At the time that he was made Chairman, he was well aware that photo and film alteration were central to the OIC and dominated the OIC website. That has always been the case- since the OIC website went online in July 2012. So, if he rejects that aspect of our case, why didn't he say so at the time? And why did he agree to join in the first place?
And note that even now, he is less than candid and forthcoming. I have asked him, in light of his rejection of Altgens photo alteration, to state whether he still believes that Oswald was standing in the doorway, and he refuses to answer.
And I suspect he does NOT believe in Oswald in the doorway because when you take Altgens photo alteration out of the equation, it means the conspirators tried to sell the idea that Lovelady was Doorman by fiat alone- by decree. Talk about arrogance.
"Yeah, it's Oswald in the doorway wearing Oswald's clothes, but we'll just say he's Lovelady, and the rubes will believe it. They'll believe anything we tell them."
It is true, as James likes to point out, that Harold Weisberg never recognized that the Altgens photo was altered. But, he never recognized Zapruder film alteration either, and today a great many JFK researchers, including big names like Doug Horne and John Costella, endorse Zapruder film alteration, as Jack White did. It would be foolish to reject Zapruder film alteration today just because Harold Weisberg never endorsed it.
Harold Weisberg did his work without computers, and even though he lived into the computer age, he never got into them. Computers are what have enabled us to discover the truth about these images.
The OIC was formed around the idea that the Altgens photo was altered. And it wasn't just me saying it. Jim Fetzer, Larry Rivera, Dennis Cimino, and others in our group have always been in strong support of Altgens6 alteration. There was never a time that the OIC advocated Oswald in the doorway without Altgens6 alteration.
But, James accepts the official timeline for the transmission of the Altgens photo to the newspapers at 1:03 PM, which leaves no time for alterations; hence, he says it wasn't altered.
Note that James does not attempt to refute the claims of alteration concretely. He does not take them, one by one, and explain why what is being called an alteration is really a natural, spontaneous, innocent photographic outcome.
And let's consider the size of the burden. This is from the Anomalies page of the OIC website:
Bear in mind that it takes only one alteration to prove that the photo was altered. If they tampered with the Altgens photo even once- just one tiny little bit-it incriminates the entire official account of the JFK assassination. To deny that the Altgens photo was altered would require disproving every single accusation that we have made here. If we are right about even one, the case for subterfuge is made.
Let's say it turns out that there is an innocent explanation for one of the incongruities that we pointed to above. It would only mean that there was one less from a rather long list. If they tampered with that photo even once, they obstructed justice, and we are certain that they tampered with it many times.
So, we don't have to be right about every last point. If we are right about even one, we have proven our case, that they messed with that photo for criminal and nefarious reasons.
So, you would think that James would challenge my claims of alterations specifically or at least give an example of how I'm wrong about something, how I am misinterpreting something. But, he has never done that because he thinks he doesn't have to. He thinks he can sweep them all away in one stroke by citing the timeline.
Note that there is a fundamental difference here in reasoning. I share Jim Fetzer's view that if signs of alteration are present, referring to elements that could not have occurred spontaneously in the photograph, it means that it was altered, and there must have been sufficient time to do it.
It's like the old analogy of finding a watch in the desert. If you find a watch in the desert, then you know a person had been there. Even if you don't know anything else, you know that a person had to have been there at least once.
The examination of the photo and the finding of anomalies in it trumps any claims about a timeline. And note that James keeps saying that we need to bring in a photographic expert, but we have: Roy Schaeffer. Roy has 35 years experience processing photographs for newspapers, and he saw the tell-tale signs of alteration (masking and opaquing and more) in the Altgens photo the moment he took it off the wire early in the morning on November 23, 1963 at the Dayton Daily News in Ohio. Try telling Roy that the Altgens6 photo wasn't altered.
And note that Roy didn't start with any bias. He didn't start with any expectation. He didn't have a mindset to look for signs of alteration. THEY JUMPED OUT AT HIM as soon as he saw the photo-fax.
Claims about a timeline are just lip-wagging. But, the photograph itself is evidence. It's something that we can examine. And even if it's altered evidence, we can examine it for alterations. So, the photo itself holds the answers, and that is where we have to look.
James likes to make a big deal out of the fact that I am not a photographic expert. But, neither are the people who dispute me. Yet, they always claim to know what's what in the photo- as if I am not qualified to tell but they are- which is utter hypocrisy.
They claim I haven't called in any photographic experts. But, they are disputing me without calling in any photographic experts either. Do you see what I mean about the hypocrisy? I, for one, would welcome the input of photographic experts. I found one forensic photographic expert who talked to me about the Altgens photo for 30 minutes- off the record, and without charging me. I came away feeling supported, encouraged, vindicated about my beliefs.
But, the truth is that there is a lot of common sense, common knowledge, and in this case since it involves human beings, anatomical knowledge involved, which I have. And, the fact is that we have all been looking at photographs our whole lives. So, the idea that we can't investigate this without having certain credentials is really just a way of saying, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." And it's really a rotten insult, as though we aren't smart enough and capable enough to do it- and most often said by people who make an exception for themselves.
In the days and weeks following the assassination, millions of people the world over thought they saw Oswald in the doorway of the Altgens photo. They weren't photographic experts, but when you see a guy who looks like Oswald and is dressed in Oswald's clothes, you figure: he's Oswald.
There is nothing wrong with that. The idea that we have to defer to experts about this, that we can't look at it ourselves, is ridiculous.
I knew all along that if I didn't publish James' letter that he was going to go to my enemies. I read him like a book. It wasn't hard to do. And, I have no regrets. This is what I told him:
James, I am not going to post a letter which demeans the OIC. I would be willing to publish something to the effect that you left because you do not support the claim of Altgens6 alteration, that you accept the official timeline for its release at 1:03 PM., which does not allow sufficient time for alteration. And whether you still support that Oswald was in the doorway I do not know because you have not been clear about it. I have asked you for a straight-up yes or no, but you won't give it.
If you want to work on a statement that refrains from disparaging the OIC but just explains your difference of opinion, that would be fine. To criticize the organization for having inactive members is totally uncalled for. Don't you think there are other organizations where some members just belong?
Altgens6 alteration has always been a central tenet of the OIC from its very beginning and even before that. My association with Jim Fetzer arose from us both recognizing Altgens6 alteration.
So, nobody sprang anything on you. You knew the content of the OIC website, which is mostly about photo and film alteration, at the time you accepted the invitation to be chairman. So, if you were harboring those doubts then, it means you accepted under false pretenses. At the very least, you should have leveled with me at that time, that you do not support Altgens6 alteration or the film alterations.
I am not going to publish something that I am not comfortable with. You have the option right now of starting your own blog on BlogSpot or elsewhere. Nothing is stopping you. You don't need me to give you a pulpit. Frankly, I think it would be awful to hand Joseph Backes and bpete more fodder to use against us. But nonetheless, it will hurt less than letting you do it on my blog.
Again, if you want to work something out that we can both live with, fine. I'm open to that. But, I refuse to publish your current statement the way it is. Ralph
James Norwood 2 months ago
The photos, to which he referred, included ones demonstrative of Altgens6 alteration.
James, I am publicly asking you to state, for the record, whether you believe Oswald was standing in the doorway during the shooting and whether that can be seen in the Altgens photo. And if you are unwilling to answer that straight-forward question, then, indeed, wallowing with Joseph Backes and Bpete is where you belong.
