Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

I don't mind a bit returning to the newspapers that supposedly published the Altgens6 photo on November 22. And "supposedly" is the right word to use. 

I'll make an analogy to the tv programs on November 22. WFAA SUPPOSEDLY broadcast footage of Lovelady sitting in the squad room on November 22. They did not. What they did was take advantage of the fact that nobody had any means to record such footage back then, nor it is is likely, to even remember what it showed. Therefore, when they show an altered version that includes a Lovelady figure sitting in the Squad room, they can't be technically challenged, meaning that nobody can pull out an original version saved from 11/22/63 to prove fraud. Fortunately, we can prove fraud in other ways, such as comparing it to other versions of the movie which feature an entirely different Lovelady. Can these two men possibly be the same man at the same moment in time and space? Look at the hair, look at the builds, look at the muscularity, estimate their weights, and compare the way their fucking shirts: 

Hence, we are sticking with "supposedly" in regard to the papers. There's a "supposedly" about it, bpete. 

With a crack team, which I'm sure they had, the amount of time needed to alter the Altgens photo wasn't that long. A few hours was plenty. Walter Cronkite showed a very crude, cropped, and lightened version of the Altgens6 photo to the country the evening of November 22. If we assume that the evening papers came out about the same time (and even if it was a little earlier it wouldn't matter) then it doesn't change anything. If there was even a 3 hour delay, meaning until 3:30 PM Central time, it was enough time to alter the Altgens photo. But, I believe they had longer than that. 

The Oakland Tribune had the advantage of an extra 2 hours than Central, being Pacific, and it was the extra edition of an evening paper. So, it surely constituted no advance over the time Walter Cronkite showed it to the country in New York, which involved a 3 hour time differential, hence, it is irrelevant. You don't score any points with that, bpete, and you don't land any blows. 

Then bpete says this:

Less flexibility???? You God-damn, blood-soaked Kennedy-killer. This was the day John Kennedy got killed, and you can be certain they pulled all the stops to cover it. Less flexibility my ass.

And, bpete is really being dense here. Paul Rigby told us that Altgens6 was handled differently from the other Altgens photos and did NOT go out at the same time. So, it can't be presumed that the reason a newspaper used Altgens7 and not 6 is because the editor thought it was better. Bull shit! It points to what Paul Rigby said: that it's because they had 7 and didn't have 6. 

Who could think that Altgens7 was better than 6? 6 showed the President during the assassination, where it was ongoing, and he was reacting to being shot. And it showed the Secret Service agents, turned sharply and ominously, peering at "the source of the shots" according to the AP. There was no comparison between the two. The propaganda value was in Altgens6, not Altgens7. If you had both, and you were going to use one or the other, you would make it 6. 

Then bpete implies that some editors passed on Altgens6 because it was too graphic. He didn't use the word "graphic" but he said that they didn't have the "if it bleeds it leads" attitude that they have today. 

BULL SHIT! Altgens6 is not graphic at all. Bleeds? It doesn't bleed! There is no blood in it. There is no gore in it You see JFK raising his arms, and that's it. There is no graphic display of violence or trauma of any kind. You can't even tell from looking at it that he's been shot. There is no basis to think that editors would have avoided it for that reason. bpete pulled that one straight out his ass. 

And since the Altgens6 was widely published on November 23, what changed overnight? What, did the editors sleep on it and decide, in mass, the next morning that it wasn't so bad after all?  

But, bpete is overlooking the most important part of Paul Rigby's statement, which is that the Altgens6 photo was NOT wired to the world but was first wired to AP headquarters in New York. Then, it was wired to other AP offices around the country.

And it isn't just Paul Rigby who says so. There is an FBI letter, cited by Harold Weisberg, which is CD 457-A, in which Mike Shapiro of WFAA in Dallas said that the Altgens6 was first sent to New York. 

Mr. Shapiro advised that immediately after this photograph was taken it was forwarded by wire to the Associated Press at New York, New York, and subsequently distributed to other AP offices throughout the country.

It doesn't say that it was wired to the world, does it?

And let's get something straight: we know the Altgens6 photo was altered because we can see the signs of alteration in it. And we have Roy Schaeffer, a newspaper photo-processing expert of 35 years experience, telling us that the evidence of "masking and opaquing" in the Altgens6 photo are visible and apparent.

People need to understand that there is a hierarchy when it comes to evidence. Some things matter more than others. Some things trump other things. But, nothing trumps what we can see in that photo. And what we can see in that Altgens6 photo are multiple, unmistakable signs of alteration, including things which could not possibly occur in ANY photo. 

So, Altgens6 was DEFINITELY altered. NOTHING overcomes the evidence we can see with our own eyes. 

The Altgens6 doorway is a fucking freak show! This is not photographically possible:

  You've got a guy with so much light entering his eyes that he has to vizor with his hands, yet his face is COMPLETELY blackened out, like a black hole in space. BULL SHIT! You've got a guy with his arms folded across his chest, but there is a white blob over his face. BULL SHIT! You've got a guy fused to Doorman like a conjoined twin where they are each covering up each other's shoulder at the same time and where no physical juxtaposition could possibly produce such a photographic image, where it is absolutely impossible to duplicate. BULL SHIT! You've got a black guy who was filmed at the same time by Wiegman but positioned and turned entirely different.

   
BULL SHIT! You've got a mother who is SuperWoman holding a 3 year old boy straight up vertically, where he is rising like a pillar, with one arm. BULL SHIT.

  
  You've got the distortion in Doorman's left ear (on our right). Just compare to his other ear, which looks anatomical. 

BULL SHIT! That distortion was caused by the placement of Black Tie Man into the photo. 

They also gave the black woman an afro hairdo which she didn't have; it was part of the obfuscation of Obfuscated Man.

She had her hair raised in a tight bun. Look at the size of her hair in the Altgens photo compared to the black woman next to her. It's bull shit. More BULL SHIT!

And these are just the alterations in the doorway. Others have pointed to alterations in the limo area which I haven't even gotten into yet. 

The Altgens photo is very possibly the most altered photo in the history of photography. And the existence of its many alterations blows to smithereens any claims about an impossible timeline.