Monday, 30 September 2013

Wild guesses, Lies and speculation...UPDATED and UPDATED AGAIN! and just once more...

are about the sum total of what Ralph can offer.

Ralph thinks nobody can spot the dishonesty involved in attempting to rebut this evidence while refusing to reference any of it. Again, I'm more than happy for you to head over and read his piece because it's important to realize how Ralph operates.

Please notice that I'm offering solid visual matches while Ralph gives you a guess Lovelady's weight competition and an argument about a non - existent pocket flap that was long ago debunked on both the Ed Forum and JFK Lancer, while begging people not to come here and view the evidence. Draw your own conclusions.......

And as to your request for a screenshot of my Blogger account details Ralph, sure...maybe you'd like my bank login too? All you need to know is that today's numbers are way better than yesterdays.

Oh and by the way Ralph, I keep telling you I'll discuss the arm when I'm ready. You have yet to begin explaining the pattern on the shirt front. I'll wait....


Point proved.

Ralph will try to confuse you by refusing to show the evidence I've provided. I've been very clear throughout in explaining how I arrived at my conclusion. He doesn't want you to know this. There are no rules about how the evidence should be presented except the imaginary ones he makes up  to obfuscate ( see what I did there Ralph? ) the truth. Ralph thinks you are stupid.

What he fails to realize is that the pattern is quite easy to spot once you know what you're looking for. Remember that we're looking at a blow up of a tiny, unfocused portion of Altgens.  Remember that we've seen using Ralph's own photo that under those conditions we don't see crispness and clearness. Take a good look at the evidence here, then head back to Ralph's and look again. Much easier to see now, isn't it?

He's spent two years hoping no - one would notice.

Those days are gone.


Ralph digs a deeper hole -

In desperation Ralph moves to a tight crop but now he doesn't want to show you all of the area we're looking at in Altgens. You see, Ralph's quandry is that he doesn't want to show you this evidence on any of his sites because it's toxic to the O.I.C. This is a man who has previously stolen every piece of other's work he can lay his hands on, never giving the author credit and in some cases trying to pass it off as something produced by the O.I.C. Here, he won't even link to it. Once again, draw your own conclusions.

"Mr. 19 says the pattern is easy to spot when you know what to look for. Then tell them what to look for. I don't mind that. But, don't mark within the area of examination.

Did you hear what I said? I said: Do not mark within the area of examination."

EARTH TO RALPH - I HAVE SHOWN THEM WHAT TO LOOK FOR. Nobody cares about your demands Ralph. I am free to present the evidence in any way I choose. Didn't Richard Hooke tell you exactly the same thing just recently? Don't mark the area of examination?

Seriously? And that's just the first one I came across, there's plenty of O.I.C. stuff with so many markings you can barely make out the photo. ( And I don't mind showing that here, because of course if Doorman's shirt is patterned - and I've shown that it  is - ALL the rest of it is irrelevant ).

 My presentations show the areas unmarked as well as marked. They make it very clear. Everyone is watching you lie about that. I can't see how you think that makes you look good but I guess it's your choice.


Because even making Ralph demonstrate over and over again that he has nothing can get boring after a while.

Pretty much too dumb to respond to. We all saw what you did with the cropping Ralph.
To everybody else, just notice that Ralph is running through his old bag of tricks to avoid having to address any evidence. And notice how desperate he is to drag everything back to the old collage treatment, where he imagines he might have a chance to regain some ground. Not happening Ralph.
Just re-read what I've already told you above. My evidence is already presented. We're waiting for a credible response. Although I predict it'll go something like this...

How much confirmation do we need?

What happens if we use a different shot of Lovelady posing in his plaid shirt to make the comparison?

This time we're using this 1978 shot of Lovelady taken by Robert Groden -

A photo of Billy Lovelady taken by Robert Groden in 1978

As before, the shirt was isolated, cropped, separated, rotated and resized to fit. That's all.

As before, the results are conclusive.
( Once again these gifs are quite large so please allow plenty of time for them to load ).

This animated gif overlays the Robert Groden picture of Billy Lovelady's plaid shirt onto Altgens 6, demonstrating the perfect match in the pattern

Even though the shirt lapel is lying a little differently in this Groden photo to the way it laid in the Jackson one we used previously you can see that the angle of the right collar ( left as we view it )  is once again a perfect match to Altgens. The matches to all of the previously noted horizontal lines remain intact.

As before, we overlay the shirt in position to match up the obvious vertical line on the left side ( our right ).

This animated gif overlays the Robert Groden picture of Billy Lovelady's plaid shirt onto Altgens 6, demonstrating the perfect match in the pattern

As before, is there any chance that "haze" organizes itself into the clearly distinguishable patterns we can see here? No.

Ralph - you need to explain to Judyth that she's wasting her time trying to match microscopic flecks to Doorman's shirt. To match Lee's shirt to Doorman she's going to have to find black and white horizontal and vertical lines on it. And that's probably going to take her a while.

Sunday, 29 September 2013

And the lies start to unravel.....

Oh Dear.

"I did some posing in Dealey Plaza in a shirt that had a very small, tight plaid pattern and not large boxes like on Lovelady's shirt."

Ralph finally admits, after a year spent browbeating everybody about how he got everything right in Dealy Plaza and proved that "plaid looked plaid" that he chose a shirt that didn't even remotely resemble Lovelady's.
What he was actually meaning to say all this time was that you can still see the giant white square on the front of his shirt ( which looks like it would be visible from space let alone across the street ) from a fair distance away.

Thanks for clearing that up Ralph. We already knew, but thanks.

"Lance seems to think that these two match, and therefore, Doorman's pattern could represent plaid."

You were the one who claimed they matched, not me. But it's good to see that you've realised that Doorman's shirt has a pattern. We're finally making some progress.

"But remember the rule for plaid: it has to have horizontal and vertical lines crossing forming boxes. Mine does that, but it's on a very small scale- unlike Lovelady's. But even in this case you can see the lines and the boxes on me. Let's look at it up closer"

I contacted the World Plaid Commission and got this response -

"There is no rule for plaid and anyone who claims there is is a fucking idiot"

Still, as Ralph acknowledges, we can agree that plaid comes in lots of different sizes. And, as I've shown, the very small area of Lovelady's shirt front visible in Altgens means that Lovelady's LARGE boxes ( thanks Ralph ) just aren't visible. We also agree that a plaid pattern is made up from horizontal and vertical lines, and as I've shown, those are clearly visible in Altgens 6.

"Do you see what I mean that there are lines and boxes that you can see? There is nothing comparable on Doorman."

Yep, we see what you mean but as you've already illustrated your boxes are very small and Lovelady's are much bigger. It's true, however, to say we can see lines in both. 

"And there certainly is nothing whatsoever comparable to Lovelady."

Yeah, there is.

"And to insult to injury, he wasn't even Lovelady."

But he was. The shirt is a lock match. And as you're always saying, that trumps any lip - flapping.

Is there EVER any substance in a Ralph Cinque post? UPDATED

Seems not.

I'd hoped for something a little better in response, but even by Ralph's crushingly low standards these retorts are beyond pathetic -

Now you'll notice that Ralph hasn't given a link to my piece, and I think the reason for that is obvious. I'm more than happy to give you the link to his worthless rebuttal attempt because I want you to see what Ralph does when faced with evidence he can't refute.

He twists, turns, blusters, misrepresents and flat - out lies.

Worse than that, he doesn't even comprehend the position that he finds himself in. The whole O.I.C lie falls on solid confirmation that Doorman is wearing Lovelady's plaid shirt. This is solid visual evidence Ralph, and if the best rebuttal you can make is to lie about how it was presented then you are truly finished.

I told you I'd talk about the arm when I chose to do so, and you're going to have insurmountable difficulties with that too. It wasn't the subject of this piece though, so try to stay on topic, ok?

I don't need to go to Dallas Ralph, I already showed USING YOUR OWN PHOTOGRAPH that your "plaid looks plaid" statement is false. You don't mention this in your "rebuttal".

I showed you the upper left quadrant of the shirt and where the matches were, including an almost perfect match to Lovelady's collar. You don't mention this in your "rebuttal".

I showed you that the visible area of shirt in Altgens 6 is not sufficient to show a series of boxes. You don't mention this in your "rebuttal".

In my second gif I'd already showed you the vertical white line you so thoughtfully drew in, and how it lines up perfectly with Lovelady's shirt.  You didn't mention this in your "rebuttal". Thanks for acknowledging that it's clearly visible in Altgens though.

I showed you fifteen matching lines to Lovelady's shirt pattern in exactly the place we'd expect to see them. You don't mention this in your "rebuttal" except in a lie about how the information was presented. You know perfectly well that I presented gif animations in which the confirming lines were faded away to leave the image unmarked. You don't mention this in your "rebuttal". Do you even know what an "animated gif" is? Even the frame that you choose to show you have severely cropped in an attempt to bolster your pathetic argument.
I chose to present the information in this way with the express intention of removing deliberately deceiving "collages" from the equation. This is the first time a presentation has been made which cuts through your sleight of hand tricks and shows the comparison in an honest and easily comprehensible way - which is obviously why you don't like it. Tough.

In fact, your "rebuttal" is no rebuttal whatsoever, since it addresses nothing and consists solely of lies, bluster and more lies.

I'm quite happy with that Ralph. It shows you have nothing.

People are watching Ralph. For the sake of all the well meaning folk that you have decieved with your scam have the decency to at least attempt a serious argument.

Billy Lovelady, JFK, Altgens 6, Oswald Innocence Campaign

Billy Lovelady, Altgens 6, JFK, Ralph Cinque


Poor Ralph is confused -

He seems to be under the impression that by simply lying and refusing to address any of the evidence I've shown he can make it go away. He seems to think that simply posting the same tired and bogus collages over and over again is helping him. ( Hint - when I said there was a perfect match to Lovelady's collar I'm referring to MY evidence, not the refuted crap that you keep churning out Ralph ). It's amazing that Ralph, who has stolen every gif and image he can lay his hands on doesn't want to steal this one unless he can use a cropped frame to lie about. You really have to ask yourself why that is. He seems to forget that he's lying in open, public view.

"So the first thing he said is that the upper left quadrant showed a perfect match to Lovelady's collar."

A lie straight off the bat. The first thing I said was that I had shown USING YOUR OWN PHOTO that your "plaid looked plaid" contention is incorrect. You don't seem to want to mention that.

" We should see the boxes everywhere, and in the smaller areas we should see parts of the boxes, corners of the boxes, etc. Plus, the visible area of the shirt is at least half the whole shirt. So, don't tell me it isn't big enough to show boxes."

Nope. The visible area of the shirt front is nothing like half, as I have shown. Try again...( Hint - try addressing the evidence I presented instead of just blustering ).

News for you Ralph.

My hit counter has gone nuts in the last 24 hours with views from 19 countries and counting. It's not going away.

I'm fine with you continuing to show that you have no credible response. Knock yourself out......

Saturday, 28 September 2013

Billy Nolan Lovelady's 1,273 ID points of light...and shade

Pretty much the central pillar of the Oswald Innocence Campaign's house of cards is the false assertion that "Doorman" ( who was in reality Billy Lovelady ) is wearing Lee Oswald's clothes, or more specifically his t-shirt and shirt. For the purposes of this discussion, I'm going to look at the claims made about the shirt. Specifically, the pattern of the shirt. And in order to demonstrate that Doorman's shirt is a perfect match to Lovelady's plaid shirt, we're just going to look at the front of it - in other words, we're not going to consider the arm. I can already hear Ralph crying foul, but as I see it there are two good reasons to take this approach -
1) The subject of Doorman's arm, and indeed the question of whether if it belongs to him or someone else is a separate issue about which I have my own thoughts and will talk about at some future point, and
2) We don't need the arm to make a positive I.D of Lovelady's shirt, as I'll show you.

The latest in the excellent series of articles on the O.I.C's list of imaginary Altgens anomalies at Fetzering Against Rational Thought deals comprehensively with the Doorman question. You can read it here -

It's a fact that Ralph has in the past acknowledged that Doorman's shirt is patterned. Examples of this are everywhere, and the above article lists a few of them. But this discussion of the shirt pattern drew the following rant from Ralph in response - 

" Next, we get to Doorman's shirt, and bpete quoted several times in the distant past in which I described Doorman's shirt as "plaid." Well, that was a mistake. The most you can say about Doorman's shirt is that in some versions it looks "varied.". Plaid is a very specific thing: it refers to horizontal and vertical lines crossing forming boxes. It is a rectangular pattern. It is geometric. But, even in the most distorted, hazy versions of Doorman, his shirt never looks plaid. It just looks splotchy.

Ralph Cinque, Lies, Billy Lovelady

What you see above is as "plaid" as Dooman's shirt ever looked, which is to say, not plaid at all. And the splotchyness you see there is mostly haze and distortion. Is there any reason to think that Lovelady's shirt on the right would come through for Altgens as what we see on the left? I'm afraid not. I stood in that doorway wearing a plaid shirt and was photographed exactly as Oswald was- with Tri-X film from the same position and the same conditions. 
The rectangularity of the plaid came though, even on Tri-X film. Plaid looked plaid! You see horizontal and vertical lines crossing. bpete is mentally obtuse, so let's try some repetition.

bpete: to be plaid, it has to show horizontal and vertical lines crossing forming boxes
bpete: to be plaid, it has to show horizontal and vertical lines crossing forming boxes
bpete: to be plaid, it has to show horizontal and vertical lines crossing forming boxes
bpete: to be plaid, it has to show horizontal and vertical lines crossing forming boxes
bpete: to be plaid, it has to show horizontal and vertical lines crossing forming boxes
bpete: to be plaid, it has to show horizontal and vertical lines crossing forming boxes

Now, I hope that bpete never again describes Doorman's shirt as plaid because he has been sufficiently informed. I was mistaken for saying it back in the early days. But, we learn; we grow; we move on. Isn't it true of all of us?"

Ok. Let's look at that...

Firstly, it's important to remember that Ralph Cinque's Altgens recreation was never designed to be objective and is seriously flawed on virtually every level. He used the wrong camera, the wrong lens and shot from the wrong position. For some shots the correct film is used, but even this point is largely negated by the fact that Ralph will often try to slip a digital image into his presentations which was shot simultaneously and not mention which is which. Even though he claims that the focal point of the camera was set fifty feet ahead ( the approximate position of Kennedy's limo in Altgens 6 ), he presents some shots which are clearly focused on the doorway. The plaid shirt chosen to represent Lovelady's features a predominantly white pattern, selected to be as visible as possible at distance. Nobody in the doorway is correctly positioned. I could go on and on about this, but in short Ralph Cinque's "reenactment" is an undocumented, inaccurate, shoddy mess.

This is the reason why Ralph is able to present the comparison above, showing a shirt with giant, highly visible white squares which bears no comparison to anything seen on Lovelady's shirt and claim it demonstrates his contention that "plaid looked plaid". What it actually demonstrates very well is that there's nothing that Ralph won't misrepresent or lie about.

Fortunately Ralph often leaves things lying around which contradict whatever his current position happens to be, and a quick search tells us that he could, for example, have shown you this -

Now we can immediately see that plaid is not looking quite as plaid as Ralph's previous example. And if we crop the image down to roughly represent the area of shirt visible in Altgens 6 ( and remember, we're looking at just the shirt front, not the arm ) -

we can see that plaid suddenly isn't looking very plaid at all.  Also, cropping the image to the relevant portion brings us to another of Ralph's points -

" to be plaid, it has to show horizontal and vertical lines crossing forming boxes"

Let's look at that claim using this Bob Jackson photo from Trask's "That Day in Dallas -

Billy Lovelady, Bob Jackson, JFK
( credit - Robin Unger, )

Let's crop Lovelady from the picture and outline the approximate area of shirt visible in Altens 6.

Outlined photo showing that only a small amount of Lovelady's shirt is visible in Altgens 6

Not very much is it? At a rough guess, maybe 25% of the shirt front is visible in Altgens 6.

Doorway crop from the Altgens 6 photo showing that a very small area of Lovelayd's shirt is visible.
( Groden Doorway crop from Jerry Dealey at JFK Lancer)

So, in a small area of the shirt we will see lines, but boxes.....well, not so much. There's one possible area - the upper left - where we may see enough to show a complete box, but as we've already demonstrated above using Ralph's own photo, in an unfocused shot at distance plaid does not necessarily look like perfect plaid. So much for Ralph's claims of what we should expect to see.

So what are the chances that what Ralph dismisses as "splotchiness" and "haze and distortion" will arrange itself into a match to Lovelady's plaid pattern? Since these are terms which imply randomness and disorder, you'd expect the answer to be pretty much....none. And yet, the reality is somewhat different, and certainly much different to what Ralph would have you believe.  Let's look a little closer.

First, let's look at a way of getting a visually direct and honest comparison of Lovelady's shirt to Doorman's.

Using the cropped Bob Jackson image of Lovelady shown above, I first isolated the relevant part of the shirt -

A cut-out of Billy Lovelady's plaid shirt taken from the Bob Jackson photograph
Then separated it into two halves -

A cut-out of Lovelady's shirt taken from the Bob Jackson photograph

These were then overlaid to a crop of the Doorway figure taken from the Groden Doorway scan. they were rotated and resized to match the image and some further cropping was done to remove unnecessary parts, but no other alterations were made. Due to the different position of Lovelady in the two images ( stood straight in the Jackson photo and leaning sharply to the left in Altgens ), matching the exact lay of the shirt isn't possible, although the right side of the shirt ( left as we look at it ) matches surprisingly well as it is. It would be possible, using some perspective changes and minor tweaks, to make a much better fit of the left collar of the shirt, but I haven't done this here to avoid altering the image beyond the necessary rotation and size adjustments.

Let's see what we get  ( these gifs are quite large so please give them time to load. ) -

This animated gif overlays the Bob Jackson picture of Billy Lovelady's plaid shirt onto Altgens 6, demonstrating the perfect match in the pattern

I've added the fading lines for clarity, but the match is obvious without them as soon as the shirt pieces are placed in position. Notice that we can see perfect matches to both black and white lines. Now lets overlay the shirt in position and match the obvious visible vertical line too.

This animated gif overlays the Bob Jackson picture of Billy Lovelady's plaid shirt onto Altgens 6, demonstrating the perfect match in the pattern

In the second gif above I think a good case can be made for the vertical white line on the right of the shirt too ( left as we look ), but it's less clear than the one on the left ( our right ) so I've left it unmarked. It's also remarkable that the right collar of the shirt is an almost perfect match to Lovelady's when placed in position. What you can clearly see here are real and tangible matches, not imaginary seams and invisible button loops from the O.I.C catalogue of misdirection.

It's obvious then that we do see intersecting lines in Doorman's shirt. If any more of it were visible I have no doubt we'd see boxes too, but that really doesn't matter. ANY confirmation of a pattern on Doorman's shirt rules him out as Lee Oswald, whose shirt was plain. Is "haze and distortion" going to form an almost perfect match to Lovelady's shirt pattern? No. What we can plainly see is, beyond any doubt, a match to Billy Lovelady's plaid shirt, the shirt he was wearing when he stood in the TSBD doorway and witnessed the assassination of the president on the 22nd of November 1963.

This of course rules out the need to consider any further the possibility that Lovelady was wearing a red and white striped shirt on the day of the assassination. It was just an FBI mix up. Nobody told Billy Lovelady to turn up in the shirt he was wearing on 11/22/63. Simple really.

Remember, Oswald does not need to be in the doorway to be innocent of shooting JFK. And we certainly don't need him in the doorway based on the lies and distortions of Ralph Cinque and the O.I.C, whose purpose is to discredit JFK research and researchers, not to advance it.

And finally, with regard to the title of this piece....well, I'm claiming a matching I.D point for every pixel of the image that lines up. Straightforward and fair, I think. Is it actually 1,273? To be honest I don't know, I just liked the number, but it's a safe bet that it's a lot more than 50. Perhaps Ralph and Richard will count them together.......

Tuesday, 24 September 2013

Just checking in..

Well it's taken a while longer than expected, but a few things have been going on. I've been laid up for a while with a bout of the flu and my recovery period wasn't shortened by Mrs. Uppercut's insistence that I make use of my unexpected extra time around the house by redecorating the lounge. Let's just say that Mrs. Uppercut is not a woman to be argued with, o.k?

As if that wasn't bad enough, checking in occasionally at the O.I.C blog reveals that Ralph is posting like a maniac as he struggles to move the mountain of crap from his now you see it, now you don't Facebook page over to Blogger. ( And for those of you about to point out that maniacal posting from Ralph is nothing new, I hear you, but in this case I'm just talking about the sheer volume of junk currently spewing forth from the diminutive nutjob. Ninety - two posts in September, and still six days to go? Gimme a break.. ).

Anyway, I got to thinking that, you know, life is too short. And attempting to follow the tortured workings of Ralph's mind on a daily basis can lead pretty quickly to loosing the will to live it. Add to that the fact that there are guys already doing a great job of debunking the Buda pest on a regular basis, and if you're an avid follower of the whole sorry saga of Cinque dumb-fuckery you should make their blogs your first port of call. The links are on the right.

So, I thought what we'd do is to take the occasional closer look at the central claims Of Ralph Cinque and the O.I.C and maybe approach them in a slightly different way. With that in mind there's a post coming in the next couple of days which is provisionally entitled "Billy Nolan Lovelady's 1,273 ID points of light...and shade". I'm just doing a quick recount in case I've missed any.

Back very soon!

Wednesday, 11 September 2013

Coming soon!

I believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was not guilty of shooting John F. Kennedy. Let's get that straight from the start.

The 50th anniversary of JFK's assassination is likely to mark the last major peak of public interest in the case. The Oswald Innocence Campaign has only one objective - to discredit serious research and researchers. The timing of the OIC's emergence isn't coincidental.

There's lots to explore in the coming weeks.

At the moment Ralph Cinque is just settling in after his Facebook expulsion debacle, so I'm giving him a little time.

Meanwhile, enjoy these blogs exposing the scam that is the Oswald Innocence Campaign -