tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3853821172532333425.post4325874547108984489..comments2018-11-05T22:45:44.417+00:00Comments on Oswald Innocence Campaign: Series Note 2bpete1969http://www.blogger.com/profile/03892135951262929278noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3853821172532333425.post-30052643000753579522018-04-04T03:13:24.831+01:002018-04-04T03:13:24.831+01:00One of the implications of the analysis above by b...One of the implications of the analysis above by bpete is that Ralph Cinque and his cohorts have failed to arrive at a consensus about the identities of the people standing in the doorway. For years, Cinque, et. al. identified the man below Doorman as Roy Lewis. Later, he reversed himself, changing the name of Roy Lewis to Carl Jones. Apparently, there has also been confusion about the position of Bill Shelley, as noted by bpete above. Another discrepancy comes with conflicting identifications of Buell Frazier and Ruth Dean as the bystander wearing black clothing.<br /><br />With such sloppy work, how is possible to take seriously Cinque’s theory about Oswald in the doorway, when he cannot achieve clarity on the identities of the other bystanders?<br /><br />One of the most hilarious escapades of Cinque was his visit to Dallas for an onsite "recreation" of the figures standing in the Doorway of the TSDB at the time of the assassination. For the photo shoot, Cinque cast himself in the leading role of Doorman. It is funny to see Cinque standing with arm outstretched in his ludicrous impersonation of Doorman. Here is Ralph, mugging for the camera:<br /><br />https://www.google.com/search?biw=1280&bih=794&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=wTLEWoWcKIWJjwSDlouwBg&q=ralph+cinque+doorman&oq=ralph+cinque+doorman&gs_l=psy-ab.3...5536.7086.0.7254.7.7.0.0.0.0.78.498.7.7.0....0...1c..64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.AkTrroPdHsM#imgrc=FrIAMYYmNfOkVM:<br /><br />But to what purpose?<br /><br />The question is what on earth was he trying to accomplish in that recreation, if he cannot even identify with certainty the people under the portal?<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01586177397083549344noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3853821172532333425.post-62050976098461179432018-04-03T03:52:06.473+01:002018-04-03T03:52:06.473+01:00I kinda provoked him on this round. I'm going ...I kinda provoked him on this round. I'm going through and tearing up every damn paragraph. lolbpete1969https://www.blogger.com/profile/03892135951262929278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3853821172532333425.post-26327457161524983212018-04-02T23:33:40.373+01:002018-04-02T23:33:40.373+01:00Looks as though Cinque has come full circle.
Afte...Looks as though Cinque has come full circle.<br /><br />After 3-months wandering around in the DPD basement car park<br />he has finally resurfaced above ground.<br /><br />Having NOTHING new to discuss, he has decided to go back to the beginning, and start the whole Doorman in Altgens 6 fiasco again.<br /><br />Fetzer must be thrilled that Cinque is altering his statements, and putting words in his mouth without his knowledge ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3853821172532333425.post-88067368299536942632018-04-02T22:46:54.363+01:002018-04-02T22:46:54.363+01:00Professor James Henry Fetzer has recommended an ar...Professor James Henry Fetzer has recommended an article by Judyth Vary Baker as essential to understanding the Altgens6 photo. The article appears in one of Fetzer’s blogs entitled "Judyth Vary Baker Cements Oswald in the Doorway":<br /><br />http://www.thegovernmentrag.com/jfk-judyth-vary-baker-cements-oswald-in-doorway.html#.WsJIcMgh0wQ<br /><br />Unfortunately for Professor Fetzer and Doctor Ralph Cinque, Baker's article does the exact opposite of “cementing” their theory by offering a scientific explanation for tiny anomalies in the Altgens photo. Here is Baker’s discussion of how film emulsion in photographic development techniques of 1963 may produce imperfections in the finished still photo:<br /><br />“The Doorway Figure is so small in the Altgens6 photo that it can scarcely be seen at all. When this part of Altgens6 is magnified, various smears and lines suggest retouching or rough handling. Brownian motion in the emulsion of the film could have created some of these anomalies.”<br /><br />In other words, what appears at first glance to be "retouching" of the photo may be explained by "Brownian motion in the emulsion.” When Ralph Cinque reaches for wild and unsubstantiated conclusions about photoshopping the Altgens6 ("Somebody put a dab of the photographic equivalent of Wite-out there,” and “later, it was converted into an elbow”), he has no idea what he is talking about. As explained by Baker, in the process of developing the photo, the chemicals may account for what appear to be "blotches" when the small images are magnified.<br /><br />Thus, Judyth Vary Baker’s article, which Fetzer claims to “cement” Oswald’s presence in the doorway, instead suggests that we must be cautious in drawing conclusions about photographs without a full understanding of the minutiae of photographic processing technology in 1963.<br /><br />Read this article by one of your former members, Ralph! It comes highly recommended from Professor Fetzer!<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01586177397083549344noreply@blogger.com