Saturday, 19 September 2015


An indignant Ralph Cinque opines...

Well let's see Ralph...

Maybe it's because your ideas are so childish and easily refuted that you make JFK research and researchers look ridiculous..?

It's ok though Ralph, personally I don't buy it.

I think it's much more likely that you're mentally ill.

Although then again that could make you a perfect tool for someone who promotes a whole swathe of ludicrous disinformation....

Can we think of anybody who fits that description?


Thursday, 17 September 2015

Ralph Cinque, Bullshit Artist Extraordinaire...UPDATED!

Serial liar Ralph, until recently crowing about how the picture he would take in Dealey Plaza would vindicate his wild rambling about the Moorman photo (but then forgot to take it while he was there) is now reduced to micro - bitching about supposed tiny differences between the photo and the excellent and meticulously researched recreations which have already been carried out. And even then he can't get it right...

Oswald Innocence Campaign founder Ralph Cinque continues to tell lies about the Moorman photo

Well, we'll wait for the Buda village idiot to show us exactly how much of the "west face" he presumes to be visible. Should be entertaining...

Meanwhile, instead of comparing two badly scaled photos crudely placed side by side, let's zoom in for a closer look at the pedestal using the same Moorman / Mack overlay as previously -

As we can clearly see, the  Mack recreation and the Moorman photo are virtually identical. And the same is also true of the other recreation photos which have been taken.

The same can't be said about Ralph's photo, however.

We'll look more closely at that next time... 


Ralph invents an imaginary extra face to Zapruder's pedestal

You see Ralph, this sort of junk is why nobody takes you seriously. Every single claim out of your mouth is a godamned lie.

Those are NOT two faces of the pedestal you fool, and there is absolutely no reason to suggest they are.  It's ONE face which Mary Moorman was directly opposite. EXACTLY as we see when the photos are overlaid. 

Only one choice at this point're either the world's stupidest man or it's worst liar. Well two choices could very well be both.

I'm not trying to claim it Ralph, I'm stating categorically that it is absolutely and without question all one face. And furthermore, that you'd be a complete moron to suggest anything else.

Are we clear?

Perhaps the finest demonstration yet of Ralph's stupidity..

Ralph, this is probably the finest demonstration to date of your total ineptitude. Dog and pony show? I guess you imagine it's more scientific to take two incorrectly scaled pictures, paste them next to each other and spout garbage...guess again, idiot.
I have demonstrated very clearly that the recreation is virtually identical to the original. You have only demonstrated once again just how spectacularly bad you are at this...
You produce work day after day which could be bettered by small children Ralph,,,,,

And by the way the total silence from ANYBODY in the OIC on this is very telling...

Wednesday, 16 September 2015

So....Where are the photos Ralph...?

Despite the fact Ralph Cinque's claim that the Moorman photo was taken by the Babushka Lady has been proven impossible, Ralph, being Ralph, is still determined to persist with the lie. Obviously this is surprising nobody, so in this piece we'll expose a few more of his false statements about the Moorman photo and in the process attempt something which I fully expect to prove impossible - getting Ralph to give a straight answer to a simple question.

Before his recent visit to Dealy Plaza Ralph had this to say on Facebook -

Ralph Cinque makes a series of inaccurate claims about the Moorman photo in a Facebook group

Ralph Cinque attempts to tell some more lies about the Moorman photo

Well...where to start? The only sentence in Ralph's ramblings that contains a grain of truth is the first one, and even that isn't entirely accurate. The bottom photo in his entirely meaningless comparison was indeed produced by Jack White and Gary Mack but wasn't intended as a perfect recreation ( even though it's actually very close ). Ralph has been careful to omit the explanatory text which accompanies the picture, as we see here - 

You'll notice the reason for this omission of course in the words "her estimated approximate position" and explanation of why the picture was taken. It just wasn't intended to be a meticulously accurate reconstruction, but Ralph would prefer you didn't know that. And we needn't dwell too long on the obvious fact that the pictures as presented by Ralph are obviously of different sizes and useless for a meaningful comparison. Robin Unger has addressed this issue here -
and we can see in his piece that when the images are resized they actually match very well.

But we can go further than that.

I have previously discussed here -
the studies already conducted into the Moorman photo and provided links to detailed information about them. Ralph is desperate to have you believe that it's impossible to recreate the photo from Moorman's position, but the reality of course is that it's been done very well on more than one occasion. In fact both Jack White and Gary Mack produced reproductions of their own.

Lets look at Mack's recreation -

The late Gary Mack's recreation of the Moorman photo

Now we'll overlay it to the Moorman photo. Notice that the horizontal red line at the bottom of the photo demonstrates how far the photo has to be tilted in order to make the vertical lines of the pergola match the Mack recreation - this is because Mary didn't have the camera perfectly level when taking the picture.

Now we can see that the Mack recreation is to all intents a near perfect reproduction of the Moorman much for Cinque's stupid claim that it wasn't possible from Mary's position. The truth is the exact opposite of course - Mary's position is the ONLY possible position the photo could have been taken from. When Ralph started to make these ridiculous claims he was of course blissfully unaware that Mary Moorman's exact position has already been the subject of close examination. 

And, what of Ralph's last paragraph, where he claims he will take a photo from the Babushka position which will perfectly match the Moorman photo? Well, he now says he didn't take it.

In other words, he wants you to believe that he travelled to Dealey Plaza with a camera after spouting endless piles of garbage on this subject for weeks, took a picture from close to Moorman's location and didn't think to move a few feet to his right to take the photo from where he claims it was taken. 

Does this sound even remotely plausible?

Obviously the answer is no, so the question is....where are the photos Ralph?

Of course, you can be absolutely certain that Ralph attempted to take the picture from the Babushka position. You can be equally certain that the results proved all of his claims about the Moorman photo to be false. 

Ralph, being Ralph, will continue to lie abut this, but lies are all he has left.

Fortunately at some point in the not-too-distant future some REAL researchers are going to take that photo for us, so we're going to get to see exactly why Ralph didn't want to publish his attempt...

Monday, 7 September 2015

Ralph Cinque fails in Dealey Plaza UPDATED!

Ralph Cinque has once again ventured to Dallas in another half - assed attempt to validate his debunked ramblings about the Moorman photo. Predictably, the results reveal he has no idea what he's talking about.

You'll recall that we saw here -

how the Moorman photo contains an easily identifiable reference alignment which any recreation MUST contain to have been taken from the correct position. The point sailed over Ralph's head of course, but that was to be expected.

Zoomed in portion of the famous Moorman photo showing the "cross" alignment

Let's see how close Ralph got...

Oswald Innocence Campaign founder Ralph Cinque fails in his attempt to recreate the Moorman photo
Image credit - Ralph Cinque

The answer...not very close, although in all honesty a little closer than I expected. The "cross" alignment that we see in Moorman is a long way off because he's too far to the right of Moorman's true position, in keeping with his incorrect assertion that the photo was taken by the Babushka Lady, who was situated over 15 feet to the right of mary Moorman. Interestingly though, he's also a long way short of taking the photo from the correct position of the Babushka Lady.

Why? Well I'm betting that he tried. I'm also betting that we'll never see the results of those attempts.

Still Ralph, thanks for your work in proving your claims about the Moorman photo to be untrue. I knew you weren't going to let me down...


This just in from the brain of Buda....

Well in simple terms Ralph, it proves you were standing in the wrong place. It demonstrates that you were too far to the right of Moorman's position.

And in doing so it proves very nicely that the Moorman photo could only have been taken by Mary Moorman. The further from the correct position that you go, the more the alignment of the cross is disrupted. Easy really.

What you HAVE succeeded in doing is to provide a very nice demonstration of why your "Babushka Lady took it" idea is utter nonsense.

Exactly as I knew you would......

Friday, 7 August 2015

Ralph Cinque - crucified on the Moorman "Cross"..UPDATED! Plus FURTHER UPDATE!

These days I can rarely be bothered to spend too much time following the comical antics of Ralph Cinque and the Oswald Innocence Campaign. To all intents and purposes the word is out and they are recognised in JFK circles as clowns and disinfo junkies. Since the resignation of former chairman Professor James Norwood, we now know that only a very small group of the "senior" members listed on the OIC's website play any active part - and that founder Ralph Cinque doesn't even have contact details for around a third of the senior members listed. To put it bluntly the Oswald Innocence Campaign is considered irrelevant by the vast majority of researchers - and, well...there are much more interesting things to do.

The ramblings of Ralph Cinque of course continue unabated. The normal pattern of things is that Ralph will cycle through every one of his long debunked fantasies as if they are in some way new or important, forcing people to debunk them all over again. This has been going on for years now - same tired old nonsense, wash, rinse, repeat. I refer to it as the circle of bullshit.

Just occasionally though, Ralph will come up with a new way to demonstrate his ignorance of the photographic record in the JFK assassination. Case in point, the Moorman photo...

Mary Moorman was a witness to the assassination who is best known for the famous polaroid photograph that she took very close to the moment of the fatal head shot.

Mary's photo was damaged by the FBI during the course of the investigation and as a consequence many of the versions we see now are partly obscured by an ugly thumbprint.

Mary Moorman's famous polaroid
LARGE Moorman Drumscan ( Credit: Josiah Thompson ) Craig Lamson Version
(Image from

Information on the various versions of the Moorman photo that we see today can be found here -

Now, enter the idiot...

Ralph Cinque, in his latest attempt to appear important, has taken to claiming that Moorman's photo was not in fact taken by her but by the "Babushka Lady" ( ), who at the time the photo was taken was situated further up Elm Street somewhere between 15-20 feet to Moorman's right and a little further away from the curb. To support his claim he produced a photo of some impressive looking equations scribbled on a piece of paper by a physics professor, no less, who was apparently staying at Ralph's starvation camp for a while. 

I'm not saying I bothered to look though them because the thing is, they're wrong. And there's zero possibility that they are even worth consideration. Why? Well, let's see.

It's never been seriously suggested before that the Moorman photo was taken by anybody but Mary Moorman - and as it turns out there's a very good reason for this. By chance, the photo contains a reference point that makes it possible to determine with certainty where it was taken from. It's a feature which the late Jack White referred to as "the cross". And it's formed by the apparent intersection of two angles - the corner of the pedestal on which Abraham Zapruder stood to take his famous film and the corner of a window in the pergola behind him. I've marked them on a crop of the photo in red and blue respectively -

Zoomed in portion of the famous Moorman photo showing the "cross" alignment

Two things here - firstly, it's been argued that the alignment doesn't form a true "cross" as defined by White. The exact alignment has been the subject of intense study mainly due to a proposition put forward by White and Jim Fetzer that Mary Moorman stepped into the street to take her photo. Because of this it has been tested - on more than one occasion. Links to information on the various studies are here -

A very detailed paper from Ralph's former mentor Jim Fetzer concerning the argument about the alignment and the so-called "gap" between the cross points can be found here -

It's well worth taking the time to read all the information in these links, but in the final analysis the argument over the "gap" comes down to this -

Image -

For the scope of this piece it really doesn't matter if Fetzer and White were correct in their proposal. What IS important to notice is that the adjustments required to reconcile the difference between the White "cross" and the "gap" alignment  are measured in inches. That is the full extent of any argument there has been over Moorman's position. Ralph's suggestion of the Babushka Lady position requires a lateral shift of approximately 17ft, which would utterly destroy the perceived alignment of the features in the photo and consequently rules out any chance that he's correct, as we'll see in a while.

When the percentage proportion taken up by two horizontal distances in the various photographs is compared, ALL of the results, including White's, fall within a percentage spread of 1%. In other words, there's very little room for error - and every study done on the subject has used this reference point within the photo. ( Refer to this link to see the table of results and an explanation of what was measured in the various photos - ). One example here showing the measurements taken in all the tests -

Image -

Notice how the "cross" alignment puts you in a position directly across the street from the Zapruder pedestal. It HAS to - it can't put you anywhere else. If you have visited the link above you'll have seen how this is true for all of the different tests conducted. On November 22nd 1963 that was Mary Moorman's position.

So,what we can say with absolute certainty is that any attempt to recreate the Moorman photo MUST show the "cross" alignment - or something VERY close to it. From the Babushka position this is impossible, as we'll see.

Secondly, it's important to realise that the "cross" is not an actual thing but an illusion created by the alignment of  objects in three dimensional space. That's the cool thing though - because if you're not in the correct position the "cross" doesn't exist. Therefore if you attempt to recreate the Moorman photo and you can't produce that alignment, you're in the wrong place. It can only be seen from one spot. Here's a little 3d video which demonstrates the concept ( not to scale ). As you watch it, remember that the objects themselves are not moving and that the spatial relationship between them does not change. All that changes is the point from which they are viewed -

It makes no difference if you go left or right, up or down - there's only one possible viewpoint from which the "cross" is visible.

And when you start looking, these types of alignment between objects can be found everywhere. I stepped outside when typing this piece and found a perfect one immediately -

demonstration of the "cross" alignment concept seen in the Moorman photo

You'll notice if you look for a few examples yourself how much the alignment of the objects is altered with very small changes in the viewing angle. In the next photo a substantial move to the   right of approximately 6ft completely destroyed the perceived arrangement -

So, to summarise ( and sorry to labour the point, but it's important ), the Moorman photo contains a built  - in alignment which allows us to show with certainty where it was taken from. EVERYBODY who has looked at the Moorman line of sight issue is in agreement on this. The only serious argument has been whether or not she stood in the street to take it.

Now, let's look at this on a map of Dealey Plaza. I've used the Don Roberdeau map and removed annotations which aren't relevant to the discussion - so the positions of the people we're talking about are exactly as shown on that map.

Graphic demonstrating that only Moorman's position gives the necessary line to produce the "cross" alignment seen in the Moorman photo

We can see that the blue line drawn from Moorman's position does exactly what we know is required to produce the "cross" seen in the photo - it hits the corner of the Zapruder pedestal and passes through the front and side entrances of the cupola shelter to intersect with the window beyond.

The red line drawn from the Babushka position however, just doesn't work. It hits the corner of the pedestal ok but finishes in the corner of the shelter and therefore cannot possibly produce the necessary alignment with the window.

It's case closed at this point - but there's more. When we add in the field of view from Mary's camera as seen in the photo, we can see that everything is exactly where it appears in the image. JFK is to the left of the frame, as required. Motorcycle officers Chaney and Hargis are in their correct positions. Officer Martin is mostly just outside of the frame, but this allows for his right arm to appear in the bottom of the photo exactly as we see. Zapruder and Sitzman are correctly placed on the pedestal. The people on the steps are visible in the location we see in the photo. In short - everything is correct.

graphic showing the Field of View in the Moorman photo

Since 1970 Beverly Oliver has claimed to be the Babushka Lady. Her claim is disputed, and that's not an argument I want to address here, but Beverley claims that she was filming with an 8mm movie camera. Of course this presents an obvious problem - we know that the Moorman photo is a polaroid image and Mary Moorman was one of only two people in Dealey Plaza with a polaroid camera that day ( the other was Jack Weaver ).

But, whoever she was and whatever camera she used, we have never seen any images captured by the Babushka Lady. If however we assume that she was attempting to centre the limo in the frame using a camera with a comparable field of view to Moorman's....the pergola and Zapruder's pedestal would not even have appeared in the shot.

Moreover, her picture would have contained Charles Brehm, Jean Hill, Officer Martin...and maybe a glimpse of Mary Moorman.

I can feel a small tinge of sympathy here for Ralph's physics professor, who wasn't given anywhere near the amount of information required to make a meaningful judgement on the issue. As it's obvious that Cinque was blissfully unaware of any of the prior work done on this subject I suppose that's hardly surprising. When I tried to press him on the issue in a recent Facebook exchange I got this response -

Ralph demonstrates that his knowledge of the case is zero...

This is a stunning display of stupidity even by Ralph's standards. A photo of a man pointing a camera into the distance doesn't of course establish a thing about the line of sight in the Moorman photograph, but it does confirm what many people have been saying for years - Ralph Cinque doesn't know a goddamned thing about the JFK case.

The Moorman photo - taken by Mary Moorman.

Ralph Cinque - still eternally clueless.

All is well...


Ralph has responded in a rambling and incoherent piece which shows that he either hasn't properly read my post or fails to understand the issues involved. Only a few points are worth addressing.

Proving he has no idea about the concepts under discussion, he rambles for a while about Mary Moorman not trying to capture Zapruder. Duh..really Ralph? Nobody suggested that she was and Zapruder himself isn't relevant to the argument. It's about the pedestal he stood on. You have a reading comprehension issue.

Further proof is provided by Ralph's feeble reference to the fact the the exact alignment of the cross has been disputed, as if it in some way helps him. You need to read what I wrote again Ralph, because I covered the dispute to make the point that in dismissing YOU it's irrelevant. 


Did I not spend a LONG time making the point that the arguments were about very small differences?

Ralph, as usual hoping that nobody bothers to check up on the links I provided and verify the information for themselves decides that his best course of action is to 
a) lie about the previous studies of the photo, and
b) put his head in the sand and refuse to confront the facts proving him wrong -

Once again, EVERY study recognises that this alignment is a crucial part of the Moorman photo. It doesn't complicate anything, IT IS CRUCIAL TO PINPOINTING MOORMAN'S POSITION. There is absolutely NO controversy about that. Read the links and try for once to understand the concepts involved Ralph. Or go ask Jim Fetzer to explain it to you...

I swear to God you couldn't make this stuff up.

Finally, this -

There is no battle Ralph. You just lost, but you're too stupid to understand why. If at any point you want to confront the irrefutable evidence proving you wrong, maybe we'll talk...

The "cross" alignment or something that is very close to it is an undeniable feature of the Moorman photo and crucial to pinpointing Moorman's position because it's an easily identifiable visual reference.  It cannot possibly exist in a photo taken from Babushka Lady's position.


Ralph admits he has no rebuttal

It's neither new or my thesis Ralph. But thanks for your admission that you are incapable of either understanding or arguing the point.

Game over - Thanks for Playing...

Saturday, 13 June 2015

Breaking News....

Attention whores never quit...

Following today's shocking developments in Buda, Texas, we are able to confirm that OIC founder Ralph Cinque's tomato has been added to Richard Charnin's list of suspicious JFK related deaths.

More updates as they come in....

Friday, 12 June 2015

A Statement from Jim Fetzer...

Nonsense - laden diatribe From Jim Fetzer

A Statement from Jim Fetzer - what he actually meant

While it's true that a while back I outed Ralph Cinque for the lying sack of shit that he is I have far too much invested in the Doorway Man scam to let James Norwood blow the lid on it.

Since it has long been my habit to lend my name and support to any old crap without bothering to think it through I am aghast to realise that James Norwood hoped to take a more "hands - on" approach to his chairmanship of the OIC than I. Frankly a man capable of independent thought is not the sort of senior member that either Ralph or myself ever envisaged for the OIC, preferring as we did a collection of photos of people who would never contact us again and a few pliable yes men whose function would be to nod occasionally but basically say nothing. Ever.

Further, in my declining years I'm anxious not to be remembered solely as the only guy who got duped by that two-bit hormone - huffing quack from Texas. I'm sure I was once recognised for much better work...I just wish I could remember what it was.

Anyway, even though I have nothing whatsoever to do with the OIC and have placed on record my utter contempt for its founder Ralph Cinque, he has still come to me crying for help like a baby. It therefore falls upon me to try to salvage what remains of the Oswald Innocence Campaign and my reputation by making up some shit about James Norwood, even though I have previously described him as an "elite" JFK researcher in his many appearances on my show.

Integrity? Over-rated, in my opinion.

James Henry Fetzer.

Tuesday, 9 June 2015

James Norwood - at long last a man of integrity emerges from the wreckage of the Oswald Innocence Campaign UPDATED!

Not having paid much attention to the antics of Ralph Cinque recently I missed the removal of Prof. James Norwood, the recently appointed "chairman" of the Oswald Innocence Campaign from the list of "senior members" on the OIC home page. And as Ralphie himself has been completely silent on the subject of Norwood's departure thanks are due to Joe Backes for bringing the matter to our attention.
James Norwood has now published the reasons for his departure from the OIC, and his letter is a devastating blow to Cinque. Joe Backes has published it here -,
but it's an important piece of writing and I'm going to reproduce it here. Thanks again to Joe for doing the legwork on this....

So there you have it, from the inside.

The OIC as an organisation is "functionally non-existent". A third of the so-called "senior members" are not only inactive, they can't even be contacted. And of the remainder only three or four participate.

The theory of Altgens 6 alteration is "not persuasive" and has never been taken seriously by even a fraction of the research community.

Ralph Cinque's incessant garbage postings are not representative of the view of the OIC members as a whole.

The recently departed chairman of the OIC is "unable to recommend the Oswald Innocence Campaign to any serious researcher of the JFK assassination".

In short, the Oswald Innocence Campaign is, as many of us have long maintained, a vehicle for the vanity of one man - narcissist and serial liar Ralph Cinque. 

It's long past time for a few other prominent names on the OIC webpage to disassociate themselves from this mess. Do any of them have the integrity of James Norwood? 

Let's see...


Prof. Norwood added this note to a Facebook post by Joe Backes -

Unsurprisingly, Ralphie has declined to publish James' letter of resignation and has made no mention of it - anywhere.

But....going back to the integrity thing...notice the comment from Jim Fetzer? Yep, THAT Jim Fetzer, who at the time of his own resignation from the chairmanship of the OIC had this to say about Ralphie "Raff" Cinque -

"He has done the OIC immeasurable harm by his abrasive replies to critics and other forms of abuse"

"I have become convinced that he is not an honest broker and that having him front and centre of the OIC is a mistake of enormous proportions".

Jim Fetzer, a man swimming in so much bullshit that he has no idea what he was saying five minutes ago...

Thursday, 2 April 2015

With his You Tube statistics safely disabled, Ralph Cinque reaches for his credit card! UPDATED!

You have to laugh really. You'll recall that we saw here -

how Ralph's "3 minutes" video was so poorly received on You Tube that he turned off the statistics display in an attempt to disguise just how unpopular it was. The video struggled to around 400 views in four or five days before Ralph ran for cover.

How plausible is it then that in the following week 16,000 people have watched it?

Oswald Innocence Campaign founder Ralph Cinque manipulates his You Tube views while hoping nobody will notice

Actually, not at all plausible - but Ralph has realised that with no viewable statistics ( which would reveal the sudden and highly unusual traffic spike ) he's free to buy his way to apparent popularity.

And he's doing exactly the same thing with his follow up film -

As we know, you're not allowed to leave a negative comment or a dislike, since this would reveal the utter derision with which Cinque is regarded by the overwhelming majority of the research community. 

So just how much will Ralph spend in his efforts to appear respected? Well in fact it's probably not as much as you might think...

Advertisment for 15,000 You Tube views - $10

Advertisment for 15,000 You Tube views - $13

But that's not really surprising. Ralph Cinque is cheap in so many ways...


Ralph is still crowing about his fake, paid - for You Tube views...

More lies from Ralph Cinque

Of course it isn't exceeding any expectations because he knows how many views he paid for.

To reiterate - the explosion of views did not occur until AFTER public statistics for the video were turned off. In it's first week the video struggled to reach 400 views.

 Despite apparently being viewed by what he is now claiming to be over twenty thousand people, the number of new comments is almost ZERO.

Ralph Cinque's You Tube channel has 102 subscribers. His Facebook page has around 500 followers. The total number of members in the Facebook groups he has posted links in is a small fraction of the overall view count and this number is reduced still further by the fact that many people are members of multiple JFK Facebook groups. And reduced again by the fact that many of those group members are well aware that Ralph is an idiot and are unlikely to follow his links or even read his posts. ( Even the Oswald Innocence Campaign Facebook page is a virtual wasteland ). In short, Ralph's links to the video haven't even been seen by 20,000 people.

In fact, Ralph's video view count ticks every box in this article on how to spot the fakes...

Please read it, it's very informative. 

There is nothing that Ralph Cinque will not lie about. In the words of former OIC Chairman Jim Fetzer, he is "not an honest broker".  And as understatements go, that has to be right up there with the best.

Tuesday, 24 March 2015

Breaking News - Paranoia Escalation Alert issued for Buda, Texas

Ralph Cinque, in full panic mode because his latest comedy creation is in the running for You Tube's least popular video of the week, is hilariously blaming unknown dark forces for the avalanche of dislikes attracted by his video in the first view days of it going public. This face saving attempt of course completely overlooks the most plausible reason for the unpopularity of the video - it's crap.

In a desperate attempt to counter the highly visible evidence that nobody buys Ralph's three minutes of nonsense, he's had to resort to turning off the video stats. Can't say I blame him really, because they weren't pretty...

Oswald Innocence Campaign founder Ralph Cinque's latest video is not well recieved

Of course even before this drastic measure Ralph was already deleting any comments pointing out the multitude of errors in his presentation, as is his usual practice. You'll remember that we've already examined what happens when the public are allowed to comment on Ralph's videos without being censored, and the results were no more encouraging for him then either . You can relive the often hilarious comments here -

Meanwhile, back in the real world...

The People continue to Vote!

The People continue to Vote 2!

So, we can safely discount the fanciful notion that Ralph's efforts are being undermined by shady government agents. In fact, it's business as usual for the Cinque line of crapola...folks just ain't buying it.

Amusingly Ralph tries to give his bullshit explanation for the spectacular failure of the video some credibility by making up a quote, typing it out in a larger font size and adding the words "tech expert" to it -

Ralph makes up an explanation for the failure of his latest video

I consulted my own tech guy about this. Here's what he said...

"The ratio of views to dislikes is not uncommon, particularly when you factor in the undeniable truth that the video stinks. I'd have disliked it myself but some asshole has disabled the statistics".
- tech expert

Friday, 20 March 2015

The Oswald Innocence Campaign continues to crumble...

Well recent developments over in cuckoo land have seen the departure of not one, but two more senior members - including the biggest of them all, Oswald Innocence Campaign chairman Jim Fetzer.

Predictably, Ralph attempted to to bullshit his way out of the embarrassment caused by Fetzer's resignation...

Ralph Cinque attempts to bluff off the embarrassing resignation of chairman Jim Fetzer

This didn't go down too well with Jim, who managed to get this comment up on Ralph's blog for a good while before it was spotted and deleted -

Jim Fetzer corrects Ralph Cinque's lies about his resignation as OIC chairman

As satisfying as it is to see Cinque dismembered by Uncle Jim, we shouldn't loose sight of the fact that for the past few years Fetzer has been the enabler and facilitator of every lie and fabrication Ralph Cinque has uttered. Not an honest broker? Well, no shit Jim. Your promotion of Cinque was indeed a mistake of enormous proportions - and one which has cost you the last remnants of any credibility you may once have enjoyed.

The second departure is that of Richard Hooke, formerly the OIC's chief graphics expert  cartoonist. 
While this is no great surprise since Ralph and Richard haven't been on speaking terms for some time now ( see here and here ), Hooke's expulsion is still a measure of the degree to which Cinque has managed to alienate not only the vast majority of the research community but also those once closest to him. 

There's a certain delicious irony in the fact that the O.I.C freefall has been largely precipitated by Judyth Baker, since Ralph's realisation that her story is utter nonsense is about the only thing in JFK research he's ever gotten correct. Ardent Judyth supporter Richard Charnin would seem to be the next logical bet to jump from the sinking ship, but as yet he's not found the integrity to muster up a resignation despite his constant criticism of Cinque. Time will tell...

And the new O.I.C chairman? Could anybody else possibly be persuaded to accept this poisoned chalice? Surely not...

But...actually, yes. Step forward Professor James Norwood, the latest in line to have his reputation irreparably damaged by a close association with serial liar Ralph Cinque.

New O.I.C chairman James Norwood, being carried by some guy

Good Luck James. You're gonna need it.....

Sunday, 22 February 2015

The Return of the Giant Douche

He's back.

Oswald Innocence Campaign founder Ralph Cinque is back, and this time he's taking stupid to a whole new level...

Ralph Cinque - massive douche...

Well, to be accurate he's been back for a while. Ralphie's dramatic new year statement of his intent to withdraw from writing about JFK related matters remained in effect for precisely four days, so I apologise for not mentioning it sooner. It's just that Ralph has become so utterly irrelevant in the great scheme of things that it's hard to muster any enthusiasm for making the effort to write about him.

And in my defence Ralph hasn't written about anything that merits a response in any case, just the usual re-heated mixture of utter nonsense and long debunked lies that he's always spewing. So, dear reader, you haven't missed anything. Well until the last couple of days anyhow....

Ralphie, smarting from the lack of attention he gets these days, has decided to pick on this picture for another one of his legendary "everything is altered" rants -

This H Warner King shot shows JFK and Jackie in the limo

This H. Warner King slide was part of a set which was not discovered until after King's death in 2005 and published by TIME magazine in 2013. King was a keen photographer using a good camera and these clear and vibrant images are among the very best we have of that day. They don't cover any part of the actual assassination itself but are nonetheless a fascinating addition to the record. There is absolutely no logical reason to suggest that they have been tampered with in any way. In fact you'd have to be an complete idiot to seriously entertain the idea.

This is of course where Ralph comes in.

This time he's managed to convince himself that "they" are still feverishly altering photos right up to the present day, often for no readily apparent reason. This photo is, according to Cinque, "obviously heavily photoshopped". The first thing you should understand here is that "photoshopped" is just a buzzword to Ralph. He freely admits that doesn't own a copy of the program and it's painfully obvious that he would be utterly clueless as to how to use it even if he did. Still, in Ralph's mind if he tosses the term around a few times people will think he's a photoshop expert, in much the same way as he believed that having his picture taken whilst wearing a stethoscope would convince folk that he was a doctor. Unfortunately for Ralph, he's never been able to master the part which he needs to complete the illusion - being able to convey the impression that he has the slightest fucking idea what he's talking about.

Ralph's insane rambling centres around his contention that Jackie's raised arm has been added to the picture although there's absolutely no rational reason why this would have ever been done. I'm not going to cover all the reasons why he's wrong about this here ( and there are plenty of them, not least the fact that we can see both of her arms in the picture and it's very clearly her left arm which is raised, not her right as Dr Dipshit is attempting to claim ). All of this has already been done by Robin Unger ( JFK Assassination Images Blog ), Joe Backes ( The Oswald Innocence Campaign is a Fraud ) and Bpete at Fetzering Against Rational Thought. Between them they demolish every part of this latest Cinque stupidity, so you should visit their respective blogs to see the evidence. As is usual with every Ralph Cinque "find" we're provided with some moments of genuine comedy gold, and Ralph's stunning ignorance of a wide range of subjects is once again on full display.The links are on the right.

Of course, we've been down this road before. Ralph thinks he spots something in a photo and rushes into print....he's immediately shown to be wrong but instead of admitting it and moving on his massively inflated ego leads him to make ever more convoluted and ridiculous assertions in attempting to defend the original crackpot idea. Some things just never change.

I've always found it slightly odd that Ralphie has never paused to consider why "they", with unlimited funding and access to the finest minds and most highly skilled operators with which to accomplish their nefarious aims would continue to get all their photo alteration jobs done by guys who are so bad at it that their seemingly vast catalogue of errors are so easily spotted by some bozo in Texas, endlessly squinting at a computer monitor in his bedroom...