken Ralph. If it wasn't the
same time of day and year then your experiment is pointless.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/18/2017 3:37 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> I went to Dealey Plaza and proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the
> black-hole face of Black Hole Man was a photographic alteration. You can't
> blacken out your whole face by visoring your eyes with your hands. It's
> impossible.
>

Which photo are you talking about?

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

You did it, Ralph. You won. Now you must notify the authorities, and
take your rightful place as King of Kennedy Researchers (all genuflect
here). +

[Ralph Cinque]

Conan, my photo was taken on November 17. So yes, it was the same time of
year. And the photo is published on my blog, Marsh, for which I provided
the link. Why didn't you click it?

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/03/i-went-to-dealey-plaza-and-proved.html

This proves that the Altgens photo was altered because it contains an
optic and photographic impossibility that could only come about through
photographic alteration.

Now, we are going to find out how many honest and intelligent people there
are on this famous forum.

[Allan G. Johnson]

On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 8:14:00 PM UTC-4, Conan The Contrarian wrote:
> What time of day and year was your picture taken Ralph. If it wasn't the
> same time of day and year then your experiment is pointless.

Was it taken with the same camera as Altgens, or was it digital?

One thing I really don't understand about this whole Lovelady/Oswald in
the doorway argument is how conspirators could get hold of this photo and
realize the problem with having Oswald in the doorway and tamper with it
and still have it released for publication within an hour or so? Was
Altgens part of the conspiracy also?

[Allan G. Johnson]

On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 8:14:00 PM UTC-4, Conan The Contrarian wrote:

> What time of day and year was your picture taken Ralph. If it wasn't the
> same time of day and year then your experiment is pointless.

On the Altgens photo you can see similar shadows under the helmets and
on the foreheads of all 3 motorcycle cops. Also, if you look at the male
spectator in the background on the sidewalk between Clint Hill and the
motorcycle cop to his left he, too, is holding his hand up to block the
sun, causing a dark shadow on the upper half of his face. Is there a
conspiracy involving them also?

[Conan The Contrarian]

What time of day did you take the photo AND from what angle? All of this
makes a difference.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/19/2017 2:02 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> Conan, my photo was taken on November 17. So yes, it was the same time of
> year. And the photo is published on my blog, Marsh, for which I provided
> the link. Why didn't you click it?
>
> http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/03/i-went-to-dealey-plaza-and-proved.html
>
> This proves that the Altgens photo was altered because it contains an
> optic and photographic impossibility that could only come about through
> photographic alteration.
>

If you really think so then you should never cite the Altgens photo for
anything. Any time you make any claim about it, all we have to do is
tell you it has been altered. We could even claim that it was YOU who
altered it and posted it to mislead people. You don't have the negative.
I do.

[Ralph Cinque]

That's all you got, huh Johnson? How pathetic of you.

For this, there is no need to match the camera. It's not the camera that
determines the degree of shadow. It is a phenomenon of physics and optics.
And the Altgens6 was not released within an hour. The first showing of it
that we know of is when Walter Cronkite showed it on the CBS Evening News
at 6:30 PM Eastern, which was 5:30 Central. So, 5 hours after it was
taken. It is a LIE that the Altgens6 photo went out right away.

And no, you don't see similar shadows on any other figures. We are talking
about the complete blacking out of someone's face. It doesn't exist
elsewhere in this photo- nor anywhere in the world of photography. Find me
one other comparable image from the entire world of photography, Johnson.
Knock yourself out.

And you asked about Altgens. No, I don't presume he was part of the
conspiracy, at least not before the shooting. But, he was a team player.
He did support the official story, which spread over people's minds like a
tsunanmi. He didn't have the courage to stand up to the evil.

[Alex Foyle]

On Sunday, March 19, 2017 at 7:02:33 PM UTC+1, Ralph Cinque wrote:

> This proves that the Altgens photo was altered

It proves no such thing, Ralph, as usual with your neverending ridiculous
photo fakery/alteration claims. Pls get a new hobby and stop posting your
clickbait nonsense ad nauseam here, thanks.

[bigdog]

Ralph, in order to prove what you are claiming you would have to use the
same type of camera as Altgens, the same settings, the same film, take it
on the same day of the year and exactly the same time. Then your standins
would have to assume identical postures to the people in the Altgens
photo. Minor variations in any of these can significantly alter the
shadows. For example your color photo shows a much sharper contrast than
Altgens black and white picture. Your picture seems to have been taken
close to the steps and with the camera focused on those people. Altgens
was at a greater distance and his camera was set to focus on JFK in the
foreground and not the spectators in the background. Even a difference of
five days is going to affect how high in the sky the sun would be and the
time of day is critical as well. In short, Ralph, you have proved nothing.
Again.

[Anthony Marsh]

Is this the Shadow Conspiracy? You've been watching too much Doctor Who!
This whole discussion is silly. Either the Altgens photo is genuine or
it's a fake. I know it is genuine. I have the negative. If anyone thinks
it is fake don't discuss it at all.

Same with the Zapruder film and the autopsy photographs. We know of a
couple of faked photos and we have pointed them out before.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/19/2017 9:05 PM, Allan G. Johnson wrote:

I like your line of thinking. So you think all the photographers were part
of the conspiracy. But you should do some actual research some time and
find out who handled what photographic evidence and when. Ike Altgens did
not have a processing lab in his pocket. [to make up for that oversight I
added a meme that the laundry truck parked on the corner was actually a
CIA portable photo lab]. I assume you have never actually developed and
printed photographs so you know nothing about the process. I have. You
can't do it in your pants pocket.

You need to read Richard Trask's excellent book (and yes he is a WC
defender) Pictures of the Pain.

Immediately after the shooting, Altgens went back to the AP office and
someone took his film and developed it and within 20 minutes put the
photos out on the AP wires. The negatives were sent to New York. There was
no time or opportunity for Altgens to alter his pictures. He was busy on
the phone telling his story. You can make up a meme that the technician
who developed the photos was working for the CIA and altered all the
photos, but not having been in Dealey Plaza how would the CIA guy know
what to alter?

[bigdog]

Focus and contrast are the critical elements to your experiment, Ralph and
if you can't reproduce those nothing else matters. Don Willis made a
similar mistake a year or so ago in trying to prove the Dillard photo was
altered. In the wide angle view of the TSBD he posted the two black
employees didn't show up on the fifth floor but in the blow up of the
photo with sharper contrast, which is what is in the WCR, they show up
quite clearly. In your experiment, you took a close up shot of the
stand-ins on the stairs and they were in sharp focus. Those people were in
the distant background of the Altgens photos so naturally his camera
wasn't focused to pick them up. The result is a blurry image of those
people which doesn't show enough detail to prove what you claim it proves.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/20/2017 3:34 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> That's all you got, huh Johnson? How pathetic of you.
>
> For this, there is no need to match the camera. It's not the camera that
> determines the degree of shadow. It is a phenomenon of physics and optics.
> And the Altgens6 was not released within an hour. The first showing of it
> that we know of is when Walter Cronkite showed it on the CBS Evening News
> at 6:30 PM Eastern, which was 5:30 Central. So, 5 hours after it was
> taken. It is a LIE that the Altgens6 photo went out right away.
>

Then don't cite it for anything, you hypocrite.

[Ralph Cinque]

Wrong, Corbett. It was taken from Altgens' position.

And you don't know squat about physics or optics or anything else. I made
a reasonable challenge: Let anyone try to duplicate that photographic
result in the Altgens photo. You go to Dealey Plaza and do it. Show us how
you can duplicate Black Hole Man in the Altgens photo. But wait: I made it
much easier than that. I said to just produce a single photo from anywhere
in the world under any conditions in the world in which a person's entire
head was shaded to blackness. Show one other photo like that from the
entire history of photography. And you can't even do that. Oh, but for
wickedness of it all. Satan has got nothing on Man.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/20/2017 9:05 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Sunday, March 19, 2017 at 2:02:33 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>> Conan, my photo was taken on November 17. So yes, it was the same time of
>> year. And the photo is published on my blog, Marsh, for which I provided
>> the link. Why didn't you click it?
>>
>> http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/03/i-went-to-dealey-plaza-and-proved.html
>>
>> This proves that the Altgens photo was altered because it contains an
>> optic and photographic impossibility that could only come about through
>> photographic alteration.
>>
>> Now, we are going to find out how many honest and intelligent people there
>> are on this famous forum.
>
> Ralph, in order to prove what you are claiming you would have to use the
> same type of camera as Altgens, the same settings, the same film, take it
> on the same day of the year and exactly the same time. Then your standins
> would have to assume identical postures to the people in the Altgens

Oh, please, don't be silly. No one can do that. You can't do that,
National Geographic can't do that, Mythbusters can't do that.

> photo. Minor variations in any of these can significantly alter the
> shadows. For example your color photo shows a much sharper contrast than
> Altgens black and white picture. Your picture seems to have been taken
> close to the steps and with the camera focused on those people. Altgens
> was at a greater distance and his camera was set to focus on JFK in the
> foreground and not the spectators in the background. Even a difference of
> five days is going to affect how high in the sky the sun would be and the
> time of day is critical as well. In short, Ralph, you have proved nothing.
> Again.
>

Maybe the SUN was different that day too. Maybe it was a little redder.
Maybe its diameter was a little bit wider. Did you take into account
Global Warming? Did you take into account the fact that Dealey Plaza has
been sinking over the years? Did you take into account that the trees have
grown over the years?

And Ralph did prove something, but I am not allowed to tell you what it is
here.

[Anthony Marsh]

But then you wouldn't have the fun of attacking him and you might get
bored and go away.

[David Von Pein]

It's remarkable how Ralph Cinque can so easily convince (and delude)
himself into thinking he has actually "proved" something with respect to
his "photographic research" (please note the deliberate use of sarcastic
quotation marks there).

Ralph hasn't moved or displaced the conclusions of the Warren Commission
one inch, and yet we get fantastic declarations like the ones below from
his keyboard on almost a daily basis:

"It's Oswald in the doorway; there is no doubt about it."

"New large photographic alteration discovered."

"The likenesses to Lovelady were faked."

"Bookhout shot Oswald. It wasn't Ruby. It was Bookhout."

-----------

Some questions for us to ponder....

1.) I wonder what Ralph's "secret" is to unlocking all of the sinister
"fakery" that he insists exists in virtually every picture and film taken
on 11/22/63, 11/23/63, and 11/24/63?

2.) What special "talent" does Dr. Ralph Cinque possess that *nobody else*
in the history of JFK assassination research has ever possessed when it
comes to evaluating and assessing the photos and films associated with the
JFK murder case?

3.) How has Ralph been able uncover so much fakery in such a relatively
short period of time on the Internet, which is alleged fakery that *nobody
else on the planet has ever seen or uncovered*, even though every one of
those pictures and films has been available to everybody for decades?

I know the answers to the three questions I just asked. Do you, Ralph?

[Allan G. Johnson]

No need for the vitriol, this is just a discussion. Anyway, the entire
argument about the Altgens photo is moot. Why would conspirators go to
all the trouble to find the photo, realize there is a problem with Oswald
standing in the doorway, know about Lovelady being a lookalike, somehow
come up with a plan and means to alter the photo and then have it
released, and then hope there weren't any other photo's taken that day
which would expose the fraud?

The simplest, quickest and most logical thing to do would be to just
destroy the photo! More evidence this conspiracy (yeah, right) was
conducted by a Conspiracy of Dunces.

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

Gosh, Ralph, you're really not trying hard enough. Now go write another
post about this thread on your journal page.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/21/2017 12:00 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 3:34:04 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>> That's all you got, huh Johnson? How pathetic of you.
>>
>> For this, there is no need to match the camera. It's not the camera that
>> determines the degree of shadow. It is a phenomenon of physics and optics.
>> And the Altgens6 was not released within an hour. The first showing of it
>> that we know of is when Walter Cronkite showed it on the CBS Evening News
>> at 6:30 PM Eastern, which was 5:30 Central. So, 5 hours after it was
>> taken. It is a LIE that the Altgens6 photo went out right away.
>>
>> And no, you don't see similar shadows on any other figures. We are talking
>> about the complete blacking out of someone's face. It doesn't exist
>> elsewhere in this photo- nor anywhere in the world of photography. Find me
>> one other comparable image from the entire world of photography, Johnson.
>> Knock yourself out.
>>
>> And you asked about Altgens. No, I don't presume he was part of the
>> conspiracy, at least not before the shooting. But, he was a team player.
>> He did support the official story, which spread over people's minds like a
>> tsunanmi. He didn't have the courage to stand up to the evil.
>
> Focus and contrast are the critical elements to your experiment, Ralph and

False. It's not an experiment. It's a hoax.

[bigdog]

Just one photo? Any conditions? Anywhere in the word?

Damn, Ralph. I had to go all the way to Irving to find one.

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2034/2060351953_ede4f177d2_z.jpg

[Jason Burke]

On 3/21/2017 4:50 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> Wrong, Corbett. It was taken from Altgens' position.
>
> And you don't know squat about physics or optics or anything else. I made

Unlike Ralph, who has a PhD in physics. And another in optics. Oh wait,
maybe that was optical illusions.

> a reasonable challenge: Let anyone try to duplicate that photographic
> result in the Altgens photo. You go to Dealey Plaza and do it. Show us how

What does Anthony Anthony call that?
Oh, yeah. Shifting the Burden.

> you can duplicate Black Hole Man in the Altgens photo. But wait: I made it
> much easier than that. I said to just produce a single photo from anywhere
> in the world under any conditions in the world in which a person's entire
> head was shaded to blackness. Show one other photo like that from the
> entire history of photography. And you can't even do that. Oh, but for

I don't think that's BD's job, Ralph. I'm thinking maybe what you need
to do is look at every photo taken in the history of photography to
prove your thesis.

> wickedness of it all. Satan has got nothing on Man.
>

Marvin Gaye on that last line? Sounds familiar.

[Conan The Contrarian]

Ralph Cinque

You never answered my question. What time of day did you take this photo?

[Jason Burke]

On 3/21/2017 6:56 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> It's remarkable how Ralph Cinque can so easily convince (and delude)
> himself into thinking he has actually "proved" something with respect to
> his "photographic research" (please note the deliberate use of sarcastic
> quotation marks there).
>
> Ralph hasn't moved or displaced the conclusions of the Warren Commission
> one inch, and yet we get fantastic declarations like the ones below from
> his keyboard on almost a daily basis:
>
> "It's Oswald in the doorway; there is no doubt about it."
>
> "New large photographic alteration discovered."
>
> "The likenesses to Lovelady were faked."
>
> "Bookhout shot Oswald. It wasn't Ruby. It was Bookhout."
>
> -----------
>
> Some questions for us to ponder....
>
> 1.) I wonder what Ralph's "secret" is to unlocking all of the sinister
> "fakery" that he insists exists in virtually every picture and film taken
> on 11/22/63, 11/23/63, and 11/24/63?

He's a miracle worker!

>
> 2.) What special "talent" does Dr. Ralph Cinque possess that *nobody else*
> in the history of JFK assassination research has ever possessed when it
> comes to evaluating and assessing the photos and films associated with the
> JFK murder case?

Absolutely none. But he is good for a few chuckles.

>
> 3.) How has Ralph been able uncover so much fakery in such a relatively
> short period of time on the Internet, which is alleged fakery that *nobody
> else on the planet has ever seen or uncovered*, even though every one of
> those pictures and films has been available to everybody for decades?
>

'Cause he Da Man!

> I know the answers to the three questions I just asked.

Me too! What do I win?

> Do you, Ralph?

Sadly, Ralph doesn't. But then what would we have to giggle about? Oh,
wait. There's still Chris, Anthony Anthony, and a couple of others.

[Ralph Cinque]

David Von Pein, you didn't say anything. You didn't refute me. You didn't
even address anything I said. Now, you're off on a psychobabble trip,
analyzing ME. Not my work, but me.

There is a man in the Altgens photo who has NO FACE, which people have
attributed to shadow- extreme shadow. But, I went to Dealey Plaza and
duplicated it and proved that such an extreme shadow does not occur with
that position and those lighting conditions. Now, that is the ball that
has been hit to your court. That's what you need to address. Do you
understand that there is no other photographic image comparable to that
anywhere in the world? That it happened there and nowhere else?


And know this: I have no trouble getting regular people to see it. I don't
mean the people here. I mean regular people.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/21/2017 9:57 PM, Allan G. Johnson wrote:
> On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 3:34:04 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>> That's all you got, huh Johnson? How pathetic of you.
>>
>> For this, there is no need to match the camera. It's not the camera that
>> determines the degree of shadow. It is a phenomenon of physics and optics.
>> And the Altgens6 was not released within an hour. The first showing of it
>> that we know of is when Walter Cronkite showed it on the CBS Evening News
>> at 6:30 PM Eastern, which was 5:30 Central. So, 5 hours after it was
>> taken. It is a LIE that the Altgens6 photo went out right away.
>>
>> And no, you don't see similar shadows on any other figures. We are talking
>> about the complete blacking out of someone's face. It doesn't exist
>> elsewhere in this photo- nor anywhere in the world of photography. Find me
>> one other comparable image from the entire world of photography, Johnson.
>> Knock yourself out.
>>
>> And you asked about Altgens. No, I don't presume he was part of the
>> conspiracy, at least not before the shooting. But, he was a team player.
>> He did support the official story, which spread over people's minds like a
>> tsunanmi. He didn't have the courage to stand up to the evil.
>
> No need for the vitriol, this is just a discussion. Anyway, the entire

Did you open the wrong door by mistake?
(obscure reference to a Monty Python sketch)

> argument about the Altgens photo is moot. Why would conspirators go to
> all the trouble to find the photo, realize there is a problem with Oswald
> standing in the doorway, know about Lovelady being a lookalike, somehow
> come up with a plan and means to alter the photo and then have it
> released, and then hope there weren't any other photo's taken that day
> which would expose the fraud?
>
> The simplest, quickest and most logical thing to do would be to just
> destroy the photo! More evidence this conspiracy (yeah, right) was
> conducted by a Conspiracy of Dunces.

And who knew to destroy the photo. Do you know the only photo destroyed
that day and why? Of course not.

>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/21/2017 9:56 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> It's remarkable how Ralph Cinque can so easily convince (and delude)
> himself into thinking he has actually "proved" something with respect to
> his "photographic research" (please note the deliberate use of sarcastic
> quotation marks there).
>
> Ralph hasn't moved or displaced the conclusions of the Warren Commission
> one inch, and yet we get fantastic declarations like the ones below from
> his keyboard on almost a daily basis:
>
> "It's Oswald in the doorway; there is no doubt about it."
>
> "New large photographic alteration discovered."
>
> "The likenesses to Lovelady were faked."
>
> "Bookhout shot Oswald. It wasn't Ruby. It was Bookhout."
>
> -----------
>
> Some questions for us to ponder....
>
> 1.) I wonder what Ralph's "secret" is to unlocking all of the sinister
> "fakery" that he insists exists in virtually every picture and film taken
> on 11/22/63, 11/23/63, and 11/24/63?
>
> 2.) What special "talent" does Dr. Ralph Cinque possess that *nobody else*
> in the history of JFK assassination research has ever possessed when it
> comes to evaluating and assessing the photos and films associated with the
> JFK murder case?
>

Au Contraire. See Fetzer et al.

> 3.) How has Ralph been able uncover so much fakery in such a relatively
> short period of time on the Internet, which is alleged fakery that *nobody
> else on the planet has ever seen or uncovered*, even though every one of
> those pictures and films has been available to everybody for decades?
>

Never heard of Morningstar?
I had lunch with a kook who claimed that JFK was shot in the head while
he was hidden behind the sign and Walt Disney drew in the rest of the
film to cover that up.

> I know the answers to the three questions I just asked. Do you, Ralph?
>

You don't know the right questions to ask.

[bpete1969]

Actually, that's not true. Robin Unger and I showed that your photographer
was no where near Altgens position, within one day of your original post
on the matter.

[Jonny Mayer]

The altgens photo was edited. They highlighted JFK so he could be more
easily seen. I saw that somewhere is my source.

[Ralph Cinque]

No, Marsh. That was an experiment. YOU are a hoax.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/22/2017 6:32 PM, Jason Burke wrote:
> On 3/21/2017 4:50 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>> Wrong, Corbett. It was taken from Altgens' position.
>>
>> And you don't know squat about physics or optics or anything else. I made
>
> Unlike Ralph, who has a PhD in physics. And another in optics. Oh wait,
> maybe that was optical illusions.
>
>> a reasonable challenge: Let anyone try to duplicate that photographic
>> result in the Altgens photo. You go to Dealey Plaza and do it. Show us
>> how
>
> What does Anthony Anthony call that?
> Oh, yeah. Shifting the Burden.
>

I think someone did try to do it. A completely incompetent person. Do I
need to remind you that Dale Myers went to Dealey Plaza and recreated the
Moorman photo to prove that Badge Man was not real. So, yes it can be
done. But not by a kook.

>> you can duplicate Black Hole Man in the Altgens photo. But wait: I
>> made it
>> much easier than that. I said to just produce a single photo from
>> anywhere
>> in the world under any conditions in the world in which a person's entire
>> head was shaded to blackness. Show one other photo like that from the
>> entire history of photography. And you can't even do that. Oh, but for
>
> I don't think that's BD's job, Ralph. I'm thinking maybe what you need

I don't think it's a job for anyone here in THIS newsgroup.

> to do is look at every photo taken in the history of photography to
> prove your thesis.
>

I like that idea very much. It might be fun to take a look at some known
fakes.

[Ralph Cinque]

Corbett; what is wrong with you? Seriously, what is wrong with you. That
is NOT the same thing. That is obviously an artsy photo of apparently Tom
Landry, the Cowboy coach. They were going for that effect. It's not like
they were taking a regular, normal photo, and it just came out that way.
In the Altgens photo, there was no going for any effect. Altgens paid no
mind to Black Hole Man. And supposedly, just from visoring his eyes, it
had the effect of blackening out his whole head. Now, what does the photo
that you put up have to do with that? Absolutely nothing.

I am REALLY getting disgusted with the caliber of intelligence on this
forum. It's dismal. It's pathetic. Is this norm now? People like Corbett?
How about Marsh? Him too? Jesus, Mary, and Joseph.

[Jason Burke]

Hey! He used to coach my boys' defense.

[quan...@yahoo.com]

The AP Wire Photo Captions hold the key to unlocking the correct
transmission times.

Altgens 7 was transmitted World Wide at 12:55PM
Altgens 6 was transmitted World Wide at 1:03PM

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

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 11:12:04 PM UTC-4, Jonny Mayer wrote:
> The altgens photo was edited. They highlighted JFK so he could be more
> easily seen. I saw that somewhere is my source.

If by edited you mean they sharpened the contrast that seems plausible. In
a black and white photo, the shades of gray sometimes blend together
making it more difficult to see detail. Sharpening the contrast can bring
out detail.

[Jonny Mayer]

It was for when it was printed cropped in a paper it was edited.

[Ralph Cinque]

On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 9:37:25 PM UTC-5, Conan The Contrarian wrote:
> Ralph Cinque
>
> You never answered my question. What time of day did you take this photo?

Conan: 12:30. Sharp.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/22/2017 11:12 PM, Jonny Mayer wrote:
> The altgens photo was edited. They highlighted JFK so he could be more
> easily seen. I saw that somewhere is my source.
>

Silly. Then don't talk about it and don't make any claims about it.

[Ace Kefford]

On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 3:37:04 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> I went to Dealey Plaza and proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the
> black-hole face of Black Hole Man was a photographic alteration. You can't
> blacken out your whole face by visoring your eyes with your hands. It's
> impossible.
>
> They did that to him, and it's because he was Billy Lovelady, and they
> were going to claim that Doorman was Lovelady, and obviously, you can't
> have two Billy Loveladys in the same photo. And notice that they never
> tried to identify him as someone else. Oh no, they weren't interested. A
> guy is standing there as headless as the Headless Horseman, and they
> didn't give a good God-damn; the bastards. They spit on all of us when
> they did this.
>
> It's over, People. The fraudulence of this is screaming out loud at you.
> Spread the word. The official story of the JFK assassination is an
> abomination. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, it's time to tear it down.
>
> http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/03/i-went-to-dealey-plaza-and-proved.html

From the headline I thought you had confronted some of the "experts" who
frequent the area and inflict their "facts" on visitors.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/22/2017 10:54 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> David Von Pein, you didn't say anything. You didn't refute me. You didn't
> even address anything I said. Now, you're off on a psychobabble trip,
> analyzing ME. Not my work, but me.
>
> There is a man in the Altgens photo who has NO FACE, which people have
> attributed to shadow- extreme shadow. But, I went to Dealey Plaza and

Old rule: When you can't attack the arguments, attack the man.
And McAdams allows and encourages it.

> duplicated it and proved that such an extreme shadow does not occur with
> that position and those lighting conditions. Now, that is the ball that

Nope.

> has been hit to your court. That's what you need to address. Do you
> understand that there is no other photographic image comparable to that
> anywhere in the world? That it happened there and nowhere else?

Except all the other photos he took. Are they ALL fakes? For what
purpose? Maybe his photo of the grassy knoll shows the real shooter and
it was a buddy of his so he airbrushed him out?
Is that a wild enough theory for you?

>
>
> And know this: I have no trouble getting regular people to see it. I don't
> mean the people here. I mean regular people.

You don't knoe any regular people.

[bigdog]

You're right that it wasn't my job but it was fun to do it anyway. Ralph
put it on a tee for me and I couldn't resist taking a swing at it.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/23/2017 10:17 PM, Jonny Mayer wrote:
> It was for when it was printed cropped in a paper it was edited.
>

What was? What do you mean. Please try to speak English.

[Anthony Marsh]

What you got against Jesus? And Mary and Joseph are very nice, too.

[Jason Burke]

Thank you, Resident Genius, Ralph Cinque, OCD. (Or *whatever* title they
give to bone-benders.)

[bigdog]

While Lombardi ran the offense.

[bigdog]

No it isn't an artsy photo. It is actually a frame capture from an often
shown NFL Films clip. As I'm sure you are aware, the former Cowboy Stadium
in Irving was a semi-dome with a hole in the center of the roof. This
resulted in much of the stadium being in shade while parts of it were in
full sunlight. The cameraman stood behind Tom Landry who was in full shade
but it would seem the camera was set to for the action on the field which
was in full sun. This resulted in Landry appearing as a silhouette. My
guess is it wasn't planned but it produced a dramatic contrast of Landry's
blackened figure against the backdrop of the crowd in full sunlight. Had
it been set to pick up Tom Landry's features in the shade then anything in
the bright sunshine would have shown up as nothing but glare. This is much
the same thing that occurred in the Altgens photo. His camera lens was set
up to capture a subject in bright sunshine and that resulted in anything
in full shade being blacked out. The gentleman who shaded his face with
his hands resulted in his face showing up completely blacked out.

[bigdog]

On Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 9:57:16 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/24/2017 9:53 AM, bigdog wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 6:32:31 PM UTC-4, Jason Burke wrote:
>> On 3/21/2017 4:50 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>>> Wrong, Corbett. It was taken from Altgens' position.
>>>
>>> And you don't know squat about physics or optics or anything else. I made
>>
>> Unlike Ralph, who has a PhD in physics. And another in optics. Oh wait,
>> maybe that was optical illusions.
>>

I thought it was Psychics, not Physics!

>>> a reasonable challenge: Let anyone try to duplicate that photographic
>>> result in the Altgens photo. You go to Dealey Plaza and do it. Show us how
>>
>> What does Anthony Anthony call that?
>> Oh, yeah. Shifting the Burden.
>>
>>> you can duplicate Black Hole Man in the Altgens photo. But wait: I made it
>>> much easier than that. I said to just produce a single photo from anywhere
>>> in the world under any conditions in the world in which a person's entire
>>> head was shaded to blackness. Show one other photo like that from the
>>> entire history of photography. And you can't even do that. Oh, but for
>>
>> I don't think that's BD's job, Ralph. I'm thinking maybe what you need
>> to do is look at every photo taken in the history of photography to
>> prove your thesis.
>>
>
> You're right that it wasn't my job but it was fun to do it anyway. Ralph
> put it on a tee for me and I couldn't resist taking a swing at it.
>

Then show us YOUR photo. You mean the one you took at Disney?

[Jason Burke]

And Jim Lee sat around drinking beer for 7 seasons. With those two, why
not?

[Jason Burke]

You've lost Ralph. And not just on this point.
Deal with it.