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.....





Thursday, 5 June 2014

Robin Unger thinks that these are all the same person, Billy Lovelady... UPDATED!

...according to Ralph.

These four pictures of Billy Lovelady show how various photographic technicalities can affect the way we percieve an image

And of course Robin is correct. Which is why he's so much better at this stuff than Ralph Cinque.

However, Ralph is learning.....

For Ralph Cinque's own comparison of how technical considerations can cause two copies of the same image to appear vastly different, see my previous post, here -



UPDATE!

This brief piece attracted a meaningless response from Ralph which only demonstrates yet again his total inability to comprehend what he sees in a photograph and which I'm not going to bother responding to - apart from this -

I believe that JFK was killed as the result of a conspiracy!

If you look back to the very beginning of this blog you will see, as Ralph well knows, a very clear statement to the effect that I believe Lee Oswald was not guilty of shooting Kennedy as well as the reasons for my criticism of Ralph Cinque and the Oswald Innocence Campaign.

Now as it turns out I worried unduly about the impact the O.I.C. was likely to have on the JFK 50th anniversary events. Their conference in Santa Barbara was a non - event attended by a mere handful of people, they were almost totally ignored by the media and we were mercifully spared the nightmare scenario of Ralph Cinque appearing on network TV as a representative of the state of  JFK research. The O.I.C is now largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, yet the danger that they will mislead the gullible, the less well informed and those new to the study of the case still remains.

Ralph would have you believe that anyone who dares to point out the flaws in his childish and simplistic stupidity is at best a supporter of the official story and at worst a paid intelligence operative sent to discredit him. As always with Ralph Cinque the reality is somewhat different. The vast majority of the O.I.C's opposition has come from within the ranks of conspiracy believers and serious researchers into the case. Warren Commission apologists need do little more than give Cinque the occasional nudge while sitting back to laugh as he brings ridicule on the whole research community.

The notion that Ralph Cinque is in any way a threat to the official story is merely a product of his own ego and wildly overactive imagination. He remains, however, a very real threat to the credibility of JFK research and researchers.  

Wednesday, 4 June 2014

Zero, Zip, Zilch.....UPDATED! plus FURTHER UPDATE! and JUST ONE MORE!


Ralph's attempt to justify his stupid claim that "they" altered the hairline of "doorway man" ( in reality, Billy Lovelady ) merits a short response...

Ralph Cinque is a little miffed that I accused him of having "Zero, Zip, Zilch" evidence for his often repeated but totally unsubstantiated claim that the doorway man's hairline has been altered in the Altgens 6 photograph.


See? He's so miffed he even came up with a new name for me.

In a nutshell, Ralph's "supporting evidence" is this Mark Lane photograph of Billy Lovelady taken a year after the assassination. Ralph likes it so much he gives us two versions -

Mark Lane image of Billy Lovelady taken a year after the assassination

Mark Lane image of Billy Lovelady taken a year after the assassination

And in doing so comically shoots himself straight in the foot. Ralph Cinque truly is the gift that just keeps on giving....

Now, Ralph's contention is that these pictures of Lovelady show that his hairline had already receeded too much for it to match what we see in the Altgens photo, and that consequently "they" had to patch in a shot of his hairline from a much earlier photograph. Let's see...

Firstly, could these two versions of the same photo look any more different? In the upper image Lovelady appears to have a moustache, heavy beard growth and virtually no hair on the foremost part of his head, yet in the second image he's clean shaven with a much more visible "widow's peak" to his hairline. This is supposed to be Ralph's "evidence" - yet in any other scenario you can just imagine Ralph spluttering with indignation.

"These are supposed to be images of the same man at the same time, yet look at the difference between them! You've got Werewolf  Lovelady with his wild, shaggy beard and bald head - but look at Choirboy Lovelady, clean - shaven and with much more hair! How can they be the same man?! I'm telling you, it's FAKE, FAKE, FAKE!!!"

And on. And on....ad nauseum.

Ralph, welcome to photo 101, where, as has been explained to you over and over again, considerations such as image quality, lighting, contrast, exposure and a whole host of technical issues you claim to be irrelevant whenever it suits you have a dramatic effect on what we see in a photograph. And thanks for bringing such a nice example to class.

Unfortunately though you still don't pass, because your comparison of the top of Lovelady's head to the Altgens photo in which he was looking straight towards the camera is not valid. In fact, Lovelady's hairline in 1964 was a perfectly good match to Altgens -

Altgens photo compared to 1964 FBI image of Billy Lovelady

Because, as Ralph has so nicely demonstrated for us, lighting conditions and angle of view are two very important things to consider. Let's take a look at some images of six times World Snooker Champion Steve Davis, a guy who has definitely lost some hair over the years. But is he bald?

Photo of snooker player Steve Davis

Clearly not. He's well on the way, but he's not there yet. But you may be forgiven for thinking he was much closer to it than he actually is if you'd been given, say....this picture -

Image of snooker player Steve Davis

Both of these images are from 2012. Lighting and angle of view.....

So sadly Ralph, it's still Zero, Zip, Zilch, but because you made a fuss about it I have to add Nada and Diddly - Squat.

Oh and by the way, because you keep banging on about it I commissioned an independent study into haze and distortion in Altgens 6. They sent me this .....


Image of Oswald Innocence Campaign founder Ralph Cinque



UPDATE!

See, this is what Ralph always does. He posts a long blathering reply which not only says nothing but completely ignores every point you made. Not much of it is worth addressing so as usual I'll just point out a few falsehoods.

Comparison of the 1964 images of Billy Lovelady by Mark Lane and the FBI

Ralph Cinque tries to fudge the issue

Well you're right Ralph. Somebody is definitely fucking with us - but it's not Mark Lane or the FBI, it's you.
Now you'll notice here that Ralph, realising he made a massive mistake by showing us two wildly different versions of the Mark Lane photo ( which by the way he fails to mention at all in his reply ), has decided to go with the apparently unshaven "werewolf" Lovelady simply because that's the one who appears to have less hair. ( See Ralph, it's just as easy for me to come up with sinister sounding names for stuff with perfectly innocent explanations ). But as I pointed out, a shot of the top of Lovelady's head is not a valid comparison with Altgens.

I'm not suggesting that Mark Lane "submitted" a fraudulent image Ralph - I'm suggesting that you   have absolutely no idea how to interpret it and are prepared to tell the first lie that comes into your head in an attempt to cover your sorry ass. They can't both be right? Sure they can Ralph. I demonstrated exactly how they could both be right and gave you a nice example of what I was talking about. Predictably, you failed to mention any of that.


I'll use whatever I like. Asshole.....

Because when you try to slip this crap in after proving to us with YOUR OWN EVIDENCE just how different two versions of the same photograph can look, you just reveal what a desperate hypocrite you really are.

Two slightly different versions of the same photo of Billy Lovelady - nothing sinister to see!

There is, of course, no "soft" or "hard" Lovelady. It's just another Ralph Cinque lie - two versions of the same photograph taken from sources on the internet which have different levels of light and contrast EXACTLY as do the two versions of the Mark Lane picture which Ralph showed us above. Of course, Ralph makes no claims of "dark forces" producing the two apparently different versions of the Mark Lane image he accidentally showed. He just decides not to mention that he was busted.

He has absolutely no idea of the source of any of these photos. He has no clue of how many generations from the originals these images are or what steps they have been through to appear as they do on the internet. He is completely ignorant of anything related to imagery, photography or image analysis. He's a desperate, debunked, lying asshat.


FURTHER UPDATE!

Ralph still can't come up with anything that helps him, but it's amusing to notice that the quality of the images he uses deteriorates in a direct relationship with the amount of lies he's having to spout in his attempts to get out of trouble...

Poor quality copy of an FBI image of Billy Lovelady, as used by Ralph Cinque

Don't know what the hell that was supposed to be Ralph, but to save you some time I've prepared an even better one for you. Here ya go -

The standard of image Oswald Innocence Campaign founder Ralph Cinque likes to use!

No need to thank me...

And also that this -


is such a blatant lie that Ralph Cinque has to falsify the evidence in an attempt to make it believable. He fails miserably, of course. I've already busted him for it here -




AND JUST ONE MORE!


Well no actually Ralph, it's not me who's "shit out of luck". I've dealt with the hairline non - issue so your repeated showing of the same comparison only serves to show that yet again you have no answers. And in the process you've provided everybody with a really good example of two versions of the same image looking vastly different, thereby confirming your total lack of photographic understanding and blowing all your claims about fake Lovelady photos and films completely out of the water.

I'm having a pretty good day, thanks for asking......












Tuesday, 3 June 2014

The People continue to vote 2! UPDATED!


We have seen in these previous posts how people in the real world think that Ralph Cinque is full of crap -

http://oswaldinthedoorwaynotreally.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/meanwhile-back-in-real-world.html

http://oswaldinthedoorwaynotreally.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/the-people-continue-to-vote.html

Remember that we're looking at a re-post of Ralph Cinque's "Visible Proof" video, but unlike Ralph's blog or Facebook pages where dissenting voices are heavily censored, this time people are allowed to say what they really think.....

Ralph recently made a big deal over two of his Facebook followers agreeing with the particualr line of B.S he was pushing that day, and this reminded me that I hadn't checked Youtube for a while. After my last blog on the subject Ralph enlisted the help of Oswald Innocence Campaign senior member Staffan Westerberg and overlooked minion Jay Knowles, and together they hurried over to Youtube in an effort to redress the balance. Surely their comments must have helped to sway at least some opinions in Ralph's favour?

Nope....

Real people give their opinions on Ralph Cinque's theories

Real people give their opinions on Ralph Cinque's theories

Real people give their opinions on Ralph Cinque's theories

Real people give their opinions on Ralph Cinque's theories

Real people give their opinions on Ralph Cinque's theories

Real people give their opinions on Ralph Cinque's theories

I particularly liked this guys response to Ralph's now legendary challenge to bet his left nut on a comparison he thinks he can rig -

Real people give their opinions on Ralph Cinque's theories

We know of course from past experience that winning Ralph's bets is simple. Collecting your winnings is another matter entirely......


UPDATE!

Debate with such a well documented liar as Ralph Cinque is largely a pointless exercise, and actually is not the reason for this blog in any case. It's enough to keep pointing out the falsehoods....

Ralph Cinque contends that everyone who disagrees with him is a CIA operative!

Get real Ralph. Your own Facebook pages are a virtual wasteland, and on Richard Hooke's you are usually either mocked or ignored. You make the occasional post that gets a couple of likes? Well, whoopee shit. As I've observed before, even the Flat Earth Society still has members. And you've yet to successfully refute a single point - well, apart from the times you manage to accidently refute yourself. Just repeatedly saying "it 'ain't so" isn't the same thing as refuting an argument Ralph.....

Ralph Cinque resorts back to using poor images in an attempt to muddy the waters

Well if it doesn't it's pretty amazing that so many people see it so easily. Even when you revert back to using less clear copies of the Altgens photo as Ralph has started to do recently, the pattern is plainly visible. But of course Ralph always tries to make the above comparison without giving the context of the images - Lovelady in Altgens is seen from distance and the doorway images we use are greatly enlarged, while Lovelady in the Martin film is shot from much closer and the image is consequently much sharper and clearer. Ralph, as always, goes to great lengths to ensure that all of these highly relevant details are kept hidden from the uninformed observer. 
Oh, and Ralph...before you start blathering on about the HSCA version of Altgens being the best, it's not. I don't recall Robin Unger ever claiming that it was, actually - and if he did I disagree with him. As you have done yourself, when it suits you -

A prior claim by Ralph Cinque that the Groden doorway image is the best available. For once, I agree with him!

The only reason that Ralph has developed a sudden liking for the HSCA version of Altgens is that it's significantly less clear than the Robert Groden one. Not that it should matter to him unduly, because as he admitted here -
when the Oswald Innocence Campaign wants to muddy the waters they will just alter the image anyway - and carry on without mentioning it.

Ralph Cinque claims more Altgens alterations - with zero supporting evidence

Who the hell cares how long you've been saying it for? Show us your supporting evidence for this dumb claim. Oh wait....of course, you don't have any. Zero. Zip. Zilch. It's just another Ralph Cinque fantasy....

Ralph Cinque's screenshot of his own Facebook page shows he is virtually ignored even by his own followers

So a post which was shown to a hundred and sixteen people who actually follow you gets six likes? Gee Ralph, guess it really sucks to be you.....




Sunday, 1 June 2014

Oswald Innocence Campaign collage corrections ( number 2 in an occasional series )



Corrected Oswald Innocence Campaign collage


( click photo to enlarge )

Note to Richard Hooke and Dennis Cimino - in real research, any attempt to "enhance" the images you are working with should be properly documented so that other researchers may attempt to duplicate your methods and validate your conclusions. Otherwise, it's just fabrication....