Wednesday, 31 December 2014

Ralph Cinque bows out....with a whimper.


Funnily enough, only last night I enjoyed a speculative conversation with friends about what could be coming next in the wacky world of Ralph Cinque and the Oswald Innocence Campaign now that chairman Jim Fetzer has effectively installed Judyth Baker as the new voice of the irrelevant sideshow in JFK research.

I have to admit that I didn't expect it to be this....

Ralph Cinque, replaced by Judyth Baker and rejected by Jim Fetzer, announces his retirement from the JFK arena

Ralph Cinque announces the end of his four year struggle against reality..

Surprising news indeed, but I wouldn't be too secure about your legacy Ralph. In the new-look Oswald Innocence Campaign your message is already being diluted. And in the end you weren't smart enough to realise that given a straight choice between you and Judyth, Jim Fetzer was never going to choose you. 

Of course Fetzer should realise that replacing your bile - filled rantings with Judyth's own special "touchy feely" brand of bullshit isn't going to work either, because at the end of the day Ralph there's one thing we can say with certainty - thanks to the intense scrutiny of the Doorman question which you've encouraged over the last four years and the work done by many to refute you we can now be absolutely clear that Billy Lovelady was the Doorman in Altgens 6.

For that we may even owe you a small debt of gratitude.

Although I wouldn't hold your breath....




Monday, 22 December 2014

Another Oswald Innocence Campaign senior member resigns! UPDATED!


Oswald Innocence Campaign senior member Gary Fannin has stated that he has resigned from Ralph's group - in order to join the "new and improved" version led by Judyth Baker ( "improved" because it doesn't contain Ralph Cinque, presumably ).

In the process, Gary reveals that he's not totally sold on Oswald being in the doorway. This is fine though...to be in Judyth's version of the Oswald Innocence Campaign it's not necessary...

Fannin tells Cinque where to shove his senior membership...



Cinque has yet to remove Fannin from the OIC website. 

Also....I don't know who Steve Memery is, but he he certainly has Ralphie sussed -


More and more people are arriving at the same conclusion. The dominoes are starting to fall...


UPDATE!

Ralph attempts to put on a brave face concerning the recent OIC defections -


Well considering that his picture remained on the OIC website until I pointed it out it's obviously news that you weren't keen to announce Ralph.  Still, your invitation to Richard Hooke, Richard Charnin and Jim Fetzer to leave is an exciting development. We know of course that you already tried - and failed - to get Hooke booted, but I'm sure that Jim in particular will be most interested to learn that you're hoping he'll find the door.


I don't think you'll find that I mentioned anything about siding with Judyth, Ralph. In fact, in something of a first, my opinion of her is pretty much the same as yours. It's just pretty funny that she's managed to replace you as the voice of the Oswald Innocence Campaign. She sure done screwed you over pretty damn good there boy....






Friday, 19 December 2014

Oswald Innocence Campaign 2 - Double the stupidity!


In breaking news, senior members of the Oswald Innocence Campaign that Ralph Cinque has pissed off in the last few weeks have formed a breakaway group on Facebook, and in a move clearly calculated to irritate the crap out of the mental midget from Buda have named it, quite brilliantly, the "Oswald Innocence Campaign".

To rub Ralph's nose in it even more, the group has been set up by his arch nemesis and the first OIC senior member to resign - none other than Judyth Vary Baker. Membership is growing quickly, and already includes official OIC senior members Richard Hooke and Richard Charnin, along with none other than the chairman of Ralph's idiot club, Professor Jim Fetzer.

It seems that Jim, who has been uncharacteristically quiet during Cinque's recent sustained attacks on Hooke and Baker is ready to wade in. And Jim is disturbed....

OIC Charman Jim Fetzer becomes the latest in a very long line to realise that Ralph Cinque is a fucking idiot

See? I told you he was...EXTREMELY disturbed, in fact.  Maybe he's on the way to arriving at the same conclusion that OIC senior members Hooke and Charnin have already reached - that Cinque only masquerades as a researcher while in fact being a tool of the establishment...

The Oswald Innocence Campaign implosion continues...

The collapse of the Oswald Innocence Campaign

I don't know about him being a tool of the establishment, but it's certainly true that most reasonable researchers concluded long ago that Cinque is a tool of some sort. Still, at least the rest of the OIC lunatics are waking up to the realistion that the leader of the asylum is a total fruitcake, which is a good thing if only for the fact that their protracted arguments have contained some genuine comedy gold. 

Of course every one of them is wrong about the Doorman issue, which only serves to make their constant bickering about the comical mis-identification of practically every figure in the Altgens photo all the more amusing. It's only the in-fighting which makes the OIC even vaguely worth commenting on these days, but a double daily dose of stupid looks certain to liven things up!






Monday, 3 November 2014

Idiot Meltdown II - The Wrath of Judyth UPDATED!


Ralph Cinque never wanted Judyth Baker as an O.I.C member - he has long been critical of her story and went as far as to say she would never be admitted as long as he had anything to do with it.

Ralph was overruled by O.I.C. chairman Jim Fetzer, a long - time Baker supporter. And it seems that behind the scenes Uncle Jim gave Ralph a stern warning that Judyth wasn't to be criticised. However, Ralph's spat with Judyth disciple Richard Hooke made it inevitable that Ralph and Judyth would clash, and now the gloves are off...


Crisis in the Oswald Innocence Campaign!

The Oswald Innocence Campaign crisis escalates!

Actually Ralph, that's not a bad idea - you probably should consider asking people to read Judyth's epic "Me & Lee". Hell, you might even want to consider reading it yourself. I did, but then I've always been a sucker for romantic fiction.

More from Judyth and Richard Hooke...


Oswald Innocence Campaign founder Ralph Cinque is openly called a liar by two of his senior members

Ouch! "You assert, AS IF YOU WERE A DOCTOR OR A SCIENTIST...."! Now we of course know that Ralph is neither despite his claims to the contrary, but this is the first time he's been called on it by one of his own senior members. 

Oswald Innocence Campaign senior member Richard Hooke calls founder Ralph Cinque a liar and a plagiarist.

So two senior members of the Oswald Innocence Campaign are openly calling founder Ralph Cinque a liar and plagiarist. I wonder if anyone else has something to say? 

Ah, yes. Step forward OIC senior member Richard Charnin....

Another Oswald Innocence Campaign senior member joins the attack on founder Ralph Cinque


Oswald Innocence Campaign senior member Richard Charnin accuses founder Ralph Cinque of being a Warren Commission supporter.

In continuing bad news for Ralph, Richard Charnin has him pegged as a Warren Commission supporter. And it's certainly true that in order to support Ralph's tissue of lies he's often forced to accept large swathes of WC findings that have long been questioned and found wanting by open minded researchers. ( I had to stop myself from using the phrase "MORE open minded researchers, which would have implied that I consider Ralph to be any kind of researcher at all - I don't. )

Ralph's dilemma is of course the logical consequence of assembling a group of individuals who are prepared to believe without question in any theory presented to them, no matter how wild and unsupported it may be. It's the ego - driven rantings of the lunatic fringe of JFK research that are so loved by the supporters of the official story, simply because they obscure rather than further the search for truth. Of course, that may be the very reason for their existence.

Ralph is finding, as have others before him, that the thing about Judyth Baker is....she likes to be the centre of attention. Can there be room in the Oswald Innocence Campaign for yet another massive narcissist? Time will tell.....

To make things worse Ralph is of course keenly aware that Judyth Baker has never placed Oswald in the doorway, despite his weak protestations that she has endorsed the idea in signing the OIC membership statement. As far as Judyth is concerned Ralph, much like Neville Chamberlain, merely holds in his hand a piece of paper.

 And we know how that turned out.


UPDATE!

The Neville Chamberlain analogy proves to be quite apt, because now it's all - out war between Cinque and Baker -

Oswald Innocence Campaign founder Ralph Cinque attacks senior OIC members Judyth Baker and Richard Hooke

The clash of the clueless continues to escalate...

Judyth does some more name - dropping

OIC founder rants back at senior member Judyth Baker


Professional victim Judyth Baker threatens to take her ball and leave the game

Richard Charnin rejoins the attack -

OIC senior member Richard Charnin says that founder Ralph Cinque isn't fit to shine Judyth Baker's shoes...

Hey Ralph? You see that thing Charnin said about the shoes? He's talking about YOU...

At this point Ralph, whose position in the OIC would you say was the most untenable? 









Friday, 31 October 2014

Idiot Meltdown! UPDATED!

Two conmen argue over whose pile of crap stinks the most....

Chief Liar, Oswald Innocence Campaign
O.I.C Head of Lies and Deception
Historical Fantasy Coordinator, Oswald Innocence Campaign
O.I.C Chief Delusional Fantasist



















(  from the "Lee Harvey Oswald is Innocent" Facebook page ) 

An Open Letter from Ralph Cinque to the Senior Members of the Oswald Innocence Campaign -
I have often said that as long as someone advocates for Oswald in the doorway, I don't care what else they believe about the JFK assassination. But, that is being pushed to the breaking point by Richard Hooke, and I consider it a crisis for the organization.
Richard is now maintaining that Oswald was up on the 6th floor at the window with his Carcano rifle, scheduled to shoot Kennedy. Also up there were Mac Wallace, Loy Factor, and Ruth Martinez. But close to the last minute, Oswald carefully arranged three empty shells to leave a clue for police, and then he rushed downstairs and placed himself at the top of the doorway. He knew very well that other assassins were going to kill Kennedy, but he did nothing to stop it .He could have run out into the street to stop the motorcade from entering the Kill Zone. He could have pointed to the tops of buildings and yelled, "Stop! Gunmen! Assassins!" but he didn't do it. Yet, for some reason, Richard still thinks he should get the medal of honor.
Could he have been shot himself? Maybe, but not by the assassins. If they shot him, it would only have proven that he was right- that there was a deadly ambush waiting. So, they would have been powerless. But, there is a chance that police, FBI, or SS would have shot him, and that's what would have made it a heroic act.
But, even if he didn't want to risk his life to save Kennedy, why would he have stopped at the back of that doorway, just outside the door? If he was thinking of himself, he would realize that he needed witnesses to see him, as many as possible. Remember what Richard Case Nagell did? So, why wouldn't Oswald have gone well out into Dealey Plaza, among the crowd, so that lots of people would be able to see that he was out with them and not up on the 6th floor? Standing way in the back of that doorway, Oswald had no way to know that his picture would be taken. He couldn't count on that. At that point, to save himself, he needed to get out into the light- into the open.
Then afterwards, according to Richard, Oswald continued to collaborate with the killers, getting into a car with Mac Wallace. Now, if Oswald had just sabotaged the plan and aborted his assigned role to kill Kennedy, wouldn't that have changed everything? But, according to Richard, Oswald sped off with the very same people, the killers, and they not only didn't mind, they actually turned the car over to him and let him drive around by himself and make his own way to the theater.
But, if Oswald had just aborted his role in the mission, why did he continue to do as the killers expected? Why did he go to the theater? Why instead didn't he drive himself to the PD and tell police what he knew? Why didn't he do that in Dealey Plaza? Even by 12:40, the place was swarming with police.
Why is Lee Harvey Oswald a hero if he didn't do everything he could to save JFK's life? How could he have been both the designated patsy and a designated shooter? Why would they have needed him for both? And why after he was arrested did he not finally tell police the truth? Why did he lie, lie, lie? Why did he make up a story about riding the bus and cab? According to Richard, Oswald not only failed to take action at the last minute to save Kennedy, which he could have easily done, although at some risk to himself, but even afterwards, he continued to collaborate with the killers, and over two days of questioning failed to give any of them up. He protected them; he shielded them; he said nothing but lies. And yet, Richard thinks he deserves the medal of honor for that.
I can no longer have any association with Richard Hooke. This is too much. It has gone too far. I feel he has lost his mind. It is simply impossible for me to go any further with him. He is not an advocate of Oswald innocence; he is an advocate of Oswald guilt.
Not shooting Kennedy in a situation where other shooters were certain to shoot and kill him is tantamount to killing him yourself. Even if Oswald didn't pull the trigger, if he knew what was about to happen, and he let it happen, then he is as guilty as those who fired. And the law backs that up. Not acting to prevent an imminent murder- especially of the President of the United States- would certainly be construed as complicity. Look at what just happened in the Boston Marathon case. Putting aside the whole issue of what REALLY happened there, some friend of the Tsarnaev brothers just got convicted of being complicit in the crime just for not coming forward to authorities with what he knew.
You think they wouldn't have thrown the book at Oswald for the same reason? Of course, they would have. There is no doubt that they would have. The medal of honor? Oswald would have been lucky if he didn't get the electric chair.
I will attach Richard Hooke's paper, if you want to read it. As I said, I am ready to take drastic action to dissociate from Richard Hooke.
Ralph Cinque

Also this, from the same Facebook page -

OIC members are having a brisk discussion about the latest blasphemy from Richard Hooke, which is that the Oswald we know was part of the hit team up on the 6th floor, that he was there in the Sniper's Nest until practically the last minute. But then, he left suddenly, leaving Mac Wallace, Ruth Martinez, and Loy Factor up there- according to Hooke. And they apparently didn't care, or at least they didn't stop him or do anything about it- according to Hooke..
And then after the assassination, according to Richard, Oswald rejoined the team. He got into the car with these killers and drove off with them. And then, despite what he had done, they turned the car over to him, and he made his way to the theater alone, as instructed.
And then after he was arrested, according to Richard Hooke, Oswald lied to police, telling them that he took the bus and cab in order to protect the killers. And he didn't say one word about all that he knew about them and what happened. He protected them. He shielded them. He guarded them- with his life. This is what Oswald did for the killers of JFK, according to Richard Hooke.
Well, one of our members, Pat Shannan, who works closely with John Armstrong, pointed out that all of what Richard said is true, but it applies to LEE, not HARVEY. There were TWO OSWALDS. LEE is the one who was up on the 6th floor. Harvey is the one who was in the doorway. LEE is the one who got in the Nash Rambler, which Roger Craig and others saw. HARVEY is the one who took the bus and cab. LEE is the one who shot and killed Tippit. And LEE, like Harvey, wound up at the Texas Theater. He was in the balcony while HARVEY was downstairs in the main room. And while HARVEY was let out the front after his arrest, LEE was led out the back where he was seen being led out by Bernard Haire of Bernie's Hobby Shop, as reported by Jim Douglass.
This was my response to Pat Shannan:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Pat Shannon, I agree with you, and also with Jim Douglas and John Armstrong, that it was the Oswald double, whom we call "Lee" in contrast to "Harvey" who was up on the 6th floor with the hit team. Douglass said it JFK and the Unspeakable, and John Armstrong said it in Harvey and Lee. And many others have said it.
But, there is no way Harvey was up there. He showed up for work that morning and early-on, he asked Junior Jarman why people were gathering on the sidewalk outside. Here's the testimony:
Mr. BALL - Did you talk to Oswald again that morning?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir. I talked to him again later on that morning.
Mr. BALL - About what time?
Mr. JARMAN - It was between 9:30 and 10 o'clock, I believe.
Mr. BALL - Where were you when you talked to him?
Mr. JARMAN - In between two rows of bins.
Mr. BALL - On what floor?
Mr. JARMAN - On the first floor.
Mr. BALL - And what was said by him and by you?
Mr. JARMAN - Well, he was standing up in the window and I went to the window also, and he asked me what were the people gathering around on the corner for, and I told him that the President was supposed to pass that morning, and he asked me did I know which way he was coming, and I told him, yes; he probably come down Main and turn on Houston and then back again on Elm. Then he said, "Oh, I see," and that was all.
So, Harvey did not know that the motorcade was going to pass the building that day. And if you think otherwise, you have to explain why Oswald pretended not to know to Junior Jarman. Why would he put on such an act? And if he did put on such an act, how can he possibly be considered innocent?
I'll tell you something, Pat. In a way, I'm glad it's come to this because now it puts the whole issue of Harvey and Lee right in the center of the cauldron. Richard Hooke is so determined to deny the reality of the Two Oswalds that he is willing to turn the one Oswald into a monster. Richard thinks that so long as Oswald didn't fire at Kennedy himself that it makes him a hero. But, with all the shooters they had perched, JFK was a dead man anyway- with or without Oswald shooting. In fact, Oswald refraining from shooting did NOTHING to help or save Kennedy; he was just as doomed. It's unlikely Oswald would have hit him anyway because he was not a good marksman, and he had NO experience at the kind of shooting that was involved. If Craig Roberts, a military sniper, didn't think he could do it, how could Oswald have done it? It was no good luck for JFK that Oswald didn't fire, but it may have been Godsend for Jackie.

So....Ralph is ready to boot Richard Hooke from the O.I.C, and he's attempting to rally the other "Senior Members" to his cause. But....there's a problem. Several problems, in fact.

It's not surprising that Ralph has chosen to place acceptance of John Armstrong's "Harvey and Lee" theory at the centre of his disagreement with Hooke because apart from the ludicrous Cinque "Doorman" scam, Armstrong's book is probably the most contentious and devisive issue faced by the JFK research community ( well, unless you count Judyth Vary Baker.....but that's an issue for another time ). And we have come to see very well over the past few years that the O.I.C is solely about division, misrepresentation and the trivialisation of serious JFK research.

But in taking this stand Ralph risks a much more serious division than his handbags at dawn spat with Hooke. 

O.I.C Chairman Jim Fetzer has dismissed "Harvey and Lee" as a "fantasy". It's one of the few things I agree with him about.
Judyth Baker, forced into the O.I.C against Ralph's wishes purely for the promotion of her ridiculous "pixel analysis" of the Altgens photograph ( about which I'll talk more at some point, but for now suffice to say that it's so bad even Ralph won't use it ) agrees with him.
Richard Charnin is in broad agreement with Hooke.

What of the rest of the O.I.C senior membership? It's difficult to know, since almost all of them never utter a word in support of either the organisation or it's founder. But one thing's for sure, senior members of the Oswald Innocence Campaign....it's crunch time.  It's time to speak up.

It's time to CHOOSE YOUR IDIOT.

I'm ordering a whole lot of popcorn.....

UPDATE

Well it just keeps getting better....

Richard Charnin rebels against O.I.C founder Ralph Cinque!

Sadly, Richard Hooke doesn't begin to approach the mental capacity of Joe Backes, a man who has forgotten more about the case than the combined knowledge of Cinque, Hooke and Charnin put together. Still, it's heartening to see that the O.I.C membership is slowly starting to realise the truth about their great leader. 

How many will Ralph ban? 

Is there an O.I.C splinter group on the horizon?

Pass me some more popcorn.....

Thursday, 7 August 2014

Ralph finally admits that Billy Lovelady is in the Martin Film!


When you're attempting to juggle as many lies as Ralph Cinque, sooner or later you're gonna drop one....

Ralph Cinque finally admits we're seeing Lovelady in the Martin film! 

Now while anybody capable of rational thought realises that in Ralph's collage we're looking at Lee Oswald on the left next to two photos of Billy Lovelady, the interesting thing about Ralph's little rant is this sentence -
"I say that the majority of impartial observers are going to pick Lovelady as the odd man out in this trio".
Since we know that Ralph believes the Altgens doorway figure in the centre of his collage to be Oswald, he must be referring to Lovelady as the figure on the right, a crop from the John Martin film.

And yet....

These are pictures of Billy Lovelady outside the TSBD after the assassination of JFK

According to all of Ralph's previous rants, his collage doesn't contain an image of Billy Lovelady.....





Monday, 28 July 2014

Ralph Cinque, busted yet again, attempts to hide the evidence.....


Well, it was a big news day over at the Clown Consortium...

Oh, wait...no it isn't...

Now it will come as no surprise to regular readers that Ralph's "Big Discovery" turned out to be the usual embarrassing mixture of ignorance and ineptitude we've come to expect from him. I won't cover all of the reasons why because Robin Unger has already made an excellent job of it here -
http://quaneeri2.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/hughes-doorway-perspective-101.html?zx=d82a7a689caa0e86
and Bpete, here -
http://bpete1969.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/ralph-cinqueuber-idiot.html,
so you should head over to their respective blogs to read up!

To summarise briefly, Ralph comically mis-identifies two traffic signs on a pole halfway down Houston Street as "extra pillars" which have been nefariously added into the film in order to cover up God - only - knows - what in the TSBD doorway. Leaving aside the fact that if true this would be possibly the worst bit of fakery known to man, since the "pillars" are not only completely the wrong colour but much higher than the rest of the doorway, Ralph seems completely at a loss to tell us exactly what "they" would have been trying to cover up, since according to his version of events Lee Harvey Oswald is still plainly visible on the other side of the doorway. When pressed on the subject of what "they" hoped to obscure Ralph will only reply, somewhat mysteriously, "people".

Oh, and he insists on referring to the imaginary extra pillars as "laser columns". Disappointingly, we never get to find out why...

Anyway...cutting a long story short, there's no way around the fact that we're looking at two traffic signs on a pole...

on a pole...

which, when viewed from Hughes' position appear to partially cover the doorway.

Ralph, furiously back - pedalling from the "laser columns" theory, now acknowledges that they are, indeed, traffic signs, but insists that for them to partially obscure the doorway area they must have been "moved". Now we have already discovered in this post -
that Ralph has absolutely no clue about issues of perspective in photography, but as usual that doesn't deter him....

Ralph Cinque continues to demonstrat his ineptitude

Bpete provides a nice graphic which immediately draws a line under Ralph's gushings of utter nonsense -

where theay actually are...
Credit - Bpete at Fetzering Against Rational Thought

I'm very happy about this since it appears at just the right time for me to pinch it and use it in all the Facebook groups that Ralph is continually spamming with this guff ( cheers B! ). Ralph's few feeble attempts to rebut it only demonstrate his ignorance of the subject - from Hugues position, the traffic signs partially obscure the doorway. Quite simple...

Hughes sightline through the traffic signs to the doorway
Hughes sightline though the traffic signs to the doorway

It all goes quiet for a while.....I can tell when he's up to something, I've developed a bit of a nose for it..

And...I'm not disappointed. Ralph returns for one last triumphant tour - de - force of ignorance with one of his legendary "gotcha" posts...

Ralph should learn to quit while he's behind...


I wait for a while till he's posted it everywhere, including on his blog where he does a nifty piece entitled "I got the Bastards",  then show him this....

Ralph is wrong again...there are two sets of traffic signs

Ralph has failed to spot that there ARE two sets of traffic signs on the left side of Houston Street. The one near the corner which is circled in the above image only appears for a split second in the Hughes film as the camera is panned to the left.

The "Gotcha" moment vanishes, and Ralph slinks away distraught. I'm not quite quick enough to screenshot his blog post before he deletes it, but on refreshing the page there's still some evidence that it was there -

Now you see it, now you don't!



I do manage to grab the same post from the "Lee Harvey Oswald is Innocent" Facebook page ( as it appears above ) before that too disappears a few minutes later.

Another day, another Cinque lie dispelled. Good job team......















Tuesday, 22 July 2014

Yep, that's definitely George Bush. I'm absolutely sure of it. Oh...er...hang on a minute.....

It's long been established in the wildly over - active imaginations of Ralph Cinque and Richard Hooke that George H.W. Bush was photographed in Dealy Plaza on the day of the assassination, even though he actually wasn't...

No matter how many times Ralph Cinque claims George Bush was in Dealy Plaza he's still wrong!


No he wasn't Ralph. But by all means, please continue...


Charlie Brown, eh? Fascinating stuff Ralph, tell us more...

No amount of bogus comparisons will confirm Ralph Cinque's claim that George Bush was present in Dealy Plaza!

So there you have it - according to super - sleuth Ralph C. Cinque, not only was George H.W.Bush present in Dealy Plaza on the day of the assassination, but also when "they" realised he had been captured on film, after careful consideration of all the options open to them ( like maybe removing him from the photo, or making the photo disappear altogether ), "they" decided that the best course of action was to.....STRETCH HIS HEAD! 

In reality of course "they" did no such thing."They" didn't have to do anything at all...because it's not Bush.


The image on the right is a crop of a photograph taken by William Allen, showing the disputed "Bush" figure turned more towards the camera. The full image can be seen here -
The credit for finding this match goes to a gentleman by the name of Paul S.Vines, a member of the Facebook group  "JFK : Uncensored". Good work Paul!

Ralph of course would rather you didn't look at the above comparison, because that way he can keep right on bullshitting you to his heart's content.

So in waving goodbye to yet another piece of Oswald Innocence Campaign disinformation, we can conclude by paraphrasing Ralph Cinque's own words -

Bottom line : when Ralph Cinque tells you something, question every aspect of it. Don't fall for the ruse. Don't react like Ralph Cinque expects you to.

The Oswald Innocence Campaign...lies heaped upon lies.

P.S. -  The always impressive Doug Campbell had some great observations about this issue in a recent Black Op Radio appearance, which can be found here -

"They've beat the hide off the horse & beat the bones into dust & now they're beating the dust. If your understanding of the evidence in this case is so limited that it has to be Oswald standing in that doorway for you to believe in his innocence, then you don't have much of an understanding of the evidence in this case."

Doug tells it like it is. Well worth a listen.....




Monday, 9 June 2014

Unsurprisingly, Ralph Cinque fails perspective 101 the same way as he fails everything else.....miserably UPDATED! and UPDATED AGAIN!


One thing you can say for Oswald Innocence Campaign founder Ralph Cinque is that he's not one to miss an opportunity to display his utter ignorance of the subjects he likes to bloviate on. 

For days now, Cinque has been arguing in a lengthy exchange with Joe Backes and Robin Unger over perspective issues between the Altgens photograph and the Tina Towner film of the motorcade as it made the turn onto Elm Street ( or Tina TURNER, as Ralphie hilariously described her! I'm not sure who's using the O.I.C brain cell this week but it sure as hell isn't Ralph...).

During the course of this exhange both Joe and Robin have repeatedly shown Ralph to be utterly clueless, but as we have seen many times before Ralph Cinque's massively inflated ego will never allow him to back down.

The perspectively - challenged Ralph insists that the guy indicated by the red arrow in this Altgens crop from Robin Unger -

A crop of the Altgens photograph indicating the figure in question

is not the same figure as this man in the Towner film -

Frame from the Towner film indicating the man in question

Check out Robin Unger's blog here -
and here -
to follow Robin's patient explanation, and Joe Backes here -
tearing Ralph a new one in his own inimitable style! ( about the last 35 of Joe's posts are relevant to this discussion, starting with the one entitled "Dr.No depth perception strikes out, again").

Despite the massive amount of evidence produced showing that he's a fucking moron, Cinque decides to re-enforce the point by popping over to Wikipedia to check out what "angle of view" is - and comically reproducing a whole page of formulae before realising that it's a bit more complicated than he thought and being forced to admit he has no clue what any of it means, and posting utter crap like this -

Ralph Cinque gets perspective in the Altgens photo utterly wrong...

Idiot....

Now pay attention Ralph. They are the same man, photographed from two different positions. Robin Unger has detailed Tina Towner's position here -
It's really not that hard, and I've prepared a little 3D animation to show what's going on. In the following gif, the figure in question is represented by the blue cone. Can the guy who appears to be aligned with the end of the white TSBD facade in Altgens be the same guy we see in Towner? 



Animation showing perspective differences between Altgens and Towner

He most certainly can. Two photographers shooting from different positions, same man. As always, Ralph Cinque has no understanding of ANYTHING he is attempting to assert.

Coming soon, we'll be looking at Cinque's recent attempts to insinuate that his detractors on Facebook are paedophiles and his slurs against a mother who proved another of his B.S arguments to be completely wrong - and discussing the implications for the other senior members of the Oswald Innocence Campaign.

Last word on this one goes to Joe Backes -

Joe Backes explains to the hapless Ralph Cinque



UPDATE!

The standard of Cinque's debate....

Ralph Cinque has the mind of a child, as he's always ready to demonstrate

Utterly pathetic, you sad old bastard. Still, when you've got nothing.......


UPDATE 2!

Sorry about this everybody, Ralph's just being.....well, Ralph....


I know you find it difficult to comprehend this stuff Ralph, but I referenced Robin's page. We're both placing him in the same spot....



I didn't single him out Ralph...you did. You have been shown how the "physics" works ( we're talking about perspective...). There are no tricks. This can be easily reproduced by anyone. Do you have anything which challenges that? Nah, didn't think so.


Ralph, if you think I'm going to sit down and reconstruct a 3D model of Dealy Plaza just to refute your utter nonsense, think again. Obviously the same effect applies, relatively, to those around him. Instead of attempting to move the goalposts every time you're refuted, why don't you for once do some actual work and try to tackle what I presented? And while you're at it, why are don't you go back and link to my blog in all those Facebook groups you're crowing in as though you've proved something? Oh wait, I know....


Yeah I did Ralph. I made the point that not only do you not have a point, when shown to be wrong you ALWAYS attempt to muddy the issue by introducing factors that weren't under discussion or in some way attempting to change the focus of the issue. It is self - evident that others in the photo are affected by the same perspective changes. Why don't you attempt to map the whole thing yourself Ralph? It's called research, and in the process you might actually educate yourself about something. Unlikely, but you never know....


Knock youself out Ralph, but let's remember that the only thing you ever achieved in Dealy Plaza up to now is a demonstration of just how wrong you can get things. Oh, and of how much you're prepared to lie and cheat in your efforts to make yourself look important...
What I have shown you will "pan out" just fine if you do an accurate test....but of course with you that's going to be the problem.


Well it's a tempting offer, but since we already know you're just going attempt to rig your test and then refuse to pay....fuck off.....
Oh, and pay MJ her money, cheapskate.....