Thursday, February 9, 2017

I went mano a mano against Lance UpperPunk tonight on Facebook, and I am going to post the contest here. UpperPunk is one of those British Ops, one of these guys:

And, he's been at it for quite a few years. But, he blogs only to be a pest to me. That's his only endeavor as "Lance Uppercut". This battle concerned several things, including the Prayermanites, whom he supports. But realize, that the JFK world is a very bizarre world. It's dark, and really, it is evil. And alliances form in it even without a concordance of beliefs. The alliances are based on having not shared beliefs, but rather, shared enemies. 

 Take for instance Joseph Backes. UpperPunk supports him, but I don't know that UpperPunk believes Backes' ridiculous claim that the Dallas Police Department concocted Oswald's bus and cab rides. But you see: it really doesn't matter what Joseph Backes says: UpperPunk will always support him. And it's because they have a common enemy: me. And the Punk supports the Prayermanites too. Does he actually believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was this guy?
You realize that Oswald was 5'9" 131 pounds. The Dallas Police Department put him on a fucking scale. So, that was his weight. He was very skinny. I'm 5'6" and weigh 135. And I'm lean. But, Oswald was downright skinny. But, look at the girth on that guy on the left. How could he possibly be Oswald? Plus, the timing is all wrong. That image was supposedly taken just seconds before Officer Baker reached the steps- on a run. So, how could Oswald still be there? Oswald had to beat Baker to the lunch room. And Oswald was only going to be walking. So, didn't he need a substantial head-start? So, how could he still be there at that late time? And since Prayer Man is there and seems settled there in the film, what right does anyone have to assume he wasn't there a few seconds later when Baker ran by? So, are we to believe that Baker passed Oswald in the doorway but then didn't recognize just a minute later in the lunch room? Aren't police taught to be observant, especially about people? 

 Anyway, here is the exchange between me and UpperPunk- so far. 

Richard Miodownick Correct Ralph ...... the tall guy is TL Baker, Captain Fritz secretary
LikeReply13 hrsEdited
Ralph Cinque Thank you, Richard.
LikeReply13 hrs
Lancelot Upperton Wow Ralph, you got a "like" from the legendary Richard Miodownick, the genius behind the debacle of yesterday's OIC "discovery" which disappeared almost as quickly as it went up. Poor Richard - hero to zero inside half an hour.
Your post as usual contains a lot of the "alternative facts" which are so popular in the U.S. these days - I make plenty of JFK posts and was doing so long before you turned up.
And Joe Backes is a respected researcher who you attempted to have fired from his job simply because he exposes your nonsense. He may have been wrong in the example you mention, but let's not forget that the OIC record on the Bookhout i.d now stands at four incorrect attempts, and the one you published yesterday was so ridiculous that you couldn't get it down fast enough.
As you are well aware I rarely bother with your musings any more - I have better things to do and let's face it, you're pretty much irrelevant these days. Since I had commented on your deleted post to point out how wrong you were I thought I'd follow up here - your reply is of course totally as expected and avoids any comment on yet another amusing OIC error.
LikeReply2 hrs
Ralph Cinque Oh really? Name one. And Backes may have been wrong? His supposition was outright preposterous compared to Richard Miodownick's. And no, there is nothing incorrect about the iDing of James Bookhout as the Garage Shooter. That's on ice, Punk. Oh, and by the way, I responded directly to Backes. Yo uan dhe are just road-kill on the JFK superhighway. http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/.../the-idiot...



Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign,…
OSWALDINTHEDOORWAY.BLOGSPOT.COM|BY RALPH CINQUE
LikeReplyRemove Preview2 hrs
Lancelot Upperton Too funny! Your response to Backes doesn't include any mention of your spectacular error either!
The whole point here is that this is the kind of thing you do ALL the time - rush into print with rubbish that can be fact - checked and destroyed in minutes.
The fact that few people bother to do it any more is just a reflection of how ridiculous you've become.
Not that it's ever been difficult to debunk your ideas of course, in fact it's so easy that it starts to feel a bit like kicking a puppy - nevertheless it's a shame that this group, which if you look back far enough was once quite lively and interesting, is suffering under the accumulated weight of your fantasy blathering.
LikeReply2 hrsEdited
Ralph Cinque No. HIS error was spectacular because it went on for months and is still ongoing even though I and others provided iron-clad reasons why Detective TL Baker could not be James Bookhout. My error lasted for just a a few hours. I was contacted by a friend who made the necessary points to me to realize that Richard Miodownick, though well-intentioned and very knowledgable and competent, was wrong in this case. And so I removed it. But you, being the dishonest person that you are, fail to mention that another brief blind alley that I went down, in which images of Detective Charles Dhority were mistaken for Bookhout didn't start with me either. That was done by YOUR friends, you know, the fucking Prayermanites, Greg Parker, and also Linda Zambanini. They are the ones who came up with that, not me. But, you heap the blame on me, even though it was your friends who did it. But, the bottom line is that it's OK to make a mistake, as long as you don't become married to it. As long as you don't do what the Idiot Backes does and cling to a mistake for months, even after being informed by friends and foes alike that it's wrong. A rat can go through a maze and make a wrong turn now and then, and all he has to do is back up and get back on track, and then keep going forward. So, you want to turn a minor bump in the road into a disaster, but the joke's on you because Bookhout in the Garage has gone forward so far it will NEVER be unseated. He was there, and we even have a facial image of him playing the role of Jack Ruby along with guilty detectives. View it and weep, Punk.
LikeReply2 hrs
Lancelot Upperton Nobody is suggesting that it's wrong to make a mistake - you may have gained a tiny bit of respect by putting your hands up and admitting to it rather than attempting to erase it from history. And of course, as is your way, you made it much worse for yourself by writing such a gloating and condesecending piece in the first place, which elevates the error into something a little more than a "minor bump in the road".
Not to mention, of course, that you could have checked yourself to ensure that Miodownick was correct...and that it wasn't already very well established who the people in that well known photo were. You chose to do none of that.
Outside of your small bubble, of course, "Bookhout in the garage" is laughed at, and rightly so.
And that will remain true - remember I used your own comparisons to show that the man is the photo above ( Ruby ) is not Bookhout, and couldn't possibly be.
LikeReply1 hrEdited
Ralph Cinque Had it been a long-established claim, then yes. But, this was just a matter of hours, and I think, for that reason, that it was OK to just remove it. I am writing this blog not for you and the likes of you but for people who do research using search engines. And the fact is that my blog pulls up VERY WELL in the listings, and for a great many JFK terms. So, why confuse a new arrival with a past mistake that's long gone? A year from now someone may do a search, and there is no reason why they should be bogged down with the likes of that. So, if you don't like it, that's tough. It's my blog, and I'll manage it as I please. And believe me, I sleep great at night,.
LikeReply1 hrEdited
Lancelot Upperton Incidentally, I'll just point out that NONE of the researchers you mention above are afraid of admitting to mistakes and correcting them if necessary. A lot of very good and painstaking work has been done recently to identify the people in these photographs - none of it, however by you or the OIC.
Linda Zambanini for one has worked very hard in this respect, in collaboration with Denis Morisette and others, and corrected any errors she has made. It's been a very impressive group effort which has resulted in a much better understanding of the photographic record.
The fact that you seek to blame others for your own mistake underlines yet again that you don't bother to research anything properly.
LikeReply42 minsEdited
Ralph Cinque Au contrare. Linda has removed claims from her page without putting up a notice that she previously incorrectly pegged someone. And, I don't blame her. It wouldn't be helpful to a newcomer to get bogged down in that. So, you're wrong again, Punk.
LikeReply1 hr
Lancelot Upperton Er, no Ralph, I've been involved in a few of the discussions and I've seen the work and crosschecking involved. She's perfectly ready to admit to an error, and also has a quality which you are sadly lacking - a little humility. If you had been a party to any of the work involved instead of just scanning her blog to see what work you could steal you'd know that.
LikeReply1 hr
Ralph Cinque Oh, I see. So, when I take her images, it's STEALING. But when you take my images to trash them, that's something else. Fucking dungeon-dweller you are. But no, Linda may have admitted privately that she made a mistake, but her page admits to no prior...See More
LikeReply1 hrEdited
Lancelot Upperton The point being Ralph that they are all real researchers doing real work which you're to idle to do yourself while being quite happy to use the results without ever giving credit for where you obtained the information - which you then use to promote your wild fantasies.
You on the other hand claim to be a researcher when the truth is that you're a dime store fiction writer....
LikeReply1 hr
Ralph Cinque I have credited people like Linda Zambanini and Denis Morrissette. And I credited Richard Miodownick too. So, you are, once again, flat-out wrong. And the OIC is the sharp end of the stick in JFK assassination research, and it's just going to get sharper. We have progressed. Progressed majorly. And my readership is larger than ever.
LikeReply1 hr
Ralph Cinque Do a Google search for James Bookhout and see what you pull up.
LikeReply1 hr
Lancelot Upperton I can do a Google search on the earth being flat Ralph but it wouldn't make it true, although oddly the membership of the Flat Earth Society is somewhat larger than that of the OIC...
LikeReply1 hr
Ralph Cinque That's no rebuttal. You are a very stupid man.
LikeReply57 mins
Ralph Cinque You think a guy can lean without leaning his head?
LikeReply57 mins
Ralph Cinque His head is upright, but his torso is leaning?
LikeReply57 mins
Lancelot Upperton Save it Ralph, I've won this argument so many times it's just boring. Anybody knows it's the easiest thing in the world to lean slightly to one side while holding your head upright. I'll catch you in another six months or so...
LikeReply53 minsEdited
Ralph Cinque Do a search for Oswald in the doorway and see what you get. And it's not my idea. I was the first to realize some things, yes, but not that. But, Oswald in the doorway has more visibility and exposure today than ever before. And that's because of me and Larry Rivera and Dennis Cimino and of course, Jim Fetzer.
LikeReply55 mins
Ralph Cinque Today, if you ask Oswald defenders, those who proclaim his innocence, where he was at the time of the shots, the majority will say: the doorway.
LikeReply54 mins
Ralph Cinque That was not true prior to the OIC, but it's true today.
LikeReply54 mins
Ralph Cinque Just got this from one of our members, Jeff Smith:
Excellent info Ralph. The Faux Oswald clearly looks similar to but quite different from the Oswald of fame. Why others deny this still is an exercise in cognitive dissonance plain and simple.
LikeReply51 mins
Ralph Cinque Jeff expresses himself well.
LikeReply51 mins
Lancelot Upperton I very much doubt that it's true now, and if it is it's probably because a lot of them will say he's Prayer Man.
And before you go on extended rant in which I won't be remotely interested I will say that at the very least those guys are actively trying...See More
LikeReply47 mins
Ralph Cinque You don't know shit about shat, Punk. And no, it's not because the people are Prayermanites. That cult is very small and shrinking. And it's ridiculous. It's patently absurd. How could Oswald be some fat guy in the doorway? And how could Oswald still b...See More
LikeReply41 minsEdited
Lancelot Upperton Like I said, I'm not interested in the rant which I predicted was coming - the point is that they're not afraid to find the film, put it to the test and stand or fall on the results.
Unlike you...
LikeReply40 mins
Ralph Cinque They haven't found any film. And they are not going to find any film.
LikeReply38 mins
Lancelot Upperton They may not. But then again they may, because it should be traceable. At least they're trying.
Of course if you had any interest in the truth you'd be applauding their efforts, because we should all be hopeful that the films can be located.
Sadly we know you're only interested in the cult of Ralph.
LikeReply27 minsEdited
Ralph Cinque I already gave you solid reasons why Oswald can't possibly be Prayer Man- under any circumstances. But, you didn't respond to it. You don't care it. And it's because you're bad. You're no damn good. You're evil.
LikeReply24 mins
Lancelot Upperton And I told you that I'm not interested in discussing it with you, because for one thing I'm well aware that you have no idea what was developed in Shaun Murphy's theory ( if you did you would know the answers to your questions, whether or not you agreed with them ).
And secondly, since we both know you have zero knowledge of the subject, your only attempt at rebuttal would be based on your half - assed attempts at photo analysis, which are worthless.
Thirdly, as I explained already I didn't bring it up to defend the theory but to make the point that those guys are actively seeking the evidence to confirm or deny their theory while you, who could have attempted to gain access to primary sources have spent five years running from the suggestion that this would be the proper thing to do.
LikeReply14 mins
Ralph Cinque The "theory" is so patently bogus that only an idiot could believe it. I've explained how the timing doesn't work for it. I've explained how suspect the whole image is with strange unknown figures present there who should not be there. It's less than 10 seconds after the fatal head shot. Baker was timed, and it was determined that he got to the steps 10 seconds after the last shot. And he's not even there yet during the clip. So, it's like 7 seconds after the last shot, and there is a mob of different people on the steps. Totally non-credible. But then, when it comes to photographic comparison, the guy looks nothing like Oswald. Oswald was 5'9" and weighed according to the Dallas Police Department which weighed him 131 pounds. That is skinny. I'm 5'6" and weigh 135 and I'm lean. How could he possibly have the girth seen on Prayer Man? Does Shaun Murphy have an answer to that as well? And what about the clothes? Oswald wasn't dressed like Prayer Man. Reality means nothing to you and yours. Truth means nothing to you and yours. You're worthy of nothing but spit.
LikeReply4 minsEdited

Cancel
Lancelot Upperton Enough. I couldn't care less about your opinion of the theory and you are blatantly ignoring and distracting from the point I was making. The reason for that is of course obvious.
LikeReply2 mins
Ralph Cinque It's enough when I say it's enough. I couldn't care less about your opinion of my opinion. And I don't do anything for you. But, I am going to make you a little bit famous.
LikeReplyJust now
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)