• Paul Stevens

  Ralph Cinque So, there is no way looking at the Ariel image that the Stemmons sign can appear face-on to where Zapruder was standing?

  • Like
  • Reply
  • Share
  • 23m
• Active

  Ralph Cinque

  Author

  Admin

  Paul Stevens Well, it's obvious from the aerial photo that if Zapruder pointed his camera at the top of the intersection, he was not going to capture that sign at all. Eventually, he would capture it, just as I did. Now, the amazing thing is that Zapruder watched his film along with the SS agents, and then he watched it again with the people from LIFE..So, when they published the November 29 edition with frames from the Zapruder film, including that humongous and obstructive sign, he had to know that they did that, unless he was an extremely stupid person. That sign is like the bull in the china shop. What's it doing there?

Road signs are placed 90 degrees to the road, so that they are most readable to motorists. We positioned our sign at 90 degrees to Elm Street, but in the Zapruder film, the phony sign they installed is much less than 90 degrees to the road, as you can see here:

 

I did it. I went to Dealey Plaza with a surrogate freeway sign, and I placed it where it was at the angle that it was, and then I reshot the Zapruder film. And guess what? The freeway sign in the Zapruder film is completely, totally fake. They tampered with evidence. They obstructed justice. And no one can ever again doubt that they altered and falsified that film. Watch it on youtube, and please share it.

The bottom image in this collage had the freeway sign in its proper place, at its proper angle, and it did not register at all at the top of the hill, as we see in the Zapruder film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiJMrM_QKyc

This was tampering with evidence and obstruction of justice. I have sent it to the Attorney General of the United States. 

This collage includes new images of Jack Ruby from the Sixth Floor Museum collection. At least, they're new to me. 

On the left side, his hair was painted in quite fully. However, bottom center, his hair is divided like the Red Sea, with bald scalp separating the two swaths of hair. Then on the right, there are two captures from 11/24, however they look nothing alike. Lower right is another sparse showing, but it was enhanced too. The reality was that he had very little hair on top. 

So, why did they always get their artists to enhance Jack Ruby's hair? It's because James Bookhout wore a thick, rug-like toupee at the Garage Spectacle.

Now, that is obviously not Jack Ruby's hair. He never had hair like that. And remember, this was 1963, which was pre-Beatles. Not the young guys, and certainly not the middle-aged men wore their hair that long. Notice that you see no hair growing out of his scalp. That's because it was a wig. 

Here's the closest image we have to Ruby's real hair.

Even this one was enhanced some. He did not have that much hair in front or strands that long. Look how low his rim is, which is the hair that remains even on a bald man. That's the permanent hair. On the vast majority of men, that's the hair that stays put until you die. It is genetically programmed not to fall out. But, his rim is actually very low, even for a bald man.  And any man with a rim that low, is not going to have that much hair in front. What you're seeing there is something that you might see today in a man who has had some hair transplanting done. But, hair transplants did not exist in 1964, which is when that was taken at Jack Ruby's trial. But, that image fell through the cracks. They usually imparted much more hair to Ruby than that, and again, it was all because of Bookhout's wig.  

Do you think this is a real photo from the weekend of the assassination? It's supposed to be. It's from the Dallas Times Herald Collection at the Sixth Floor Museum. 

 How could it be? Who would ride in a moving convertible like the guy in the back seat? How dangerous would that be? How could that car be moving, and yet, why is it stopped?  It obviously isn't moving because notice that there isn't the slightest bit of motion blur. And look at Zapruder up on his pedestal. What's he doing there? He never returned there to retake his throne. And look at the freeway sign at the far right of the picture, which is much farther east than it actually was. And where is the light pole? There is no way it would not be visible in this picture. 

Between 1964 and 1967, they took it down and replaced it, so the image in question must have been take between those dates when no light pole was there. 

We are never going to uncover all the photographic fraud in the JFK assassination. I have resigned myself to that.  

  

I agree with you, Dr. Todd Grande, that the Chappaquiddick Island tragedy was an accident due to drunkenness. But, Ted Kennedy could not have been staggering drunk because he had the wherewithal to plot his own self-interest. An ordinary man who did what he did would surely have been prosecuted, convicted, and sent to prison- at least for a short while. It is an outrage that he was let off by the courts and that Massachusetts voters kept re-electing him. It is also an outrage that the Kopeches didn't lambast him at the time. 20 years later, they expressed their bitterness and rancor towards him, but their love for their daughter should have caused them to do it at the time. Certainly in a life or death situation, one has the moral and legal obligation to do everything in the interest of the stricken person, but he thought only of himself. And granted, even if he had gone to the closest neighbor to get help and to call the police, it's very unlikely that Mary Jo could have been saved. Still, he had the moral obligation to try, no matter how slim the odds were. In an emergency, you go all-out to try to save the sticken person, period.

But now, Dr. Grande, after doing that excellent analysis, there's another case I'd like you to tackle, and that is: why didn't Robert Kennedy stand up to the men who killed his brother John? Robert Kennedy was good friends with Attorney Mark Lane, and no doubt, Lane was sharing with him all the reasons to doubt the official story. And let me point out to you and your readers that the way the JFK assassination is postured today is that either Lee Harvey Oswald did it as a lone gunman or he did it within a conspiracy. The idea that he didn't do it at all (which is the truth) is never recognized as a possibility within media circles. It's a forbidden thought. But, Oswald's innocence was Mark Lane's position which he laid out in writing on December 7, 1963 in "A Lawyer's Brief." So, why did Robert Kennedy choose to capitulate to the men who murdered his brother? Thank you.

  I am satisfied that this really is James Altgens in this photo.

So now, let's look at the whole picture. 

So, the sign isn't visible. We can barely see the lightpost on the far right, and the freeway sign was to the right of that. So, is it just out of view?

So, you see the sign, and you see the space that's west of the sign. So, if that other image is real, it means that all of it had to fit in west of that sign. 

Wait, that's impossible. It doesn't work at all because the lightpost is on the left, and everything in the image with Altgens is east of the lightpost. So, I'd have to move it there, to the left of the lightpost, and yet, it would take the whole pergola with it. So, it means that this image below is just plain bogus. 

The implication is that it's parallax that is keeping the sign out of view, but the parallax could not alter the visibility as much as this. It couldn't bend the image that much. It's just a bogus image. 

And by the way, Altgens said he left for the Dallas Morning News Building on foot right away, and you can see from his rotund shape, that sprinting wasn't a possibility. So, if he was milling around Elm Street at this late time, how could the Altgens photo in his camera have been wired out to the world at 1:03, as the story goes?