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

Like a mouse on a wheel, bpete is going in circles. He's back to citing newspapers that supposedly published the Altgens photo on the afternoon of November 22. 

But, there is a reason why I use the Walter Cronkite television showing as the first verifiable showing of the Altgens photo- because it is.  

There were over 700 evening papers in the United States in 1963, and obviously, an evening edition allows even more time to get the Altgens photo out than an afternoon edition. However, no major metropolitan newspaper- and I mean something like the New York Times or the Washington Post- published the Altgens photo on November 22.  Not even the Dallas Times Herald got the Altgens photo published on November 22, and that was an evening paper. 

Racine is only the 5th largest city in Wisconsin- a rural state. The idea that they would have faster, more efficient access to images from the AP than larger, metropolitan, behemoth newspapers is preposterous. The idea that these other papers wouldn't be interested in publishing the Altgens photo, that they didn't recognize the significance of it, is preposterous. 

The Altgens photo was a historic picture, was it not? Here is a newspaper that published it on November 23 which even described it as "historic."

Here it is blown up:

You see that it says "historic" and if they knew it was historic, everybody knew it was historic. And notice that they messed with it to make JFK more visible, removing the rear view mirror, lightening him, and more. 

bpete cottons to this Racine. Wisconsin newspaper from November 22:

 If you read the content of this paper, you find out that at the time, they didn't even have the name of Lee Harvey Oswald. It described the suspect as a white male in his 30s, weight 165 pounds, about 5 feet 10 inches tall and with a slender build. The murder weapon was reported as a 30-30 rifle. It falsely said that besides a Dallas police officer, a Secret Service agent had been killed. 

Oswald was in the squad room by 2 PM, and we read the clock ourselves. So, this had to be before that. And they had the Altgens photo already? In that case, every afternoon and evening newspaper in the country had it, so why didn't they all use it? 

And notice all the wasted space. That is an awful lot of wasted space for a newspaper on such an important day. Just compare:

Now, that is what you'd expect on November 22, 1963, is it not? Notice that the New York Times published Altgens7, which means they had all the Altgens photos, the whole series, every one of them, right? So, why didn't they publish Altgens6? 

But, here is what British researcher Paul Rigby said about that, and it is from the OIC Wrap page:

British JFK researcher Paul Rigby maintains that the Altgens6 photo (there were 7 altogether) was handled differently than the other 6.  There was a delay in the release of Altgens6 because it was first wired to AP headquarters in New York, where it was "cropped twice."  Rigby maintains that there was roughly a two to three hour window of opportunity for them to alter it.  His exact words were: "I don't wish to exaggerate the window of opportunity for alteration. It was, at most, I hazard a guess, two to three hours. But, a window of opportunity there does appear to have existed."

Paul Rigby is a well-respected JFK researcher, so we are going to let him expound:

"On the basis of the available evidence, we can, provisionally at least, conclude the following: 1) Altgens did not develop his own photos; 2) Altgens6 went by fax, not to the world at large, but to the AP New York HQ, at just after 1:00 PM CST; 3) the negatives were sent by commercial airline, ostensibly to the same destination but did not arrive until hours after the initial fax; 4) the dissemination of the image from NY did not occur until at least 2 hours after the fax arrived but before the arrival of the negatives; 5) Both the AP and Altgens appear to have sought to conceal this hiatus; 6) AP acted against its own commercial interest in delaying release of Altgens6; 7) the version which first appeared in the final editions of newspapers in Canada and the US on the evening of November 22 was heavily, and very obviously, retouched; 8) point 7 may not be the explanation, either full or partial, for the concealed delay; it is quite conceivable that obvious alterations were used to draw attention away from other more subtle stuff."

Here is an FBI memo concerning the handling and publishing of Altgens 6:

It says that "Al Resch, Executive News Editor of AP News Photos was contacted. Mr. Resch was familiar with the photo which he said was published in Saturday's papers."

Don't you think the Executive News Editor of AP News Photos would know when the Altgens photo was published? 

Here is another tidbit from the OIC Wrap page:

We have also heard from Roy Schaeffer who at the time of the assassination was a professional photo processor for The Dayton Daily News.  He reported that there was a long delay in the Altgens6 reaching his newspaper. The photo-fax did not arrive until 7 AM the next morning, Saturday, November 23, and Roy is the one who received it. Immediately, he could see unmistakable signs of photographic alteration, including masking.  Because of his background and expertise, Roy was absolutely certain of this, and it started him on a lifelong quest for JFK truth.

The bottom line is that the handful of newspapers that supposedly published the Altgens photo on November 22 are highly suspicious. And that certainly includes the Racine, Wisconsin Journal-Times, which supposedly published it before Oswald's name was even known? What bull shit.  

.